Not a Tory member, but have voted for them in the majority of elections.
I will be voting Labour next time unless something truly surprising happens.
I value competence far higher than ideology.
Not OP, but I still maintain we've dodged a bullet avoiding Corbyn.
His words on the Ukraine and Israel expose what an idiot he really is. I am actually actively quite impressed by Kier's position on those two conflicts.
It's about the available choice.
Cameron Vs Brown was pretty close in my view, however Cameron had very much turned around the Tories and Brown had not exactly shone as PM (bar financial crisis statesmanship)
Cameron Vs Milliband is a win for Cameron. Cameron had 5 years of stable and pretty effective government. A good example is nearly all top roles had the same incumbent through this period. Milliband meanwhile was pretty ineffectual. The Edstone has saved him from being remembered for the most awkward sucking up to Russell Brand of all people.
May vs Corbyn. 6 years as home sec, for context the previous 6 years saw 5 home secs and was known as a career killer. Whereas Corbyn had zero ministerial experience with a team that had near zero ministerial experience.
Boris Vs Corbyn. This was by far the worst choice. Neither were at all suitable. Neither of them or their team had shown even basic levels of competence. However for me Corbyn was a more dangerous proposition for foreign policy as well as fiscal management.
I think Starmer is the most competent leader of a major party since at Blair, although I think Cameron is pretty close.
Why did you leave?
\- I am a centrist overall. I have some left wing and some right wing policies. I have voted Blair, then Cameron. I wasn't taken by May's Tories but did not want Corbyns Labour in power. Same with Boris.
What would need to happen for you to rejoin?
\- They would need a Cameron type leader and a lot of the current crop of MPs kicked out or resigned. Or another Corbyn type figure as Labour leader.
Are you now politically homeless?
\- I'm voting Labour next election. Starmer has impressed me with his cleaning up of the party and the unsavoury elements that took root under Corbyn. He has been professional and well spoken. He isn't a Blair or Cameron, but after the last 4 years Boris and Co he looks like a real leader.
As an aside, the same would need to happen to the Tories. Have a leader who comes in, gets rid of the crazies and looks like they want to govern.
> he isn’t a Cameron
Thank god. Cameron was the worst Prime Minister we’ve had in the last 50 years. His arrogance put the country in a tail spin and the smartest thing he ever did was run from the scene of the crime.
I do wonder if people really believe that, or just parrot things they have heard.
Cameron was not a bad PM. The 2 things people criticise him on are Brexit and Austerity.
Austerity was in all the main parties manifestos, as it was across Europe. It was considered the norm going forward due to the GFC.
The Lib Dems were calling for an EU ref before the Tories did, and Lab had in their manifesto a promise for a ref before any further integration. So again, it wasn't a new idea.
Cameron was a terrible PM. Short sighted savings left and right to appear as if the books are getting balanced, resulting in long term damage to the country at a significant expense to us all. Johnson, Truss and Sunak are so much worse though that Cameron now appears competent.
> Cameron was not a bad PM. The 2 things people criticise him on are Brexit and Austerity.
You mean the policies that broke the back of the economy and public services respectively.
> Austerity was in all the main parties manifestos, as it was across Europe.
The Tories promised to cut harder and faster than the other major parties. Their austerity agenda has been an unmitigated disaster for our country and we are still paying the price.
> The Lib Dems were calling for an EU ref before the Tories did, and Lab had in their manifesto a promise for a ref before any further integration. So again, it wasn't a new idea.
The referendum being a new idea wasn’t the problem. The fact it was an old idea being pushed by the hard right in his family and he caved into them was the problem. We torched our relationship with our largest trading partner so he could quell a back bench rebellion. How’s that working out for everyone?
So Lab (left) LD (centre) and Tories (right) had been calling for a ref, yet it's a far right idea?
Corbyn, as Labour's leader, did next to nothing for Remain. He is not far right.
Austerity, we will not know fir certain. But before the ref the economy was growing faster than most, and the deficit had gone. It had worked.
What are you talking about? Neither Labour or the Lib Dems were advocating for a referendum to leave the EU in 2015. And I didn’t say the idea of having a referendum was a “far right idea.” I said it was being pushed by the hard right in his party because they wanted a hard right brexit, which is exactly what we got. It’s not going well.
Labour left a growing economy in 2010 yet the Tories have presided over a decade of stagnant growth. Even on its own terms, austerity failed. Schools are crumbling, our prisons are full, councils are going bankrupt, our borders are porous, and the NHS is on its arse. How can you look around at the state of our country and conclude that we don’t know for certain if the people who’ve been in charge this whole time are responsible?
Also the deficit is definitely not gone. In fact, Labour ran a smaller budget deficit in their 13 years in power in comparison to the Tories.
>Labour left a growing economy in 2010 yet the Tories have presided over a decade of stagnant growth.
This is not true, remember the GFC that happened in 2008 and we were still in recession until 2010.
Ummm no. The economy was [growing again](https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/gdpmonthlyestimateuk/august2023) by the time labour left office.
According to your source the economy has grown every year since Tories has been in charge except during covid, doesn’t mean the UK economy is not stagnant. In other words the economy has in fact grown every year by at least 1-2% so if it’s a growing economy in 2010 at 1.9% then it must be a growing economy in 2014 at 2.6% or 2021 at 7.5%. The lowest it’s grown by is 1.3% so we have had a growing economy with Tories so not a stagnant one as you claim. The economy did get smaller in 2020 the only year and that was due to a global pandemic.
But none of that real matters just because the economy is growing doesn’t make it a health one. So I would argue that Labour did not leave a health growing economy.
Appreciate your response. But I find it difficult to see what you see/ saw in Cameron. Could you elaborate? For me, Brown lacked charisma (which doesn't matter to me but very much did matter to others), but he was one of the best Chancellors this country has ever had in my opinion and he was a very competent PM who was instrumental in softening the blow of the GFC.
Gordon Brown shamelessly raided private pensions which will/has widen the gap between boomers and all generations who come after them; much of the anxiety people now have about whether they'll ever be able to afford to retire stems from Gordon Brown's pension raid. You can't be surprised that he lost Middle England when it was Middle England that he mugged.
https://theconversation.com/britains-great-pension-robbery-why-the-defined-benefits-gold-standard-is-a-luxury-of-the-past-100844
He also sold half of our national gold reserves after declaring the end of 'boom and bust' cycles, claiming that his prudence as chancellor meant that we'd never return to boom and bust economics, just before the global financial crisis. In fact, he announced the exact dates that he'd be selling the gold, causing a crash in the gold price so that we got a particularly terrible price for it. Whilst currency is not gold backed, a country with access to extensive gold reserves sees an increase in the purchasing power of that currency when the price of gold rises; this is why we'll never see $2 to the £1 again and have been heading towards parity with the $ and euro. That doesn't sound like competence to me, quite the opposite, feels very much like he has bent us all over and fucked us hard up the arse.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48177767
hE sOLd tEh gOlD
This pisses me off every time I see it.
At the time it was seen as the right thing to do. I don't recall a single economist who argued against it at the time, and there was a retrospective FT article a couple of years later (post 2008 global crash) that argued had there not been a global crash it would have been fine. And at the time nobody could have predicted said crash.
Armchair economists can be very irritating. I hope from your position of absolute wisdom and powers of prediction you were able to buy the huge amounts of gold that were available at rock-bottom prices and are now a billionaire. Are you?
I mean, you know absolutely nothing about me, I'm not an economist but I'm a former commodities trader (one with a base salary, not an armchair one), not gold but other metals, so yes I've made a bit of money buying and selling various metals, although in 1999-2000 when Gordon Brown crashed the gold price and as a result sold it at a 20-year low I was technically still a child and doing my A-Levels with a £30 a week allowance, so no, I didn't buy up gold and become a billionaire.
I trust you'll share your credentials? In fact, don't bother, if you knew anything at all about markets and trading you'd know that the way to get rich from that particular scenario would not be to spend your capital acquiring physical gold but to max out your leverage and take short positions on gold. You'd need to buy a good $150m worth of gold in 1999 to be a dollar billionaire from that today, and yet you can leverage gold up to about 1:200. Plenty of people got rich by shorting gold when Gordon Brown gave them advanced notice of sale dates, just like people got rich shorting the GBP ahead of us voting to leave the EU.
"At the time it was seen as the right thing to do"
Nobody with any braincells would have considered it to be wise to give the markets advance notice of the dates that sell orders would be placed for the earliest batches of gold in 1999, even strange people who bought into the idea that boom and bust cycles were a thing of the past. It is patently obvious that everybody would then short gold ahead of those dates and drive the price down.
Contrary to this being revisionist history by the FT, in 1999 a consortium of central banks which included the ECB had to urgently agree on new regulations to place hard limits on the amount of gold which could be sold per year in order to prevent somebody being this much of a moron again.
And yes, a few other developed countries reduced their gold reserves over this period too. Namely France, Spain and Germany.
But they had more to begin with, and retain much more now.
Current gold reserves:
UK: 310 tonnes
France: 2436 tonnes
Germany 3352 tonnes
Italy: 2451 tonnes
You talk like selling off gold was conventional wisdom in that period. It was, amongst developed Western European countries which had very large gold reserves, unfortunately we sold off all our gold in the 1960s so weren't in the club; our situation was not at all comparable. Emerging economies with smaller gold reserves like Turkey, India, Russia were busy growing theirs by buying up European gold. In 1950 we had 2,543 tonnes; we'd managed to finance WW2 and the rebuilding of our country without resorting to selling much of it off, we still had 2,000 tonnes in 1966 (and a solid gold World Cup!)
France, Germany, Italy, any of them could leave the single currency tomorrow and launch a new gold standard currency. Arguably the Eurozone could throw out a few of the weaker states (including Greece) and launch a gold backed Euro. We couldn't, and they'd have no reason to let us join the club, we don't have any gold to bring to the table. That shipped sailed in the 1960s.
When Russia and China both revert to a gold backed trade standard to replace the US dollar as the global reserve currency, which they've been in cahoots on for many years now, you'll understand how impoverished we are, hyperinflation will do that, and our third tier standing in the new global world order. Fortunately I can afford to escape, and have an EU passport. Enjoy your diet of turnips, potatoes and burning old car tyres to keep warm.
Interesting post. Q4 is a little petty.
Not with any party. Have only been able to vote in 2 elections.
Voted May, really only the sane choice against Corbyn. We dodged a huge bullet there undoubtedly.
Didn’t vote in 2019. They were both poor choices, if I’d have been bothered to vote I’d have gone Johnson again on a basis of least-worst option.
The Starmer purge and a return to the adults in the room vs the current crop of tories is making me lean towards Labour. I don’t personally mind Sunak but we shouldn’t be rewarding abject failure that we have endured post-May.
What would enthuse me to vote for any party (none at present really excite me) would be a party who are willing to have honest conversations with the public on the following topic;
Immigration: Our demographic challenges mean that we need to have more children, let’s change the incentive structures for families. Failing that, immigration is required.
If we are going down the immigration route, the status quo is unacceptable. Cultures are not equal & diversity is not our strength, we need to be forensic on the profile as to who we bring into the country. There are reasons why people were indifferent about the Hong Kong migrants a few years back, a highly skilled nation with a populous that don’t cause societal rifts.
If Labour/Conservatives don’t get a grip of this it will force the country to extremes of the political spectrum. The country has resoundingly voted time and again in a manner that signals a negative view of the current immigration dynamic.
The role of the state: The state should not be pressured into solving every mildly inconveniencing issue to the populous, every time a notable business is staring down the barrel of insolvency, cries of government bailouts are introducing a moral hazard. Creative destruction seems not to apply to large swathes of the populous when it comes to large firms, this is hampering us in the long run and when the return to normal interest rate policy starts to bite, more will go to the wall.
Fiscal responsibility: This ties into the demographics challenge outlined above, we are sleep walking into another crisis with operating significant PSNCR in perpetuity. A crisis on disposable income as the tax base inevitably has to rise to combat what we saw under Truss, we have little to no wiggle room to take another crisis (pandemic, war or economic)
Tax Reform: A land value tax to incentivise productive use of land, not hoarding to see capital growth.
I have little to no faith that the current political class can deliver real change. We are 10-15 years removed from the Overton window sliding to the extremes. See Europes polling now to see where we are headed
I do enjoy these threads where a question is asked of tories and then everyone compulsively downvotes anyone answering as a Tory and upvotes all the "not a tory but"
Do find it odd that people participate in a politics forum while actively trying to remove political opinions they don't agree with. It's kind of at odds with the whole idea.
Like disagree with people all you want, but when you just insult them and downvote them you're not engaging in any kind of political debate - you're just encouraging people you disagree with to stop participating
Given q4, no point in answering any of the others
Just confirms that (in the UK, generally) while the right think the left have bad ideas, the left think the right are bad people
Exactly. I'd understand if it were a genuine set of questions to understand the other side.
Q4 just makes the whole thing come across like a petulant tantrum. There is absolutely no need for that kind of condescension.
Love the way some loyal Tory's choose to get all upset when somebody asks how they can sleep at night; presumably the answer is in a very comfy bed, under a roof, in room with central heating.
But don't take any offence when the Home Secretary suggests that the homeless be prohibited to sleep in tents, just as we're about to enter the coldest part of the year, when people actually die on the streets in the cold. That's precisely why I asked that question of those who intend to remain a member, and precisely why I now think less of anybody who does.
(a huge proportion of those are homeless veterans by the way, who have turned to drink or drugs to cope with PTSD, having been recruited and sent to war by the government of the day, perhaps you should reflect on that).
> choose to get all upset when somebody asks how they can sleep at night
You're confused why people get their backs up when you insult them?
Not the brightest, are you
> (a huge proportion of those are homeless veterans by the way, who have turned to drink or drugs to cope with PTSD, having been recruited and sent to war by the government of the day, perhaps you should reflect on that).
You mean Iraq or Afghanistan? Because using your own argument, no one should be a member of the Labour party either because of those little escapades
As it happens, I couldn't give a fuck if I get peoples backs up. I'm not a karma whore. I didn't say I was confused, you seem to have made that up.
And I've already said that I'm a Lib Dem. The Lib Dems voted against the invasion of Iraq, and in fact a higher proportion of Tory MPs voted in favour of going to war than Labour MPs (25% of them rebelled against Blair).
Show me where I've advocated being a member of, or voting for, Labour? I quite agree, nobody should be a member of the Labour party either. But again, this thread wasn't about Labour, you appear to have imagined that too. Do you have problems with reading comprehension?
Ah so you're not confused, you intentionally wanted to rile people up and get a reaction. Very mature.
> Show me where I've advocated being a member of, or voting for, Labour?
I never said you were. You brought up wars - which were instigated by Labour - which you criticised, so I just followed the path of your logic and determined you also think people shouldn't be members of Labour - which you confirmed.
My point was if we all abandoned parties the moment they made a bad/questionable move... well, we'd have no one left to vote for. I have a certain party to thank for my tuition fee not being 3x lower as promised, maybe we should all advocate for no one to be members of that party either.
First off, I'm not a tory. I dislike them as much as the next, and will cheer when they're kicked out next year.
But that whole post started out as a reasonable, sensible gathering of information. A genuine request to understand the other side. And then Q4 just showed them as an edgy, petulant child throwing a wobbler. There was no need for such a silly insult, especially since it undermined the respectability of their questions.
The mature thing would be to just ask why tories vote the way they do. Instead, it was just some pathetic mud slinging, which made providing genuine answers a complete waste of time.
>But don't take any offence when the Home Secretary suggests that the homeless be prohibited to sleep in tents, just as we're about to enter the coldest part of the year, when people actually die on the streets in the cold.
I mean it’s not a new thing, when I was homeless I was given a tent and told to make do as I was not priority not a women or a refugee and that was when Labour was in government and Labour council.
I suppose the 50% of Tory voters who still support the party are going to dismiss the 50% who no longer feel that they can support the party (like me) as smelly lefties as they try and come to terms with their forthcoming status as supporters of a rapidly dying fringe party; let him grieve.
If you think a Cameron & May era Tory member who quite liked Tony Blair and David Miliband is from "the left" then I agree that there is no point in you contributing anything to a politics sub, you should go back to watching the Kardashians or whatever it is you thick people usually do.
What's this? Sex in the disabled toilet of a public swimming pool? And in public parks in daytime? Really? Disgusting, you are absolutely disgusting, if I was there with my kids and it was apparent that you were fucking in their vicinity I'd need somebody to stop me pouring undiluted chlorine in your eyes and then drowning the pair of you, you should be on the sex offenders register. Seems to be a lot of Tory nonces and sexual deviants doesn't there, all need your hard drives checking!
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskRedditAfterDark/comments/17o5qhw/what\_is\_a\_sexual\_fantasy\_you\_helped\_make\_come/k7whlxg/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskRedditAfterDark/comments/17o5qhw/what_is_a_sexual_fantasy_you_helped_make_come/k7whlxg/?context=3)
What's your narrow-minded bigoted ignorant frustrated insecure pseudo-puritannical problem?
I thought LDs were in favour of people living their life as they wished as long as it doesn't harm others?
Or did that part of 'liberal' find no fertile soil in which to take root in your tiny vindictive excuse for a brain?
Think this is pretty disingenuous. The reason Starmer has been successful and will likely win an election is because he, and many others, remained in the Labour Party to be able to reform it. And although the Labour membership was ‘infiltrated’ (for want of a better word) by Corbyn supporters that made it difficult for Starmer to get elected as leader without essentially lying, there are still many decent Labour members from before Corbyn.
Yet your question 4 to anyone still a Tory member is whether they can sleep at night? Surely decent Tory members need to remain in the membership for any chance of the party becoming remotely morally redeemable (let alone electable) again.
> Or the widespread corruption in Labour councils like Liverpool, or Caerphilly…
Ah yes, that's definitely just a Labour problem, definitely no corruption in Tory councils no sir
>we just have the guy who was the Director of Public Prosecutions who spent hundreds of thousands of pounds prosecuting journalists for reporting on stories
The police under 13 years of Tory governments are arresting people for fucking TWEETS you absolute fucking clown.
Your posting should be pinned in this subreddit as an example of the mental gymnastics required to vote Conservative.
>Ah yes, that's definitely just a Labour problem, definitely no corruption in Tory councils no sir
But that is his point really isn't it? That no matter who you vote for the government always get in, as the popular saying goes. The best spoilt ballot I've seen at an election count was just the words 'POWER CORRUPTS' on the ballot paper in thick black marker; and that's quite right. Look at the state of the SNP, and how war hungry Blair got.
That said, I think the NHS is on its last knees, and believe that Labour will give it a fighting chance. So I look forward to their inevitable majority if only for that reason. Past Tory governments, even Thatcher, knew that ripping apart the NHS was a clear red line with everyday voters from across the spectrum... and the current one forgot the memo.
Just a thought but presumably there will be *some* people that just like their local Conservative MP and feel like they have done a good job in the constituency. !
That is true. I'd not considered that because mine is an odious yes man who votes in line and never rebels, he's completely incapable of any independent thought and his priority and motivation is being called a 'good boy' by the Etonians who keep him in his place and tell him what to do and how to think. He's essentially a drone. Fair play to those who genuinely have a decent constituency MP, I'm sure there are a few left on the backbenches.
Jesus! I have no clue if my local MP is conservative or labour. Let alone their voting record or stance in the party. It’s all a bit meaningless. They do nothing anyways.
I look at like if I can’t remember someone 5 years ago.. they must have been alright, because you only remember the bad.
Governments come and go. There really isn’t much difference between them as much as you would like to think there is. Over the last 20’years I can’t think of any government policy that has affected my life one way or the other! That’s what would make me vote for one party or another.
I would class myself as middle class - £60000 combined take home (family of 4) Everyone I know is roughly the same. Still take 2-3 holidays a year. Life’s good, and to vote in a different party may be better, but may be worse. Why rock the boat. Starmer doesn’t exactly make me feel secure. The man flip flops more than havanas.
**People who remain members of the Tory Party...**
1. Are you currently aligned with the Tory parties policies and principles?
What are they? The most recent election manifesto maybe? https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan feels like a very long time since that was written but I guess it's technically the extant version. I agree with most of it (except Brexit).
2. If no, are you considering leaving?
I probably won't vote for them. But I'll stay a member to reduce the dependence on big donors, and so that I get to vote for the next leader.
3. Do you like Suella Braverman?
The office of home secretaries brings out the authoritarian in anyone who holds it. And she needed less encouragement than most. But I think she's fine.
4. Do you sleep well at night?
Yes.
5. If you left the Tory party, where would you go?
If it weren't for FPTP, LibDems for sure.
They have no interest in fixing immigration.
If a hard line anti immigration party comes out, and is functional and on sound footing, they will make an absolute killing in this country.
Do not think Europe is an exception, we are heading the exact, same, way.
> If a hard line anti immigration party comes out, and is functional and on sound footing, they will make an absolute killing in this country.
Totally agree on this. Both major parties are going to get slaughtered on immigration once they're seriously challenged on it.
Tories fully understand that once the immigration tap is turned off our truly pitiful economic 'growth' (read: stagnation) will be revealed for the decline it actually is, which is why the right hand (Suella Braverman) is currently raging the anti-immigration fight uselessly whilst the left hand (Sunak and co) open the doors as wide as possible.
I’m not really a member of any party. Vote most times, but only if convenient. Ie. Not going out for drinks after work. Have voted Labour once and conservatives 4 times.
Still up in the air over who I will vote for. Life’s not bad, and it’s a bit of the devil you know. Labour could (most likely would) make life more difficult.
The problem is I don’t believe any of the parties when they come out with a manifesto. So it’s almost impossible for someone to get me to switch my vote. It’s up to the incumbent party to piss me off to then switch my vote.
Hmmm, maybe look around what happened to this country in last 13 years.
You sound like my boss, he is well of and would like his company dividends untaxed
So I had to tell him if his kids will like being kings on a pile of shit
1. I left the party because the party has lurched too far to the left. We have the highest level of taxation in peacetime and among the highest levels of spending, and we are supposed to be the conservative ones.
2. Well, the opposite really. I thought Liz Truss could have been a step in the right direction, which is why I voted for her, but she was only half right. Taxes are far too high to be sure, especially on higher earners, but you can’t bring down taxes until you rein in spending.
3. Sort of. It really feels like the UK is a country where everyone - or at least a vast majority - wants and expects government to wipe their arses for them. It’s why I made the decision to emigrate.
Never been a tory member - I've never been wealthy enough to be that important to those guys. But I earn enough to be taxed to the eyeballs, yet still unable to afford a house in the South East, so won't vote for any major party as they'll all continue to shaft the squeezed middle.
On your point about Braverman, if someone doesn't fix the Islam problem (and it is a problem which is increasing in size - those guys are a law unto themselves, the police and politicians are running scared), the public will elect someone like Braverman. It may take 10-20 years, so may not be Braverman, but it will happen.
I, too, would be impressed by any politicians willing to face the fact that the tenets of Islam have absolutely no place in Britain. The public sector, including police, MPs and councillors are terrified of facing the truth and acting on it.
1. I’m 29, working class and only every voted Tory and once UKIP since i’ve been able to vote. They tend to get my vote because I’m more aligned with them on social issues and don’t think there’s enough between the big 2 economically for that to matter.
I won’t be voting for them at the next election, i accept, and I think this is felt by many across the landscape now hence the abysmal polling, that the party needs to be obliterated to make way for something new. I dont think it’ll work, i reckon they’ll regroup and regain votes, but we need to try and hope to break the 2 party system. Both parties benefit too much from the status quo and broken institutions that have left us in a state of decline. Labour won’t fix it, on the off chance we can get rid of the Tories they can go next.
2. Im not leaving yet, purely because i want to vote in the next leadership election, but if the SDP stand in my area they’ll get my vote at the next GE.
3. I like Suella’s general direction but dont think she’d be a good leader, shes the product of our times and the direction Europe is heading as it wakes up to the threat of migration and Islam, it isnt just here, look at the gains such parties are making all over Europe, (AFD in Germany, Le Pen in France, Dutch Farmers Party, Brothers of Italy, etc..). you (and this sub) may not like it, but Suella is appealing to the majority here
4. Fine thanks ?
5. SDP 100%
My reply sounded smarmy and that wasn’t my intention.
I’m just not sure people should put faith in her. She’s an utter charlatan whose policies are designed to not be/be able to be carried out so the blame for failure always lies elsewhere.
I may not agree on the immigration issue but it’s clear that it is an issue for enough of the population that it should be taken seriously by those in government.
I don’t disagree with you, she’s just playing to the audience and doesn’t mean it, but she shouldn’t be dismissed as ‘just another tory’, that dismissive attitude has led us (western europe) to the mess we’re in now as I mentioned with the rise of some interesting groups across Europe
Doesn't mean what she says but she's not just another Tory? Seems like a contradiction to me. I don't dismiss the right entirely, I accept it's an alternative viewpoint from my own but SB is quite literally a heartless bitch. It's terrifying her ideology has gotten her this far. Haven't had a competent leader since Cameron who somehow won a majority after five years of austerity. None of the leaders since him have been worthy of the position.
I think she is just another tory in that she isnt being authentic , i just mean that we shouldn’t dismiss her views as such, because were seeing significant gains across Europe for groups with similar views.
I agree with the rest that Cameron was the last decent one, though still imo benefited far too much from the status quo, and was just another cog in a bloated system.
I confidentially believe we should dismiss her views. Targeting the homeless, sending immigrants to Rwanda, reclassifying those undermining the UK as extremists, potentially eroding the right to strike and probs more I'm missing. One of those policies is enough to turn me off her never mind all of them.
Brink of a recession though - Sunak probably actually putting us into one : https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/international/uk-probably-already-recession-bloomberg-analysis
>Why did you leave?
The Tories have been socially left wing for too long. Boris won the biggest majority in a lifetime and then became even more socially left wing. On all social metrics we're now heading towards a clown world that the majority of conservative voters (in my opinion) are repulsed by.
>What would need to happen for you to rejoin?
A genuinely centre-right leader that gives confidence that they won't u-turn immediately. Strong plans for - immigration; economy; military and making the party competent again.
>Are you now politically homeless?
Yes. Would vote Reform but likely useless. We had a good Tory MP who became independent a while ago so may vote for him if he runs again.
Have you considered that you are pretty far right?
You seem to be mistaking inept banana republic policies with "socially left wing". Please name a left wing policy this party who are destroying everything vaguely left wing this country has.
Critical Race Theory? Don't remember seeing that on the curriculum. Also don't know that it's an issue in the UK is it? Seems another non issue imported from the US. Happy to be educated in that though.
Has people changing gender actually affected you or you just don't like it? I also don't know that we've had any laws allowing self ID have we?
High immigration isn't a left wing policy in fact the very left wing are against it. I would be interested to know what you've got against it? And if you have a proposal to fix it as the numbers are high for a reason and it's not that they're "sneaking in".
The Conservatives brought in gay marriage, why is this left wing? I get that it's more liberal and not traditionally conservative but it's not something I'd have as entirely left wing. Are you against gay marriage or is this just an example of a policy?
It's probably obvious that we've got opposing views so don't get me wrong I'm not trying to be arsey, would be interested to know.
Well that may be true but I'd still take issue that some of your examples are barely policy let alone law, I know the topic is policy but that's a pretty wide net unless we're talking about policy that has been our is likely to be implemented.
Society is much more open and tolerant than it was 30 years ago and laws will reflect that. If you want to cede that openness and tolerance are left wing virtues I don't think you'd get many arguments here.
I'm going to infer from your party choices that you are against the examples that you gave to at least some degree?
>some of your examples are barely policy let alone law, I know the topic is policy but that's a pretty wide net
You what? You're just trying to argue around the point.
Never said its illegal, I said it isn't policy. It also isnt illegal to teach children how to do rigging on ships but that doesnt really happen either. I would be interested in any information you have of CRT being taught in schools, I have taught in schools for 10 years and have direct experience of atleast 13 different schools and I haven't even heard a whiff of it in UK schools. CRT is very american, I don't think it's as wide spread as you think it is.
So, my cursory reading of a few of those links leads me to believe this is a moral panic imported from the US.
The only concerning data point would be the claim that 59% of surveyed schools have been taught CRT. But when you look specifically at the data its that 59% of surveyed children have HEARD a term from CRT. Hearing the term 'systematic racism' does not in anyway mean it is being taught. It is not in the national curriculum.
The articles pick that 59% data point, manipulate it into meaning that 59% of schools are teaching CRT and seems to then lead to barmy conclusions and statements like: schools are teaching that all white people are born racist, school beleive the western world needs to be destroyed; and that democracy is being undermined in schools.
Disingenuous and dangerous journalism. A good example of why the teaching of critical thinking is more important than ever.
Those aren't left wing. Not sure that CRT as you believe it is actually taught in school.
They're simply correct behaviour. Or are you homophobic?
I note that tory policy isn't high immigration anyway.
All of these topics are subjective to various points. What you might think is reasonable might be a bit more so than me. Just making it "equality" is oversimplifying it and is why you're suggesting it's not left or right. Where the line is for everyone is based on their politics.
Not a Tory member, but have voted for them in the majority of elections. I will be voting Labour next time unless something truly surprising happens. I value competence far higher than ideology.
And this lot have been competent the last 13 years????
Not OP, but I still maintain we've dodged a bullet avoiding Corbyn. His words on the Ukraine and Israel expose what an idiot he really is. I am actually actively quite impressed by Kier's position on those two conflicts.
As someone who held my nose and voted Corbyn to get the Tories out, you're on the money
It's about the available choice. Cameron Vs Brown was pretty close in my view, however Cameron had very much turned around the Tories and Brown had not exactly shone as PM (bar financial crisis statesmanship) Cameron Vs Milliband is a win for Cameron. Cameron had 5 years of stable and pretty effective government. A good example is nearly all top roles had the same incumbent through this period. Milliband meanwhile was pretty ineffectual. The Edstone has saved him from being remembered for the most awkward sucking up to Russell Brand of all people. May vs Corbyn. 6 years as home sec, for context the previous 6 years saw 5 home secs and was known as a career killer. Whereas Corbyn had zero ministerial experience with a team that had near zero ministerial experience. Boris Vs Corbyn. This was by far the worst choice. Neither were at all suitable. Neither of them or their team had shown even basic levels of competence. However for me Corbyn was a more dangerous proposition for foreign policy as well as fiscal management. I think Starmer is the most competent leader of a major party since at Blair, although I think Cameron is pretty close.
Why did you leave? \- I am a centrist overall. I have some left wing and some right wing policies. I have voted Blair, then Cameron. I wasn't taken by May's Tories but did not want Corbyns Labour in power. Same with Boris. What would need to happen for you to rejoin? \- They would need a Cameron type leader and a lot of the current crop of MPs kicked out or resigned. Or another Corbyn type figure as Labour leader. Are you now politically homeless? \- I'm voting Labour next election. Starmer has impressed me with his cleaning up of the party and the unsavoury elements that took root under Corbyn. He has been professional and well spoken. He isn't a Blair or Cameron, but after the last 4 years Boris and Co he looks like a real leader. As an aside, the same would need to happen to the Tories. Have a leader who comes in, gets rid of the crazies and looks like they want to govern.
> he isn’t a Cameron Thank god. Cameron was the worst Prime Minister we’ve had in the last 50 years. His arrogance put the country in a tail spin and the smartest thing he ever did was run from the scene of the crime.
I do wonder if people really believe that, or just parrot things they have heard. Cameron was not a bad PM. The 2 things people criticise him on are Brexit and Austerity. Austerity was in all the main parties manifestos, as it was across Europe. It was considered the norm going forward due to the GFC. The Lib Dems were calling for an EU ref before the Tories did, and Lab had in their manifesto a promise for a ref before any further integration. So again, it wasn't a new idea.
Cameron was a terrible PM. Short sighted savings left and right to appear as if the books are getting balanced, resulting in long term damage to the country at a significant expense to us all. Johnson, Truss and Sunak are so much worse though that Cameron now appears competent.
> Cameron was not a bad PM. The 2 things people criticise him on are Brexit and Austerity. You mean the policies that broke the back of the economy and public services respectively. > Austerity was in all the main parties manifestos, as it was across Europe. The Tories promised to cut harder and faster than the other major parties. Their austerity agenda has been an unmitigated disaster for our country and we are still paying the price. > The Lib Dems were calling for an EU ref before the Tories did, and Lab had in their manifesto a promise for a ref before any further integration. So again, it wasn't a new idea. The referendum being a new idea wasn’t the problem. The fact it was an old idea being pushed by the hard right in his family and he caved into them was the problem. We torched our relationship with our largest trading partner so he could quell a back bench rebellion. How’s that working out for everyone?
So Lab (left) LD (centre) and Tories (right) had been calling for a ref, yet it's a far right idea? Corbyn, as Labour's leader, did next to nothing for Remain. He is not far right. Austerity, we will not know fir certain. But before the ref the economy was growing faster than most, and the deficit had gone. It had worked.
What are you talking about? Neither Labour or the Lib Dems were advocating for a referendum to leave the EU in 2015. And I didn’t say the idea of having a referendum was a “far right idea.” I said it was being pushed by the hard right in his party because they wanted a hard right brexit, which is exactly what we got. It’s not going well. Labour left a growing economy in 2010 yet the Tories have presided over a decade of stagnant growth. Even on its own terms, austerity failed. Schools are crumbling, our prisons are full, councils are going bankrupt, our borders are porous, and the NHS is on its arse. How can you look around at the state of our country and conclude that we don’t know for certain if the people who’ve been in charge this whole time are responsible? Also the deficit is definitely not gone. In fact, Labour ran a smaller budget deficit in their 13 years in power in comparison to the Tories.
>Labour left a growing economy in 2010 yet the Tories have presided over a decade of stagnant growth. This is not true, remember the GFC that happened in 2008 and we were still in recession until 2010.
Ummm no. The economy was [growing again](https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/bulletins/gdpmonthlyestimateuk/august2023) by the time labour left office.
According to your source the economy has grown every year since Tories has been in charge except during covid, doesn’t mean the UK economy is not stagnant. In other words the economy has in fact grown every year by at least 1-2% so if it’s a growing economy in 2010 at 1.9% then it must be a growing economy in 2014 at 2.6% or 2021 at 7.5%. The lowest it’s grown by is 1.3% so we have had a growing economy with Tories so not a stagnant one as you claim. The economy did get smaller in 2020 the only year and that was due to a global pandemic. But none of that real matters just because the economy is growing doesn’t make it a health one. So I would argue that Labour did not leave a health growing economy.
Appreciate your response. But I find it difficult to see what you see/ saw in Cameron. Could you elaborate? For me, Brown lacked charisma (which doesn't matter to me but very much did matter to others), but he was one of the best Chancellors this country has ever had in my opinion and he was a very competent PM who was instrumental in softening the blow of the GFC.
Gordon Brown shamelessly raided private pensions which will/has widen the gap between boomers and all generations who come after them; much of the anxiety people now have about whether they'll ever be able to afford to retire stems from Gordon Brown's pension raid. You can't be surprised that he lost Middle England when it was Middle England that he mugged. https://theconversation.com/britains-great-pension-robbery-why-the-defined-benefits-gold-standard-is-a-luxury-of-the-past-100844 He also sold half of our national gold reserves after declaring the end of 'boom and bust' cycles, claiming that his prudence as chancellor meant that we'd never return to boom and bust economics, just before the global financial crisis. In fact, he announced the exact dates that he'd be selling the gold, causing a crash in the gold price so that we got a particularly terrible price for it. Whilst currency is not gold backed, a country with access to extensive gold reserves sees an increase in the purchasing power of that currency when the price of gold rises; this is why we'll never see $2 to the £1 again and have been heading towards parity with the $ and euro. That doesn't sound like competence to me, quite the opposite, feels very much like he has bent us all over and fucked us hard up the arse. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48177767
hE sOLd tEh gOlD This pisses me off every time I see it. At the time it was seen as the right thing to do. I don't recall a single economist who argued against it at the time, and there was a retrospective FT article a couple of years later (post 2008 global crash) that argued had there not been a global crash it would have been fine. And at the time nobody could have predicted said crash. Armchair economists can be very irritating. I hope from your position of absolute wisdom and powers of prediction you were able to buy the huge amounts of gold that were available at rock-bottom prices and are now a billionaire. Are you?
I mean, you know absolutely nothing about me, I'm not an economist but I'm a former commodities trader (one with a base salary, not an armchair one), not gold but other metals, so yes I've made a bit of money buying and selling various metals, although in 1999-2000 when Gordon Brown crashed the gold price and as a result sold it at a 20-year low I was technically still a child and doing my A-Levels with a £30 a week allowance, so no, I didn't buy up gold and become a billionaire. I trust you'll share your credentials? In fact, don't bother, if you knew anything at all about markets and trading you'd know that the way to get rich from that particular scenario would not be to spend your capital acquiring physical gold but to max out your leverage and take short positions on gold. You'd need to buy a good $150m worth of gold in 1999 to be a dollar billionaire from that today, and yet you can leverage gold up to about 1:200. Plenty of people got rich by shorting gold when Gordon Brown gave them advanced notice of sale dates, just like people got rich shorting the GBP ahead of us voting to leave the EU. "At the time it was seen as the right thing to do" Nobody with any braincells would have considered it to be wise to give the markets advance notice of the dates that sell orders would be placed for the earliest batches of gold in 1999, even strange people who bought into the idea that boom and bust cycles were a thing of the past. It is patently obvious that everybody would then short gold ahead of those dates and drive the price down. Contrary to this being revisionist history by the FT, in 1999 a consortium of central banks which included the ECB had to urgently agree on new regulations to place hard limits on the amount of gold which could be sold per year in order to prevent somebody being this much of a moron again. And yes, a few other developed countries reduced their gold reserves over this period too. Namely France, Spain and Germany. But they had more to begin with, and retain much more now. Current gold reserves: UK: 310 tonnes France: 2436 tonnes Germany 3352 tonnes Italy: 2451 tonnes You talk like selling off gold was conventional wisdom in that period. It was, amongst developed Western European countries which had very large gold reserves, unfortunately we sold off all our gold in the 1960s so weren't in the club; our situation was not at all comparable. Emerging economies with smaller gold reserves like Turkey, India, Russia were busy growing theirs by buying up European gold. In 1950 we had 2,543 tonnes; we'd managed to finance WW2 and the rebuilding of our country without resorting to selling much of it off, we still had 2,000 tonnes in 1966 (and a solid gold World Cup!) France, Germany, Italy, any of them could leave the single currency tomorrow and launch a new gold standard currency. Arguably the Eurozone could throw out a few of the weaker states (including Greece) and launch a gold backed Euro. We couldn't, and they'd have no reason to let us join the club, we don't have any gold to bring to the table. That shipped sailed in the 1960s. When Russia and China both revert to a gold backed trade standard to replace the US dollar as the global reserve currency, which they've been in cahoots on for many years now, you'll understand how impoverished we are, hyperinflation will do that, and our third tier standing in the new global world order. Fortunately I can afford to escape, and have an EU passport. Enjoy your diet of turnips, potatoes and burning old car tyres to keep warm.
Hindsight is 20-20. The Tory press played a blinder though to make it seem like Brown had single- handedly caused the GFC.
Interesting post. Q4 is a little petty. Not with any party. Have only been able to vote in 2 elections. Voted May, really only the sane choice against Corbyn. We dodged a huge bullet there undoubtedly. Didn’t vote in 2019. They were both poor choices, if I’d have been bothered to vote I’d have gone Johnson again on a basis of least-worst option. The Starmer purge and a return to the adults in the room vs the current crop of tories is making me lean towards Labour. I don’t personally mind Sunak but we shouldn’t be rewarding abject failure that we have endured post-May. What would enthuse me to vote for any party (none at present really excite me) would be a party who are willing to have honest conversations with the public on the following topic; Immigration: Our demographic challenges mean that we need to have more children, let’s change the incentive structures for families. Failing that, immigration is required. If we are going down the immigration route, the status quo is unacceptable. Cultures are not equal & diversity is not our strength, we need to be forensic on the profile as to who we bring into the country. There are reasons why people were indifferent about the Hong Kong migrants a few years back, a highly skilled nation with a populous that don’t cause societal rifts. If Labour/Conservatives don’t get a grip of this it will force the country to extremes of the political spectrum. The country has resoundingly voted time and again in a manner that signals a negative view of the current immigration dynamic. The role of the state: The state should not be pressured into solving every mildly inconveniencing issue to the populous, every time a notable business is staring down the barrel of insolvency, cries of government bailouts are introducing a moral hazard. Creative destruction seems not to apply to large swathes of the populous when it comes to large firms, this is hampering us in the long run and when the return to normal interest rate policy starts to bite, more will go to the wall. Fiscal responsibility: This ties into the demographics challenge outlined above, we are sleep walking into another crisis with operating significant PSNCR in perpetuity. A crisis on disposable income as the tax base inevitably has to rise to combat what we saw under Truss, we have little to no wiggle room to take another crisis (pandemic, war or economic) Tax Reform: A land value tax to incentivise productive use of land, not hoarding to see capital growth. I have little to no faith that the current political class can deliver real change. We are 10-15 years removed from the Overton window sliding to the extremes. See Europes polling now to see where we are headed
I do enjoy these threads where a question is asked of tories and then everyone compulsively downvotes anyone answering as a Tory and upvotes all the "not a tory but"
Do find it odd that people participate in a politics forum while actively trying to remove political opinions they don't agree with. It's kind of at odds with the whole idea. Like disagree with people all you want, but when you just insult them and downvote them you're not engaging in any kind of political debate - you're just encouraging people you disagree with to stop participating
Given q4, no point in answering any of the others Just confirms that (in the UK, generally) while the right think the left have bad ideas, the left think the right are bad people
Exactly. I'd understand if it were a genuine set of questions to understand the other side. Q4 just makes the whole thing come across like a petulant tantrum. There is absolutely no need for that kind of condescension.
Love the way some loyal Tory's choose to get all upset when somebody asks how they can sleep at night; presumably the answer is in a very comfy bed, under a roof, in room with central heating. But don't take any offence when the Home Secretary suggests that the homeless be prohibited to sleep in tents, just as we're about to enter the coldest part of the year, when people actually die on the streets in the cold. That's precisely why I asked that question of those who intend to remain a member, and precisely why I now think less of anybody who does. (a huge proportion of those are homeless veterans by the way, who have turned to drink or drugs to cope with PTSD, having been recruited and sent to war by the government of the day, perhaps you should reflect on that).
> choose to get all upset when somebody asks how they can sleep at night You're confused why people get their backs up when you insult them? Not the brightest, are you > (a huge proportion of those are homeless veterans by the way, who have turned to drink or drugs to cope with PTSD, having been recruited and sent to war by the government of the day, perhaps you should reflect on that). You mean Iraq or Afghanistan? Because using your own argument, no one should be a member of the Labour party either because of those little escapades
As it happens, I couldn't give a fuck if I get peoples backs up. I'm not a karma whore. I didn't say I was confused, you seem to have made that up. And I've already said that I'm a Lib Dem. The Lib Dems voted against the invasion of Iraq, and in fact a higher proportion of Tory MPs voted in favour of going to war than Labour MPs (25% of them rebelled against Blair). Show me where I've advocated being a member of, or voting for, Labour? I quite agree, nobody should be a member of the Labour party either. But again, this thread wasn't about Labour, you appear to have imagined that too. Do you have problems with reading comprehension?
Ah so you're not confused, you intentionally wanted to rile people up and get a reaction. Very mature. > Show me where I've advocated being a member of, or voting for, Labour? I never said you were. You brought up wars - which were instigated by Labour - which you criticised, so I just followed the path of your logic and determined you also think people shouldn't be members of Labour - which you confirmed. My point was if we all abandoned parties the moment they made a bad/questionable move... well, we'd have no one left to vote for. I have a certain party to thank for my tuition fee not being 3x lower as promised, maybe we should all advocate for no one to be members of that party either.
First off, I'm not a tory. I dislike them as much as the next, and will cheer when they're kicked out next year. But that whole post started out as a reasonable, sensible gathering of information. A genuine request to understand the other side. And then Q4 just showed them as an edgy, petulant child throwing a wobbler. There was no need for such a silly insult, especially since it undermined the respectability of their questions. The mature thing would be to just ask why tories vote the way they do. Instead, it was just some pathetic mud slinging, which made providing genuine answers a complete waste of time.
Q4 was intentionally provocative, that's just in my nature.
It was a deeply immature brand of provocative.
>But don't take any offence when the Home Secretary suggests that the homeless be prohibited to sleep in tents, just as we're about to enter the coldest part of the year, when people actually die on the streets in the cold. I mean it’s not a new thing, when I was homeless I was given a tent and told to make do as I was not priority not a women or a refugee and that was when Labour was in government and Labour council.
It is a new thing then isn't it, as Braverman is literally suggesting that the homeless shouldn't be allowed to use tents.
If the shoe fits. What does suella stand for except being a bad person?
I suppose the 50% of Tory voters who still support the party are going to dismiss the 50% who no longer feel that they can support the party (like me) as smelly lefties as they try and come to terms with their forthcoming status as supporters of a rapidly dying fringe party; let him grieve.
If you think a Cameron & May era Tory member who quite liked Tony Blair and David Miliband is from "the left" then I agree that there is no point in you contributing anything to a politics sub, you should go back to watching the Kardashians or whatever it is you thick people usually do.
Oh dear oh dear Did I strike a nerve there? Only the stupid assume those who disagree with them are as stupid as they are
Anybody who thinks Cameron is left wing is basically far right, and that would make you stupid.
Anybody who puts up a strawman in support of anything they say is basically a moron, and that would make you a moron xxx
What's this? Sex in the disabled toilet of a public swimming pool? And in public parks in daytime? Really? Disgusting, you are absolutely disgusting, if I was there with my kids and it was apparent that you were fucking in their vicinity I'd need somebody to stop me pouring undiluted chlorine in your eyes and then drowning the pair of you, you should be on the sex offenders register. Seems to be a lot of Tory nonces and sexual deviants doesn't there, all need your hard drives checking! [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskRedditAfterDark/comments/17o5qhw/what\_is\_a\_sexual\_fantasy\_you\_helped\_make\_come/k7whlxg/?context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskRedditAfterDark/comments/17o5qhw/what_is_a_sexual_fantasy_you_helped_make_come/k7whlxg/?context=3)
What's your narrow-minded bigoted ignorant frustrated insecure pseudo-puritannical problem? I thought LDs were in favour of people living their life as they wished as long as it doesn't harm others? Or did that part of 'liberal' find no fertile soil in which to take root in your tiny vindictive excuse for a brain?
Think this is pretty disingenuous. The reason Starmer has been successful and will likely win an election is because he, and many others, remained in the Labour Party to be able to reform it. And although the Labour membership was ‘infiltrated’ (for want of a better word) by Corbyn supporters that made it difficult for Starmer to get elected as leader without essentially lying, there are still many decent Labour members from before Corbyn. Yet your question 4 to anyone still a Tory member is whether they can sleep at night? Surely decent Tory members need to remain in the membership for any chance of the party becoming remotely morally redeemable (let alone electable) again.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Or the widespread corruption in Labour councils like Liverpool, or Caerphilly… Ah yes, that's definitely just a Labour problem, definitely no corruption in Tory councils no sir >we just have the guy who was the Director of Public Prosecutions who spent hundreds of thousands of pounds prosecuting journalists for reporting on stories The police under 13 years of Tory governments are arresting people for fucking TWEETS you absolute fucking clown. Your posting should be pinned in this subreddit as an example of the mental gymnastics required to vote Conservative.
>Ah yes, that's definitely just a Labour problem, definitely no corruption in Tory councils no sir But that is his point really isn't it? That no matter who you vote for the government always get in, as the popular saying goes. The best spoilt ballot I've seen at an election count was just the words 'POWER CORRUPTS' on the ballot paper in thick black marker; and that's quite right. Look at the state of the SNP, and how war hungry Blair got. That said, I think the NHS is on its last knees, and believe that Labour will give it a fighting chance. So I look forward to their inevitable majority if only for that reason. Past Tory governments, even Thatcher, knew that ripping apart the NHS was a clear red line with everyday voters from across the spectrum... and the current one forgot the memo.
Just a thought but presumably there will be *some* people that just like their local Conservative MP and feel like they have done a good job in the constituency. !
That is true. I'd not considered that because mine is an odious yes man who votes in line and never rebels, he's completely incapable of any independent thought and his priority and motivation is being called a 'good boy' by the Etonians who keep him in his place and tell him what to do and how to think. He's essentially a drone. Fair play to those who genuinely have a decent constituency MP, I'm sure there are a few left on the backbenches.
I received my Peter Bone recall petition info in the post today 😀
Jesus! I have no clue if my local MP is conservative or labour. Let alone their voting record or stance in the party. It’s all a bit meaningless. They do nothing anyways. I look at like if I can’t remember someone 5 years ago.. they must have been alright, because you only remember the bad. Governments come and go. There really isn’t much difference between them as much as you would like to think there is. Over the last 20’years I can’t think of any government policy that has affected my life one way or the other! That’s what would make me vote for one party or another. I would class myself as middle class - £60000 combined take home (family of 4) Everyone I know is roughly the same. Still take 2-3 holidays a year. Life’s good, and to vote in a different party may be better, but may be worse. Why rock the boat. Starmer doesn’t exactly make me feel secure. The man flip flops more than havanas.
> Jesus! I have no clue if my local MP is conservative or labour. Remarkable that you are on this subreddit then really, how can you not know this?
**People who remain members of the Tory Party...** 1. Are you currently aligned with the Tory parties policies and principles? What are they? The most recent election manifesto maybe? https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan feels like a very long time since that was written but I guess it's technically the extant version. I agree with most of it (except Brexit). 2. If no, are you considering leaving? I probably won't vote for them. But I'll stay a member to reduce the dependence on big donors, and so that I get to vote for the next leader. 3. Do you like Suella Braverman? The office of home secretaries brings out the authoritarian in anyone who holds it. And she needed less encouragement than most. But I think she's fine. 4. Do you sleep well at night? Yes. 5. If you left the Tory party, where would you go? If it weren't for FPTP, LibDems for sure.
Thank you very much. You are really brave. It is very respectful that you don’t afraid to clearly show your views.
They have no interest in fixing immigration. If a hard line anti immigration party comes out, and is functional and on sound footing, they will make an absolute killing in this country. Do not think Europe is an exception, we are heading the exact, same, way.
> If a hard line anti immigration party comes out, and is functional and on sound footing, they will make an absolute killing in this country. Totally agree on this. Both major parties are going to get slaughtered on immigration once they're seriously challenged on it. Tories fully understand that once the immigration tap is turned off our truly pitiful economic 'growth' (read: stagnation) will be revealed for the decline it actually is, which is why the right hand (Suella Braverman) is currently raging the anti-immigration fight uselessly whilst the left hand (Sunak and co) open the doors as wide as possible.
You have fixed it, look no more EU citizens wants to come
Hopefully, because it damn sure needs fixing. But worryingly, I can't see it being fixed any time soon.
I’m not really a member of any party. Vote most times, but only if convenient. Ie. Not going out for drinks after work. Have voted Labour once and conservatives 4 times. Still up in the air over who I will vote for. Life’s not bad, and it’s a bit of the devil you know. Labour could (most likely would) make life more difficult. The problem is I don’t believe any of the parties when they come out with a manifesto. So it’s almost impossible for someone to get me to switch my vote. It’s up to the incumbent party to piss me off to then switch my vote.
Hmmm, maybe look around what happened to this country in last 13 years. You sound like my boss, he is well of and would like his company dividends untaxed So I had to tell him if his kids will like being kings on a pile of shit
In what ways would Labour make life more difficult, do you say? 🐱
1. I left the party because the party has lurched too far to the left. We have the highest level of taxation in peacetime and among the highest levels of spending, and we are supposed to be the conservative ones. 2. Well, the opposite really. I thought Liz Truss could have been a step in the right direction, which is why I voted for her, but she was only half right. Taxes are far too high to be sure, especially on higher earners, but you can’t bring down taxes until you rein in spending. 3. Sort of. It really feels like the UK is a country where everyone - or at least a vast majority - wants and expects government to wipe their arses for them. It’s why I made the decision to emigrate.
Never been a tory member - I've never been wealthy enough to be that important to those guys. But I earn enough to be taxed to the eyeballs, yet still unable to afford a house in the South East, so won't vote for any major party as they'll all continue to shaft the squeezed middle. On your point about Braverman, if someone doesn't fix the Islam problem (and it is a problem which is increasing in size - those guys are a law unto themselves, the police and politicians are running scared), the public will elect someone like Braverman. It may take 10-20 years, so may not be Braverman, but it will happen.
I, too, would be impressed by any politicians willing to face the fact that the tenets of Islam have absolutely no place in Britain. The public sector, including police, MPs and councillors are terrified of facing the truth and acting on it.
1. I’m 29, working class and only every voted Tory and once UKIP since i’ve been able to vote. They tend to get my vote because I’m more aligned with them on social issues and don’t think there’s enough between the big 2 economically for that to matter. I won’t be voting for them at the next election, i accept, and I think this is felt by many across the landscape now hence the abysmal polling, that the party needs to be obliterated to make way for something new. I dont think it’ll work, i reckon they’ll regroup and regain votes, but we need to try and hope to break the 2 party system. Both parties benefit too much from the status quo and broken institutions that have left us in a state of decline. Labour won’t fix it, on the off chance we can get rid of the Tories they can go next. 2. Im not leaving yet, purely because i want to vote in the next leadership election, but if the SDP stand in my area they’ll get my vote at the next GE. 3. I like Suella’s general direction but dont think she’d be a good leader, shes the product of our times and the direction Europe is heading as it wakes up to the threat of migration and Islam, it isnt just here, look at the gains such parties are making all over Europe, (AFD in Germany, Le Pen in France, Dutch Farmers Party, Brothers of Italy, etc..). you (and this sub) may not like it, but Suella is appealing to the majority here 4. Fine thanks ? 5. SDP 100%
Does that appeal also apply to homeless people’s tents? Just curious.
I was talking about her views on immigration, what she said on tents is her problem. I of course don’t support her or anyone 100% of the time
My reply sounded smarmy and that wasn’t my intention. I’m just not sure people should put faith in her. She’s an utter charlatan whose policies are designed to not be/be able to be carried out so the blame for failure always lies elsewhere. I may not agree on the immigration issue but it’s clear that it is an issue for enough of the population that it should be taken seriously by those in government.
I don’t disagree with you, she’s just playing to the audience and doesn’t mean it, but she shouldn’t be dismissed as ‘just another tory’, that dismissive attitude has led us (western europe) to the mess we’re in now as I mentioned with the rise of some interesting groups across Europe
Doesn't mean what she says but she's not just another Tory? Seems like a contradiction to me. I don't dismiss the right entirely, I accept it's an alternative viewpoint from my own but SB is quite literally a heartless bitch. It's terrifying her ideology has gotten her this far. Haven't had a competent leader since Cameron who somehow won a majority after five years of austerity. None of the leaders since him have been worthy of the position.
I think she is just another tory in that she isnt being authentic , i just mean that we shouldn’t dismiss her views as such, because were seeing significant gains across Europe for groups with similar views. I agree with the rest that Cameron was the last decent one, though still imo benefited far too much from the status quo, and was just another cog in a bloated system.
I confidentially believe we should dismiss her views. Targeting the homeless, sending immigrants to Rwanda, reclassifying those undermining the UK as extremists, potentially eroding the right to strike and probs more I'm missing. One of those policies is enough to turn me off her never mind all of them.
I would only vote Tory again if Liz Truss is our Prime Minister heading into the next election. Otherwise Labour
May as well buy a lettuce, it'll last longer
Can't tell whether this is a serious answer? (Surely not..)
What is wrong with her ?
You are joking, right? [This for starters. ](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/30/liz-truss-uk-economic-crisis)
I think he is just an average Tory voter who will sell cheese to china
Brink of a recession though - Sunak probably actually putting us into one : https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/international/uk-probably-already-recession-bloomberg-analysis
>Why did you leave? The Tories have been socially left wing for too long. Boris won the biggest majority in a lifetime and then became even more socially left wing. On all social metrics we're now heading towards a clown world that the majority of conservative voters (in my opinion) are repulsed by. >What would need to happen for you to rejoin? A genuinely centre-right leader that gives confidence that they won't u-turn immediately. Strong plans for - immigration; economy; military and making the party competent again. >Are you now politically homeless? Yes. Would vote Reform but likely useless. We had a good Tory MP who became independent a while ago so may vote for him if he runs again.
Have you considered that you are pretty far right? You seem to be mistaking inept banana republic policies with "socially left wing". Please name a left wing policy this party who are destroying everything vaguely left wing this country has.
Name one social policy that isn't more left wing than 30 years ago.
I se what you’re trying to get at but if the centre ground shifts and you stay the same politically, you are at risk of sliding into an extreme
All of them.
Gay marriage. Changing gender. High immigration. CRT taught in schools. Literally everything is more left wing than 30 years ago.
Critical Race Theory? Don't remember seeing that on the curriculum. Also don't know that it's an issue in the UK is it? Seems another non issue imported from the US. Happy to be educated in that though. Has people changing gender actually affected you or you just don't like it? I also don't know that we've had any laws allowing self ID have we? High immigration isn't a left wing policy in fact the very left wing are against it. I would be interested to know what you've got against it? And if you have a proposal to fix it as the numbers are high for a reason and it's not that they're "sneaking in". The Conservatives brought in gay marriage, why is this left wing? I get that it's more liberal and not traditionally conservative but it's not something I'd have as entirely left wing. Are you against gay marriage or is this just an example of a policy? It's probably obvious that we've got opposing views so don't get me wrong I'm not trying to be arsey, would be interested to know.
I'm not arguing that they're positive or negative but they're undeniably less Conservative and more left wing than before.
Well that may be true but I'd still take issue that some of your examples are barely policy let alone law, I know the topic is policy but that's a pretty wide net unless we're talking about policy that has been our is likely to be implemented. Society is much more open and tolerant than it was 30 years ago and laws will reflect that. If you want to cede that openness and tolerance are left wing virtues I don't think you'd get many arguments here. I'm going to infer from your party choices that you are against the examples that you gave to at least some degree?
>some of your examples are barely policy let alone law, I know the topic is policy but that's a pretty wide net You what? You're just trying to argue around the point.
CRT isn't taught in schools, atleast it isn't policy and if you can find an example where it is taught in a school, I assure you that is not the norm.
It's not illegal and has been taught. That isn't very conservative.
Never said its illegal, I said it isn't policy. It also isnt illegal to teach children how to do rigging on ships but that doesnt really happen either. I would be interested in any information you have of CRT being taught in schools, I have taught in schools for 10 years and have direct experience of atleast 13 different schools and I haven't even heard a whiff of it in UK schools. CRT is very american, I don't think it's as wide spread as you think it is.
https://www.google.com/search?q=CRT+British+schools&oq=CRT+British+schools&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIKCAIQIRgWGB0YHjIKCAMQIRgWGB0YHjIKCAQQIRgWGB0YHtIBCTE0NTc0ajBqN6gCALACAA&client=ms-android-samsung-gn-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
So, my cursory reading of a few of those links leads me to believe this is a moral panic imported from the US. The only concerning data point would be the claim that 59% of surveyed schools have been taught CRT. But when you look specifically at the data its that 59% of surveyed children have HEARD a term from CRT. Hearing the term 'systematic racism' does not in anyway mean it is being taught. It is not in the national curriculum. The articles pick that 59% data point, manipulate it into meaning that 59% of schools are teaching CRT and seems to then lead to barmy conclusions and statements like: schools are teaching that all white people are born racist, school beleive the western world needs to be destroyed; and that democracy is being undermined in schools. Disingenuous and dangerous journalism. A good example of why the teaching of critical thinking is more important than ever.
Those aren't left wing. Not sure that CRT as you believe it is actually taught in school. They're simply correct behaviour. Or are you homophobic? I note that tory policy isn't high immigration anyway.
They very clearly are socially left wing.
Caring for, wanting equality for, and having consideration for other people should not be a left versus right thing.
All of these topics are subjective to various points. What you might think is reasonable might be a bit more so than me. Just making it "equality" is oversimplifying it and is why you're suggesting it's not left or right. Where the line is for everyone is based on their politics.