In the interest of balance name me one thing one positive of this tory govt.

This is a bit of a silly thread. Whilst the tories have been disastrous for the common folk, they have passed some legislation that has been good for the country. As has been mentioned same sex marriages, the aid given to ukraine the eviction act ( I think the data protection act was an eu directive though, and we had to comply to move data across eu borders). Furlough was a great idea, if poorly implemented. Passing covid vaccinations for public use and procuring them early would have saved some lives.

I accept that lots of these regulations and political decisions were done for the wrong reasons and sometimes borderline illeagal reasons, for example furlough, but to suggets in 12 years the tories haven't passed a single piece of legislation that was worthwhile is just not true.

It is true that the good doesn't come close to outweighing the bad.
 
They’ve made most young people absolutely hate them and their ideology. It’s the younger generation who might finally change Britain for the better.
 
Fair point regarding Ukraine.

Vaccination roll out was fairly efficient compared to other European countries. Lots of other mistakes made during Covid though.

Otherwise, it's pretty damning when you have to start listing U-turns as positives. Reversing of Truss's tax cuts was humiliating, a problem of their own creation, and the overall episode was harmful to the country. U-turns are humiliating, but swallowing the humiliation was the right thing to do, and they did it.
 
Nero said:
They’ve made most young people absolutely hate them and their ideology. It’s the younger generation who might finally change Britain for the better.
Click to expand...

I was a first time voted in '97 and it felt like we were that generation then. I think these things just go in cycles.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I was a first time voted in '97 and it felt like we were that generation then. I think these things just go in cycles.
Click to expand...
Thats an interesting point. I may look at the % of over 65's that vote tory today compared to in the past. It would be nice to see that diminish over time.
 
dooderooni said:
They've given a voice to right-wingers. Not a positive on the face of it, but it makes them easier to spot.
Click to expand...

Genuine question though, do you believe a right wing voter is the same right wing voter as say 2002?

I seriously don't think you have to have such radical views these days to be classed as right wing.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I was a first time voted in '97 and it felt like we were that generation then. I think these things just go in cycles.
Click to expand...
That’s a very good point. Perhaps the youth culture of today is a little bit more connected with the mass use of TikTok and things. Anti-Tory views are reaching more and more 16 - 24 year olds. Not just the ones who are politically interested. Also today there is much more emphasis on liberal thinking given the influence of LGBT, Me Too and others.
 
Maybe, but I'd expect an evolution rather than revolution.

Ageing does seem to include a drift towards the Tories (not happened to me yet!).
I think it because you have nothing worth taxing when you're young, so who cares if taxes are high? The more people earn, the more protective of it they become.
 
They removed agent fees from rental agreements and have introduced a bill to end no fault evictions. This goes way beyond anything labour did in its time in power. They also crashed the economy to give some hope to first time buyers. They don't get a lot of praise for their help for renters. Probably because this board is filled with boomer landlords who like their unearned income. :D
 
newusername said:
I would love to know why Corbyn agreed to it. It was a minority government, about to crash out of the EU & as we now know then be hit by a bungled handling of the pandemic.

I guess we'll have to wait for the diaries to find out for sure but I can only think that there were sufficient Labour MPs that had indicated they would disobey any whip and vote for it to give it 2/3s of the vote, so Corbyn had the option of losing that vote & leading a very publicly divided party into an election 'he was running scared of' or pretending he was up for the fight & leading a less publicly divided party into it.
Click to expand...
This is one of the fallacies about the last election that has persisted for some reason. Corbyn literally had no choice.

The Tories didn’t call the 2019 election under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act (which would have required a 2/3rds majority). They simply introduced a new Bill disapplying it and calling a one-off general election. That Bill only required a simple majority in Parliament, just like any other legislation.

The Tories were whipped to vote for it, the SNP had already said they would vote in favour and then, crucially, the Lib Dems also said they supported it, giving Johnson a majority in favour. That’s the same LDs who said they would do anything to stop Brexit, by the way, who ended up facilitating the hardest of Brexits because they thought they might win a few seats in London.

By the time the Shadow Cabinet met to discuss their position, it was already clear that a general election was going to happen. Corbyn had the choice of either supporting it, or whipping his MPs to vote against and then being portrayed as being dragged kicking and screaming to the electorate.

No choice at all.
 
Furlough scheme. Without that if you thought the country was in a poor state now, without it, it would resemble either a post apocalyptic wasteland or a UBI dystopia.
Eat out to help out helped save the jobs of many many people in the hospitality industry and the supply chain although poorly implemented. It also contrary to popular belief had nothing to do with the spread of COVID.
 
newusername said:
I would love to know why Corbyn agreed to it. It was a minority government, about to crash out of the EU & as we now know then be hit by a bungled handling of the pandemic.

I guess we'll have to wait for the diaries to find out for sure but I can only think that there were sufficient Labour MPs that had indicated they would disobey any whip and vote for it to give it 2/3s of the vote, so Corbyn had the option of losing that vote & leading a very publicly divided party into an election 'he was running scared of' or pretending he was up for the fight & leading a less publicly divided party into it.
Click to expand...
Corbyn was pro Brexit though as he has been his entire political career so he was never really a remainer.
 
‘

In the interest of balance name me one thing one positive of this tory govt.’​


I‘m positive they’re all corrupt, self interested egotists. But if I’ve miss interpreted the question then my answer is …………. I’ll have to get back to you on that.
 
Laughing said:
This is a bit of a silly thread. Whilst the tories have been disastrous for the common folk, they have passed some legislation that has been good for the country. As has been mentioned same sex marriages, the aid given to ukraine the eviction act ( I think the data protection act was an eu directive though, and we had to comply to move data across eu borders). Furlough was a great idea, if poorly implemented. Passing covid vaccinations for public use and procuring them early would have saved some lives.

I accept that lots of these regulations and political decisions were done for the wrong reasons and sometimes borderline illeagal reasons, for example furlough, but to suggets in 12 years the tories haven't passed a single piece of legislation that was worthwhile is just not true.

It is true that the good doesn't come close to outweighing the bad.
Click to expand...
I believe “Furlough” was John McDonalds idea.
 
Yep, I'm not crediting them with the furlough scheme - nearly every "advanced" country in the world had a similar scheme in place and I'm pretty sure we weren't the first. Think Germany got theirs in before us.

There is next to no chance that a government of the UK of any colour would have simply sat back and done absolutely nothing to assist people financially whilst simultaneously telling them they can't work.

EDIT: In fact the sceptics amongst us (myself included) actually suggested at the time the gvt deliberate delayed the introduction to a) save money and b) gain more credit when it was finally rolled out. The "will they, won't they" conundrum if you will.
 
Muttley said:
Have you got any easier questions?

Doing the right thing by Ukraine I suppose.
Click to expand...
Ukraine was a "save Big Dog" distraction. Not sure why we are donating more generously than other nations mind. I get the USA shower them with money to fight a proxy war against Russia.
Why are we giving more than other comparable countries. That is of course assumes that the govt are actually telling us the truth, which would be a collectors item.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top