PDA

View Full Version : How does the Tory government help the man in the street?



Platypus
12th December 2016, 21:00
Serious question, asking coz there are some smart people on here as well as the usual bevvy of dunces, and I'm interested in your thoughts on this.

How would you answer the question (à la Life of Brian) "what has the Tory government ever done for us?"

Labourites, feel free to chip in with what Labour has achieved, or how/why the Tories haven't helped.

P.S. My homework has to be handed in on Friday, so quickity quick now! But I'd appreciate some serious answers before the thread degenerates as per normal.

shaunbhoy
12th December 2016, 21:08
The "man in the street" is rather a broad brush grouping. Truth be told, I am not sure that they do help them very much.
I think that they pin their hopes on the fact that if they help big businesses be profitable then the knock-on effects will trickle down, and ultimately provide jobs and security for those further down the food chain.
That might well have been true a few decades ago, but nowadays I reckon too much of the company profit ends up in the pockets of the shareholders and the CEOs, and too little of it cascades down.
For those at the bottom, their likelihood of reward is further hindered by the fact that there seems to be an inexhaustible supply of cheap labour available to unscrupulous employers, due in no small part to our membership of the EU.
Latterly though, many have seen through this and hence we are on the cusp of a Brexit.
The best that can be said about the Tories is that they are probably the least bad of an appalling collection of options.

sasguru
12th December 2016, 21:12
Interesting question. I've voted Tory all my life but then they're the party of my class (well educated very high rate tax payers). I'm not sure what they've given the working class. Thatcher ruined manufacturing, the Tories have always been ok with national assets being sold to foreigners. Post Brexit it seems they're planning another shafting of the working class.
Recently I've concluded I can't vote for them again, but a sensible centre right party doesn't exist.
To answer your question, I don't really know.

SueEllen
12th December 2016, 21:13
The Tory government is the most likely to keep the economy stable compared to the alternative of our main opposition run by Corbyn. Corbyn has no policies.

AtW
12th December 2016, 21:18
There is no real help and with Brexit "man in the street" is going to get bent next year when inflation hits (including rents due to new tax on landlords)...

MrMarkyMark
12th December 2016, 21:18
In recent years the race to the bottom has been perpetuated by all political parties, most noticeably Thatcher onward.

Orwell Must be peeing his bloody britches :laugh

sasguru
12th December 2016, 21:23
There is no real help and with Brexit "man in the street" is going to get bent next year when inflation hits (including rents due to new tax on landlords)...

Yup, it's happening already, but will get worse in the next year or so.
Be interesting to see what happens when Brexiters find out they're going to be worse off permanently.

AtW
12th December 2016, 21:29
Be interesting to see what happens when Brexiters find out they're going to be worse off permanently.

Most of them will be hit the hardest and Brexit has not even started - HM Gov negotiating via the press looks more like wishful thinking of amateurs.

SueEllen
12th December 2016, 21:30
Hello Atw :wave:

DimPrawn
12th December 2016, 21:38
Is this about Tory Govt or Brexit?

AtW
12th December 2016, 21:39
Hello Atw :wave:

Missed me? :wink

AtW
12th December 2016, 21:39
Is this about Tory Govt or Brexit?

Same thing, innit?

SueEllen
12th December 2016, 21:41
Missed me? :wink

Yeah.

shaunbhoy
12th December 2016, 21:42
Missed me? :wink

Without you alexei, CUK has been like a canoe without a trapdoor!! :laugh

sasguru
12th December 2016, 21:44
To answer the OPs question, I've just thought of one thing that the working class got from the Tories : the right to buy council houses.
But that policy was the primary reason for the housing shortages we have now and consequent high prices.
Many ex council house occupiers in the better areas of London became millionaires on the back of this policy without lifting a finger, which is surely contrary to Tory policy :rolleyes:

sasguru
12th December 2016, 21:45
Is this about Tory Govt or Brexit?

The Tories are running Brexit, so same thing

sasguru
12th December 2016, 21:48
Same thing, innit?

Snap:laugh

shaunbhoy
12th December 2016, 21:48
To answer the OPs question, I've just thought of one thing that the working class got from the Tories : the right to buy council houses.
But that policy was the primary reason for the housing shortages we have now and consequent high prices.


Not really. The main reason has been that the money made from the sale of said council houses was not ringfenced for the building of replacement housing stock.
Had that been done then we might have had a very different outcome.

sasguru
12th December 2016, 21:51
Not really. The main reason has been that the money made from the sale of said council houses was not ringfenced for the building of replacement housing stock.
Had that been done then we might have had a very different outcome.

Ffs. When has the govt. ever ring fenced anything? If the north sea oil revenues had been ring fenced, like Norway did, we might not be indebted to our eyeballs and there might have been some hope of a successful Brexit.:rolleyes:

MrMarkyMark
12th December 2016, 21:51
Not really. The main reason has been that the money made from the sale of said council houses was not ringfenced for the building of replacement housing stock.
Had that been done then we might have had a very different outcome.

Agreed, but surely just another example of another poorly headline policy, without any thought with regards to the fall out / knock on effects after, surely?

SueEllen
12th December 2016, 21:52
Y
To answer the OPs question, I've just thought of one thing that the working class got from the Tories : the right to buy council houses.
But that policy was the primary reason for the housing shortages we have now and consequent high prices.
Many ex council house occupiers in the better areas of London became millionaires on the back of this policy without lifting a finger, which is surely contrary to Tory policy :rolleyes:

Labour thought of it first and allowed individual councils the choice to implement it.

Tories did what some in Labour tried to do - control the unions. The good point is no wildcat strikes, flying pickets and closed shops. The bad point unstable employment and the horrors governments after WWII tried to get rid off with zero hours contracts.

Oh something my mum said was important - individual taxation. This meant a husband couldn't use finance to control his wife.

sasguru
12th December 2016, 21:54
Agreed, but surely just another example of another poorly headline policy, without any thought with regards to the fall out / knock on effects after, surely?

Correct. The short termism of all parties has been the downfall of this country. Giveaways at every election, fook the consequences

shaunbhoy
12th December 2016, 21:58
Correct. The short termism of all parties has been the downfall of this country. Giveaways at every election, fook the consequences

FFS!! I'm off for a lie-down. I am in agreement with sasguru. What is the world coming to?

:wink

MrMarkyMark
12th December 2016, 22:01
FFS!! I'm off for a lie-down. I am in agreement with sasguru. What is the world coming to?

:wink

Actually, sometimes not that difficult to agree :)

AtW
12th December 2016, 22:09
Yeah.

:hug:

Platypus
13th December 2016, 12:18
Is this about Tory Govt or Brexit?

About the government, although I suppose that if Brexit is a success they will claim credit, and if it's not the remoaners will get the blame.

But the government, here and now, is what my question was about. Interesting so far that no-one can think of anything of substance, rather than they are "less bad than the alternative".

O/T I looked and looked for a thread which I thought was on here; a long list of things that the Blair/Brown govt had messed up during their time in tenure, I suppose the post would have been around the time of the 2010 election, but I can't seem to find it.

vetran
13th December 2016, 13:21
But that policy was the primary reason for the housing shortages we have now and consequent high prices.


what a load of rowlocks

A history of social housing - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14380936)

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/82303000/png/_82303600_private_social_sect_new_homes_624gr.png

Local councils have not built any housing since 1980.

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/82303000/png/_82303602_council_house_sales_eng_624gr.png

Between 1979 and 2013, 1.6m council homes were sold.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/04/end-of-council-housing-bill-secure-tenancies-pay-to-stay

between 1979 & 2013 the official population has grown 10 million.

average household size 2.3

so we need about 4.34 million houses to house the new population.

the sold council houses are about a third of needed housing stock.

Now your real cretinism is that once sold the houses don't suddenly stand empty they will be lived in by someone either an owner occupier or a tenant. So despite no longer being owned and operated by the council (frequently at a loss in real terms) they don't decrease housing stock.

I didn't like the policy of discounting it so much they could have sold it without bribing the tenants, a council backed mortgage would have been a good idea.

The same stupidity is applied to Buy to let (clue is in the name) someone lives there and pays rent. Again BTL does not decrease housing stock.

The real reasons we are short of housing is that the population is growing (for many reasons but mostly due to immigration according to the figures) and fewer houses are being built. Some houses are being sold to overseas investors because the price rises make them a good investment even if they stand empty.

If you want to cure the housing shortage then build 4.34 million homes that are available for people to move into and only sell them to people who will allow them to be lived in, be they landlord or owner.

SueEllen
13th December 2016, 13:26
what a load of rowlocks

A history of social housing - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14380936)

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/82303000/png/_82303600_private_social_sect_new_homes_624gr.png

Local councils have not built any housing since 1980.

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/82303000/png/_82303602_council_house_sales_eng_624gr.png

Between 1979 and 2013, 1.6m council homes were sold.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/04/end-of-council-housing-bill-secure-tenancies-pay-to-stay

between 1979 & 2013 the official population has grown 10 million.

average household size 2.3

so we need about 4.34 million houses to house the new population.

the sold council houses are about a third of needed housing stock.

Now your real cretinism is that once sold the houses don't suddenly stand empty they will be lived in by someone either an owner occupier or a tenant. So despite no longer being owned and operated by the council (frequently at a loss in real terms) they don't decrease housing stock.

I didn't like the policy of discounting it so much they could have sold it without bribing the tenants, a council backed mortgage would have been a good idea.

The same stupidity is applied to Buy to let (clue is in the name) someone lives there and pays rent. Again BTL does not decrease housing stock.

The real reasons we are short of housing is that the population is growing (for many reasons but mostly due to immigration according to the figures) and fewer houses are being built. Some houses are being sold to overseas investors because the price rises make them a good investment even if they stand empty.

If you want to cure the housing shortage then build 4.34 homes that are available for people to move into and only sell them to people who will allow them to be lived in, be they landlord or owner.

Not actually true.

Wandsworth council tell you how proud they frequently are of building their 3-4 units per year.

GB9
13th December 2016, 13:44
Most of them will be hit the hardest and Brexit has not even started - HM Gov negotiating via the press looks more like wishful thinking of amateurs.

You're still economically clueless, aren't you? You fit in nicely with the other Remnants. And now you want to post about negotiating skills.......:tumble:

sasguru
13th December 2016, 14:40
You're still economically clueless, aren't you? You fit in nicely with the other Remnants. And now you want to post about negotiating skills.......:tumble:

He started a company from scratch and is a millionaire.
Wish I was as economically clueless as he is :laugh:laugh:laugh:rollin:
You fit in nicely with all all the other bone ignorant and stupid Brexiters.

shaunbhoy
13th December 2016, 14:44
Wish I was as economically clueless as he is :laugh:laugh:laugh:rollin:


You are. But you have the edge in that you are clueless across a whole range of other disciplines. :laugh :laugh :laugh

sasguru
13th December 2016, 14:46
You are. But you have the edge in that you are clueless across a whole range of other disciplines. :laugh :laugh :laugh

With GB9 on your side, you'll go far :laugh:laugh:rollin:

shaunbhoy
13th December 2016, 14:51
With GB9 on your side, you'll go far :laugh:laugh:rollin:

Well wherever I might end up, I can confidently predict I will outdistance you, constrained as you are by your wifie's apron strings. :wink

northernladyuk
13th December 2016, 15:16
Yup, it's happening already, but will get worse in the next year or so.
Be interesting to see what happens when Brexiters find out they're going to be worse off permanently.

They will blame the Bremainers as Enemies of the People for talking down the economy.

northernladyuk
13th December 2016, 16:42
Well wherever I might end up, I can confidently predict I will outdistance you, constrained as you are by your wifie's apron strings. :wink

You will only outdistance anyone if you're ending up at Gregg's.

shaunbhoy
13th December 2016, 17:01
You will only outdistance anyone if you're ending up at Gregg's.

If I do, you be sure and lend me your Loyalty card.

d000hg
13th December 2016, 17:07
I suppose you can say a Tory government has helped the average man by saving them from a Labour government ;) Like how kneecapping someone in a time of conscription saves them from the draft!

SueEllen
13th December 2016, 17:16
I suppose you can say a Tory government has helped the average man by saving them from a Labour government ;) Like how kneecapping someone in a time of conscription saves them from the draft!

I don't know was Millipede as bad as Camoron?

One couldn't eat a bacon sandwich while the other one ran a referendum lost and ran for the hills.

AtW
13th December 2016, 17:21
I don't know was Millipede as bad as Camoron?

One couldn't eat a bacon sandwich while the other one ran a referendum lost and ran for the hills.

Millipede would have been better, sad but true.

He'd get 50% tax back, but that would still be less than dividend hike by fooking Cons.

henryhooverville
13th December 2016, 22:42
so we need about 4.34 million houses to house the new population.



Not necessarily, we have enough 'rooms' for three times our population in theory but the distribution of these is skewed to the very richest (manor houses and all that). Of course that doesn't work in practise because a spare room is always a good thing.

If you are really into this read Inequality and the 1% by Danny Dorling, he's a professor at Oxford Uni and actually a nice guy (I've met him, at a lecture). He's studied in detail things such as housing and wealth distribution. I think the ratio is 1/3 rooms occupied from the lecture two years ago, I doubt that's gone to 1/1 in just two years.

That's specifically on housing, the rest of his book is a good enough read I guess.

SueEllen
13th December 2016, 22:43
Not necessarily, we have enough 'rooms' for three times our population in theory but the distribution of these is skewed to the very richest (manor houses and all that). Of course that doesn't work in practise because a spare room is always a good thing.

If you are really into this read Inequality and the 1% by Danny Dorling, he's a professor at Oxford Uni and actually a nice guy (I've met him, at a lecture). He's studied in detail things such as housing and wealth distribution. I think the ratio is 1/3 rooms occupied from the lecture two years ago, I doubt that's gone to 1/1 in just two years.

That's specifically on housing, the rest of his book is a good enough read I guess.

Soo young...

henryhooverville
13th December 2016, 23:03
Soo young...

It's a well researched book, and Danny Dorling is foremost in his field. But it is reflecting on numbers more than anything.

If you can spare a tenner and six hours give it a read, if economics is your jive.

On the issue of the young, my old Sixth Form has about a quarter less funding than before 2015 and funding for 19 years olds is cut. The conservatives don't like a skills-based economy, and that's bad for employers and decreases potential economic growth over the next few decades.

Education, Education, Education... as out titans recite but there isn't really a solution to that.

SueEllen
13th December 2016, 23:04
Can't handle two. When the old one is going to be closed down?

Soo young

NigelJK
14th December 2016, 10:51
The conservatives don't like a skills-based economy,

Back this up with some facts dude.

d000hg
14th December 2016, 11:02
Millipede would have been better, sad but true.

He'd get 50% tax back, but that would still be less than dividend hike by fooking Cons.You don't think they'd have done the same? You don't think they would've increased CT or stopped it's further reduction? You think they would've increased the HT threshold - that surely has a big effect on contractors.

Also we were talking about the man on the street. Which is not contractors on £400/day struggling how to avoid paying HR tax ;)

henryhooverville
14th December 2016, 14:30
Back this up with some facts dude.

Go to page 24: http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/spcc/WP13.pdf using the data here only in 2014 did the level return to pre-recession levels but FE funding has dropped sharply, and real spending has also dropped. Furthermore if you look at figure 1a here https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/fiscal_facts/public_spending_survey/education the official figures and independent analysis shows a drop in the first term of Consevative government in real terms for schools funding overall.

The Apprenticeship programme may offset this as you have 3 million new ones (pre-brexit target) but you have to consider they are only now getting to degree equivalent levels (which is a good thing). But I see the apprenticeship program as a Lib Dem policy in terms of 2010 government. The apprenticeship levy will fund this so businesses are paying for their own apprentices in effect. It's wasn't dreamt up by the Conservatives and kudos to them for keeping this policy.

Furthermore the increase in university tuition fees puts a lot of debt on students, it means universities have more funding and have to allocate more of that funding for poorer students; whether this actually happens is another matter. I have spoken to Diane Reay at Cambridge and she bemoans that while Cambridge University has really brilliant bursaries they are rarely cashed as the predominantly rich students aren't eligible to claim them, nor are international students. That means they lose a lot of budding talent.

Also consider this debt is guaranteed by subsequent governments, so either way they pay the debt it's just that with student loans you pay interest on top as well. Talk about fiddling the books.

If you want a skills-based economy which grows exponentially, you don't privatize all your schools and shove the cost of schooling onto future gorvernments. With soverign debt at about 80% I think (How large is the UK’s national debt, and why does it matter? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/02/19/how-large-is-the-uks-national-debt-and-why-does-it-matter/)) and 95% being the typical oh shit moment, unless GDP grows at a faster pace than your debt there's a problem. In the long term it is more expensive, and education is long term - consider the teacher shortages (Ministers 'have no plan to address teacher shortages' - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36488987)) which mean worse results as years go by across primary and secondary schools.

If you want to say that the Conservatives are building a resilient skills-based economy, I'd ask besides apprenticeships what's resilient? What happens if there's another recession? Why all the manufactured debt? I really don't see it, it's the lesser of two evils and you don't need that in education.

Platypus
14th December 2016, 14:44
Here's one I thought of,

Raising the Tax Free Allowance and increasing the Min. Wage.

NigelJK
14th December 2016, 15:59
Go to page 24: http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/spcc/WP13.pdf using the data here only in 2014 did the level return to pre-recession levels but FE funding has dropped sharply, and real spending has also dropped.

That document deals with the coalition government and was a necessary policy to try and raise the standard of Degree's in this country. An effect of the previous governments policy of 'university for all'.


The Apprenticeship programme may offset this as you have 3 million new ones (pre-brexit target) but you have to consider they are only now getting to degree equivalent levels (which is a good thing). But I see the apprenticeship program as a Lib Dem policy in terms of 2010 government. The apprenticeship levy will fund this so businesses are paying for their own apprentices in effect. It's wasn't dreamt up by the Conservatives and kudos to them for keeping this policy.

Apprenticeships have been around since the middle ages. Parties of all colours (except the 'New Labour' project) have encouraged their take up as pound for pound they produce more GDP in the long run.


Furthermore the increase in university tuition fees puts a lot of debt on students, it means universities have more funding and have to allocate more of that funding for poorer students; whether this actually happens is another matter. I have spoken to Diane Reay at Cambridge and she bemoans that while Cambridge University has really brilliant bursaries they are rarely cashed as the predominantly rich students aren't eligible to claim them, nor are international students. That means they lose a lot of budding talent.

You're making a common mistake, there are fundamental differences between skills and academia. If you and your family can afford a career for you in academia then by all means go for it. If you wish to nurture a skill set then the workplace is the best place to pick them up. Very few companies in this country (average number of employees = 20) cannot afford to carry a graduate whilst they accumulate those skills. Their learning is not aimed at that outcome, it's aimed at an academic career.


If you want to say that the Conservatives are building a resilient skills-based economy, I'd ask besides apprenticeships what's resilient?

There are a whole host of careers (mostly dependant on learning on the job) which fulfil this slot.

sasguru
14th December 2016, 16:20
... raise the standard of Degree's in this country...

Maybe they should start with basic English Language skills :rolleyes:

shaunbhoy
14th December 2016, 16:25
Maybe they should start with basic English Language skills? :rolleyes:

:eyes

sasguru
14th December 2016, 16:43
:eyes

It was a statement not a question :rolleyes:

NotAllThere
14th December 2016, 16:56
How does the Tory government help the man in the street?.By not causing quite so much damage as Labour governments.


...But the government, here and now, is what my question was about. Interesting so far that no-one can think of anything of substance, rather than they are "less bad than the alternative"...Nothing. As sasguru pointed out, short-termism and populism is the order of the day. It would be nice to have a government that actually governs.

original PM
14th December 2016, 17:12
Here's one I thought of,

Raising the Tax Free Allowance and increasing the Min. Wage.

Sounds great....

Oh wait they did if I recall correctly!

LondonManc
14th December 2016, 18:00
It's a well researched book, and Danny Dorling is foremost in his field. But it is reflecting on numbers more than anything.

If you can spare a tenner and six hours give it a read, if economics is your jive.

On the issue of the young, my old Sixth Form has about a quarter less funding than before 2015 and funding for 19 years olds is cut. The conservatives don't like a skills-based economy, and that's bad for employers and decreases potential economic growth over the next few decades.

Education, Education, Education... as out titans recite but there isn't really a solution to that.
if that's the case, why is it that Labour are the champions of a narrow bell curve where everyone passes but nobody excels?

MrMarkyMark
14th December 2016, 18:27
if that's the case, why is it that Labour are the champions of a narrow bell curve where everyone passes but nobody excels?

That's not a nice way to talk about JC....



Oh dear...... maybe I got the word "curve" mixed up with the word "end" :D





Easily done, as you were :laugh

henryhooverville
15th December 2016, 15:49
if that's the case, why is it that Labour are the champions of a narrow bell curve where everyone passes but nobody excels?

Well I think Labour as it is today are run by a bunch of retards, and all the good politicians are taking to the mayoralships of the cities. Order of the day is dumb and dumber in Westminister.

Thankfully Labour leaders are the dumber ones and they well and truly clear of government.

But I think it's unfair to say nobody excels, I am sure some kids around my age are doing well. The good thing about the university fees is that there is more money to invest at that level, though at primary and secondary level more could be done (though that will probably be true forever!)

sasguru
15th December 2016, 15:50
if that's the case, why is it that Labour are the champions of a narrow bell curve where everyone passes but nobody excels?

The top 10% excel, the rest think they do.

henryhooverville
15th December 2016, 16:03
You're making a common mistake, there are fundamental differences between skills and academia... If you wish to nurture a skill set then the workplace is the best place to pick them up. Very few companies in this country... cannot afford to carry a graduate whilst they accumulate those skills. Their learning is not aimed at that outcome, it's aimed at an academic career.

There are a whole host of careers (mostly dependant on learning on the job) which fulfil this slot.

Totally agree, I think working and learning is the most practical way to do things. I love the fact that apprenticeships are open to all range of ages now; case in point: my older brother is really having trouble finding a trade he likes and I've been pushing him to try an apprenticeship or two to actually learn something useful (he has basically no GCSEs).

But consider this: if I wanted to do a degree in Physics but couldn't get into the top uni because my primary school, secondary school and sixth form were broadly underfunded, understaffed, etc. that'd be awkward. If people don't fullfill their natural potential wherever they are that's a real shame. And it costs money.

OwlHoot
15th December 2016, 16:32
Thankfully Labour leaders are the dumber ones and they well and truly clear of government. ...

They may be dumb, but not half as dumb as many dyed in the wool Labour voters. :eek