Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Or is it like squeezing blood from a turnip?
Off the top of my head.
Was in the Tory *contract for equality* (think that was the silly name) before the election.
Gay marriage is good, but was a Labour policy first anyway.
The fudge that we've got, that isn't anywhere near marriage equality and which still discriminates against trans* people, is a bit of a mess.
but just saying *it was a Labour policy first* is a) playground stuff and b) doesn't stop you agreeing with it.
and if it is discriminatory, why did Labour vote for it?
One would hope that a Labour government would tidy up the legislation - it's much more likely to happen under one of their administrations than a Tory one.
as you say, small steps, but good nonetheless.
I wonder what other Conservative policies you secretly agree with.
I can't remember every government policy off the top of my head - even the ones carried through the commons by Labour and LibDem votes.
but not the law as it's been introduced.
so you do. Good to see.
If only he had as many poor mates as he did gay ones, he might have better policies to protect their interests as well.
The major steps forward in LGBT rights have virtually all come under Labour governments:
Sexual Offences Act 1967
Sexual Offences Act 2000
Adoption and Children Act 2002
Sexual Offences Act 2003
Civil Partnership Act 2004
Gender Recognition Act 2004
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008
Equality Act 2010
Add to that changes to military service legislation in 2000 and the repeal of Section 28 in 2003.
then I'll put an X against the ones I agree with.
Tuition fees, basically just a graduate tax for those who have benefitted from there degrees. If it turns out it was just a phase one and they lower the repayment threshold then I would think it is bad, as it stands I think it is very fair
Think it will slowly dawn on them that most people will pay back less and they will recoup less money, think I read something that even a teachers career path the debt would be written off before repayment so effective interest is nothing, and you'd think teaching is a fairly decent career. Hope it isn't a policy meant to just ease in a future worse one
Completed fucked up, more like.
Yeah I'm basically for people who earn more paying more in any capcity
rather than using an overly complicated system that's not even brought any extra money into the university sector, while leading to the gutting of many humanities/social sciences departments?
The humanities/social science reduction in funding is a different issue really. Would prefer it to be generated through income tax but I guess there is the constraint of popular opinion, as a stealth income tax it seems ok
Also, a number of poor people I know seem to think 'I can't afford university; I can't afford it and I won't pay off the fees,' which I find utterly maddening.
1) If your parents aren't well-off you get a grant, and the poorer they are, the more grant you receive. And if your household income is under £25,000 you also get a bursary each year (mine is £2000).
2) Once you have a degree, you're likely to be earning more than someone without one, dumbass. That's the basically the point of university.
3) The fee is just a very small tax relative to your income, which gets written off after earning more than £21,000 for 30 years. You don't pay any of it off until you earn over £21,000, which is £90 annually. You don't even have to pay any of it. Under the old system, the starting threshold is £15,000 and the annual fee is more. Annually you're also £500 worse off on average than someone under the new system within the first 10 years of paying them back. The only downside with the new system is you're paying it back longer but annually it's such a small amount it won't impact your life.
Though tbh I find most of the people saying "poor people can't afford uni" are middle middle liberal types. For most people that I know from backgrounds in which people don't usually attend uni, the cost is usually the last thing on their mind. The middle classes are much, much more obsessed with how much stuff costs than working class people are.
But yeah- if money is all that matters, most people who go to uni can train as a teacher afterwards and be earning 21k straight away. University is very accessible and beneficial to people from less advantaged backgrounds, compared to most things in life (although obviously not accessible enough). Often 'poor people' are just used as a way for middle class people to argue against tuition fees.
Obviously I believe in the basic principle that ALL education should be free. But at the same time, I have limited sympathy for people complaining about the tuition fee increase, as it essentially means that middle class people will earn slightly less money. Which I don't really care about.
I'm self-funding my way through my degree and the biggest obstacle I have is that the total I get in maintenance loans and grants (about £6500 a year) isn't enough to live on.
I'd rather Miliband's proposed `graduate tax`. Not just because it'd help those on low incomes - it actually poses a solution to the unfolding problem that (I think by 2020) most student loans given out won't ever be paid off.
Inefficient system - a progressive graduate tax makes more sense as a solution.
How is it really any different from a graduate tax?
Would surely depend on what level the tax is set at. If this system leaves the system out of pocket it is not because of the fees loan system it is because they did the calculations wrong, would be the same as setting the tax too low.
a certain level of ministerial competence.
Getting maths wrong is a strong suit of this coalition (cf. Royal Mail sale but Vince Cable's got to cop a fair share (LOL!!!!!!!!!) of the flak there).
a) everyone who goes to university pays it (not the case at the moment esp. those with rich parents or very poor parents)
b) students have no up front costs upon going to university
c) it is paid over the duration of a graduate's working career
d) the monthly repayments are a lot smaller for all
e) it would ensure that a higher % of the cost of HE is recouped, which is the main problem here which needs addressing.
Obviously the bureaucracy of it is slightly eye-watering, but this government doesn't seem to mind a bit of that what with universal credit and welfare caps and all that.
It's a solution to a problem - it isn't a punitive tax.
Agree everyone who has ever gone to uni should pay if they earn enough (possibly adjusting to take into account existing payments made), don't think they currently pay anything up front. Whole working career, not sure think there should be a point where still paying for uni seems unfair at least when it is a loan linked to feed there is some link to what you are paying for, current system monthly repayments seem very manageable at any income level lower monthly payments would make it take longer to recoup
What do you prefer?
that benefited some people i know and seem decent
Legalizing gay marriage
probably like 90%? Not very keen on the legal aid reforms mind.
the third runway either.
before a third at Heathrow though.
and shut down city airport. That's what will happen eventually anyway.
if Boris lived on an island.
Boris island would have been good if they'd built it as a massive aircraft carrier, then we could move it to different bits of the country if we wanted to.
While I'm not personally a supporter of Heathrow expansion, reaching a verdict on one of the proposals needs to be done sooner rather than later. It seems incredible that making a decision on it can just be shelved for 5 (FIVE) years.
and Lib Dem Tree huggers agreeing, but the economics being a mess. Very expedient to make it someone elses problem.
Too many marginals close to the three main airports.
It's one of those issues where the Tory grandees are happy for a Labour government to take a decision that they agree with.
that Labour sorts it out, and then we use it as a stick to beat Labour with in those marginals. Nope that isn't the case at all. Nope.
might have spooked even more people than would be gained by allowing Labour to make the necessary decision.
Boris may not be as public a figure by 2020.
IDS's flagship policy of merging various welfare benefits one isn't bad in principle, although the half cocked way he's done it and all of the cuts he's inflicted as part of doing so make it impossible to support.
Actually achieving it on the other hand...
that was alright
and that plenty of Tory MP's voted for it.
that the Tories implemented.
Wouldn't have happened if not for coalition. Worth remembering.
it becomes a Tory policy, which is the whole point, doesn't matter if it has been nicked from someone else.
I you can;t nick a policy, then literally none of the big three have any.
As are they all.
I think it's fair enough to make the distinction, myself, but can't be arsed to argue about it. You're right in that parties nick policies from each other. Politics ennit.
I hate it when we fight.x
you should all think that is great.
So is that another one you agree with?
The Money Advice Service does the same as the pre-existing CFEB. It's just a rebranding as a result of the scrapping of the FSA.
I think they got a bit more budget too, but I *might* be worng about that.
as the FSA responsibilities have been spun out to so many different agencies that economies of scale and co-ordination benefits have been lost.
(the only person I want to be snarky to is Marckee).
Been really good for my dad's small business.
Cut in IHT when giving 10% of estate to charity (hasn't really worked though)
0.7% of GDP spent on aid attainment.
Wasn't implemented long enough to know for sure whether or not it was working.
as I recall it was going to leave a lot of poorest people worse off........
of recalibrating the benefits system so instead of receiving a load of different benefit payments you receive one, which is pegged to the median wage via the household benefit cap. It should make every much more efficient and reduce instances of missed payments. This has to be seen as IN PRINCIPLE and within the context of a certain amount of welfare savings needing to be made. I can stomach this government making efficiency savings to trim the welfare bill. That's common sense. It's your spare room subsidies, your removal of legal aids and your removal of crisis loans etc. which are barbaric (and, yes, that is the word I want to use).
The benefit cap also has the housing cap within it.
Basically it means benefits relating to housing are no longer linked to housing costs, benefits related to incapacity are no longer linked to capacity and benefits related to family size are no longer linked to family size.
Also there is the whole problem of the government not sending housing payments direct to the landlords but forcing tennants (maybe of whom are in poverty) to finance another needless laywer of beaurcravcy themselves.
There is also the problem of a single recipient per household (undoing so much of the good that paying child benefit to the mother led to). Also monthly - forcing people who have to chose between heating and eating to budget for a whole month when living hand to mouth.
Its all trying to be social engineering so that IDS can get inside benefit claimants heads and make them 'better' people. So instead of trying to make a complex system simpler its taken complex balances that people in poverty need to make and just brutally smashed it apart.
Meanwhile pension - the real welfare bomb - are left untouched.
Too many caps.
Agree with you that the system needs to have rising housing costs more robustly built into it - but I see no problem with the payment going directly to the recipient as opposed to the landlord just to save an individual a piece of bureaucracy. Unless they have severe health issues which make such decisions difficult, of course. Don't also see a problem with monthly payments - the issue there is that certain people's incomes are too low, which is a problem which should, in theory, sit outside of Universal Credit.
I think UC is a principle worth chasing but, like colinzealuk upthread has mentioned, it's hard to support fully the way it's been implemented. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation's report last year pointed out some harsh flaws with it owing to the various hideous rearrangements of some benefits which sit inside it. Many families who were previously on working tax credits are now earning less because the government's changed the rules about hours worked and money able to be reclaimed which has been strangely punished under UC. And of course the monstrous changes made to incapacity benefit in the first place (whereby terminal cancer patients were told to return to work etc. etc.)
Long way to go, but ultimately I think UC is something which should be built. Although the terms this government has opposed within it seem, at times, punitive to the point of extreme cruelty.
Your final point is, of course, correct, but no Tory chancellor is ever going to seek to redress any deficit by gaining extra contributions from wealthy pensioners. My Dad's a reasonably comfortable pensioner and he'd happily do without his bus pass, TV licence, winter fuel allowance and be subject to a higher rate of tax for instance.
Of course the real solution we all want to see is to raise the personal allowance to something meaningful (like £15k) and introduce something resembling a living wage and there'd be a reduced need for housing benefits and working subsidies etc. But that's not going to happen.
monthly payments and payment going directly to the recipient as opposed to the landlord.
Well that is honest of you. And I am not surprised considering how you talk about the subject matter.
You may not see a problem with a monthly payments. But imagine your salary got paid to you once every two months - or once every four months?
Now imagine you're in poverty, perhaps with debt, perhaps unused to budgeting this way. Still see no problems?
The direct payment to tenants as opposed to Landlords is 100%, absolutely the worst policy part of Universal Credit ever.
I get that you see nothing wrong with direct payments to the claimants and not the landlord. But do you know who disagrees profoundly? Landlords.
In London the number of landlords polled who would take a DSS/LHA and now UC tenant without a direct rent payment to them was less than 1%. Making the whole system unworkable.
Your lack of knowledge about how this all actually works is not rare. Your interest in the policy is.
Personally I find the combination of two to be worrying.
(Figured the UKIP and BNP 0%'s went without saying)
I'd vote for that, so I'm about 1% UKIP.
This government, even with the supposed brake of the LibDems has been far more right-wing and extreme than the Tory manifesto.
Yeah, it says it there, right on the website - good spot!
Doesn't really matter though cause I still got zero.
Haven't read the manifesto recently. But my hunch is that it's largely the same but with the environmental and Big Society stuff largely ignored and with added weird UKIP-appeasing messaging and stuff like `immgrant go home` vans and EU referendums.
Nothing about the sale of the Post Office
Nothing about the benefit cap
Nothing about raising tuition fees
Nothing about scrapping EMA
Lots of their manifesto policies talked of 'reviews', but it turned out that the policy was pretty much pre-determined and more extreme than would have got them elected (eg changes to legal aid, soft touch on the banking sector)
I think a lot of it's about rhetoric too - I can't remember a government that so demonised sectors of society, and the most vulnerable at that - those least likely to be able to defend themselves. They wouldn't have been elected using the language they seem to use every day now.
It's not a good look, bro.
and that is the next plan?
they got you a technicality and now Tories are best
Marckee got marckee'd, that belongs to everyone.
Not quite sure what you mean about your point regarding rhetoric. Aside from Osborne's misguided skivers/strivers false dichotomy I don't recall them overtly `demonising` anyone. Unless I've missed your point...
just did that and got exactly 50/50 lib dems & greens
would have been interesting if the first question had been voting intention, before going into the policy stuff - as it stands, you can't tell whether the people using the site are distinctly more left wing than normal or whether actually the British public do/did support more left wing policies than they realise.
all their policies are really silly
now they are i can't imagine not hating them.
Stop pretending it's ok to not hate tories, guys.
definitely not this one https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/456463874447790082
You bunch of dafties
Fair chance you may ultimately be right if it's the former...
Riddle me this Geoff. Why is it needed?
Saying that having one benefit in stead of 6, 7 or 8 is basically not as good as having one is like saying you support Britain having the Euro because it'll be easier going abroad.
The different benefits are for different things. They are linked to different needs.
I can't understand why someone here would be making the argument that these benefits need to be consolidated save for the a crippling wave of honesty, in which they blurt out at a dinner party or down the Hare and Lancet, "There are just so many benefits I barely understand them and that makes pontificating about the proles everso tideous. Why not have a single benefit and then I can adopt an even greater air of bullshititude when speaking about povos and my life becomes a great deal easier?"
and, ergo, less expensive is A Good Thing, is it not? And in theory it should be a good thing for all (benefit claimants or not).
That last paragraph is offensive bollocks. Many of my friends are poor and claim a range of benefits, and many of them have been adversely affected by this government's changes. How fucking dare you attribute that sentiment to me.
Because whatever limited understand you might have of what you're talking about you are probably also aware universal credit is costing more money than it is saving.
It's the great big housing and benefit caps (separate from universal credit) and linking benefits to CPI that will lead to big savings.
but I've heard it'll lead to a reduced cost per claim but, more tellingly, it'll reduce losses caused by fraud and administrative error. The principle has the support of all 3 parties. Not very often that happens.
Of course the short term costs of initiating the project have gone a bit awry. IDS's ministerial competence has been largely questioned in this. It's expensive but it makes sense to me.
If, of course, the figures change and it becomes an unattainable mess then I'll change my stance. I've already mentioned my misgivings about the treatment of individual benefits within it.
Well it's good to save money where possible but it seems like it's fueled by short sighted ideology plastered on tabloids. Populism at its worst.
IMO universal credit is actually designed to be more obtuse to discourage people from using it. I reckon tailoring benefits to individual needs is far more user friendly but they don't want it to be user friendly, because they hate people 
I thought a key principle of it was the move to a more user-friendly online system... whether or not that takes into account the various needs of people who claim complex benefits is up for debate but I don't think obfuscation is a motivation. The IFS [not got time to dig out the citation] was estimating that up to half of all claimants could be better off under UC. So I don't know if either of those are inherently true...
But those who've had JSA know they're are treated as intruders who should be chuck out of the job centre as soon as the bureaucracy can manage
Interrogative 'appointments', proof of seeking work, referrals to useless training sessions, it's all about "How can we get you to fuck off?" Same in many ways (worse even) with DLA. Means-testing has eroded universality in other benefits too, presumably to deter claims. If there's 1 benefit, it's easier to chase them off the system entirely.
is to get people to fuck off easier?
Plenty better ways of doing that than introducing an expensive and maddeningly complicated Universal Credit system :D
Because I think that they do genuinely want to help in a lot of ways.
But they definitely also want a lot of people on benefits to fuck off, while still appearing a reasonable democratic government that actually represents its people - so then their options are restricted, let alone the fact they don't have a majority. So they just make it easier for a bureaucratic system to do it.
The ultimate aim seems to be a free market without a benefit system motivating the poor out of poverty, which is basically a Victorian system.
"I've heard it'll lead to a reduced cost per claim but, more tellingly, it'll reduce losses caused by fraud and administrative error"
"a key principle of it was the move to a more user-friendly online system"
You also seem be mixing up
a) The benefits cap
b) Universal credit
c) Benefit tapering
Happy for them to be refuted though.
Don't think so. See here for analysis from the Institute of Fiscal Studies:
`Alongside a series of cuts that will reduce welfare spending by £18 billion per year by 2014–15, the UK government announced in November 2010 plans to integrate and simplify means-tested welfare benefits and in-work tax credits for working-age adults into a single programme, to be known as Universal Credit and to be phased in from October 2013. The aims were to make it easier for claimants to claim benefits, to make the gains to work more transparent and to reduce the amount spent on administration and lost in fraud and error. More households will see entitlements rise from the move to Universal Credit considered in isolation than will see entitlements fall; in aggregate, entitlements will rise by nearly £1.1 billion a year. Low-income families will see their entitlements rise by more than high-income families, on average, and couples will gain more from the reform, on average, than single-adult families, especially if there are also children in the family`
from this paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2012.00152.x/abstract
Now feel free to produce evidence to the contrary and, as I said, please refute if possible. I've said I'm happy to change my mind on the principle if its shown to not be worth striving for.
A) More saving through cuts?
B) More savings through efficiencies?
C) Making work pay and avoiding the benefit trap?
I really don't think that its A - from what I've read of your posts. B is just a plainly not true in this case.
C is the main part that other parties have supported (even though UC doesn't cover council tax benefit and you run into the problem of interlocking tapers which retain the benefit trap).
But it just seems to me like you don't understand the many different parts of UC project and welfare reform and are attributing the effect of one part of the policy (savings which are caused be cuts and lower up-rating) with other parts of the policy (efficiencies of consolidated benefits).
and not just something that inevitably was going to happen regardless of who was in government at the time?
Sorry, shouldn't have phrased that as a question- it really fucking obviously isn't a 'Tory policy'. Half the fuckers voted against the Bill and are still crying about it now.
"I believe in same sex marriage because I am a Conservative, not in spite of it"
D. Cameron, 2014
Lot of opposition to same sex marriage within the Tory party. For reasons of out and out homophobia and for reasons of seeing marriage solely as a union between a man and a woman between them. But to argue it's not a 'Tory policy' isn't really a hair worth splitting. It's here, it's a good thing, I'm largely happy with it.
Because there's minute detail to trawl through- the voting figures are freely available, and clearly demonstrate the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill was met with significant opposition from Conservative MPs.
The majority of their MPs (60%) did not vote in favour of the bill, and more voted against it than for it. Cameron came out with some lovely rhetoric, but shit his pants when it came to leading his party. How many bills on things that genuinely were 'Tory policy', that genuinely inform or affect policy areas at the heart of Conservative fundamentals and values, would be left to 'conscience', free from a whip?
An idea isn't a 'Tory policy' because some who has it also happens to be a Conservative MP.
...Cameron knew the policy would secure enough votes across the chamber to know not to bother?
The Tory leadership took a policy decision and negotiated it through parliament into law. And good for them - it was the right thing to do.
Keep a straight face and tell me that the right for same sex couples to marry is a Conservative Party policy. And if you can do that, explain to me why more of their MPs voted against the bill than voted for it.
Perhaps your version of events is correct. Perhaps Cameron was savvy enough to know he didn't need to risk his political capital within the party to get the bill through the Commons. But why would he have known that? Because non-Conservative MPs supported it in far greater numbers. Because it was a bill that had enough support outside Conservative MPs to pass in a government not wholly controlled by the Conservative Party.
The whole 'it passed, it's a good thing, dunno what you're talking about mate' things seems an odd way to shut down discussion in a conversion about the provenance, and not merit, of a policy.
It's a Conservative Party Policy in that, whilst not being explicitly in their manifesto, it was developed and has come to law under their watch as The Government. It was a decision taken by Conservative Party leadership, regardless of whether or not >50% of Tory MPs didn't back it in a parliamentary vote. Policy doesn't arrive as a result of consulting the party and deciding what stuff to be for and against based upon polling MPs. I'd wager that a majority of Tory MPs are in favour of severing ties with the EU also. Doesn't mean that 'Membership of the EU' isn't a Tory policy.
Saying it was `something that was inevitably going to happen regardless of who was in power` is also incorrect. The Conservative Party leadership could've not bothered with it, but they did. And they deserve credit for it. Credit which you seem to be keen to remove.
even though it came to law under a non-Tory government and most Tory MPs were opposed to it. Fine.
as it was one of the big drivers of tories > UKIP
So, to recap:
- the bill was enacted under a government which DOESN'T have a Conservative majority
- most of the Conservative MPs in seats did not vote in favour of it
- it did not feature in their pre-election manifesto.
Yeah, sounds like a Tory policy to me! I've been properly fucking trolled here, touche! :DDD
a raft of stuff that has become Tory policy that wasn't in their manifesto.
But... you're playing the Coalition card now, I see. In which case, none of this government's policies are Tory policies. I take it? Even the really nasty ones. Cool.
The bills that Conservative MPs actually vote in significant numbers, those are the ones that are Tory policies. You can easily discern them by looking at the voting statistics.
if it has a measurable majority support of MPs within the party. Even if said policy has now become law under a Tory* government. You sure you're the one being trolled?
*Coalition technically, but we'll ignore that for this.
Look, as far as I can tell from your posts I'm supposed to think the right of same sex couples to marry is a 'Tory policy' (the framing of the OP, not mine) because it was enacted under this government. Except this government isn't a Conservative government.
That's okay, it doesn't mean it's necessarily a policy that holds no water with the Conservative individuals in government. Maybe they pushed it through despite not having a majority ... Except, no, they didn't. In fact, more of them worked to stop the bill being enacted than did to pass it. So it falls down as a 'Tory policy' there, too.
Well, perhaps they meant well and it had initially been a party objective to give gay people the right to marry and the drudgery and minutiae of politics had gotten in the way by the time there was a bill in the Commons. Let's just take a look at their manifesto, the document a part publishes to let the voting public know what their stated policy goals are ... Oh, it's not there.
Hmmm, not sure where to go from here. Perhaps it's just not a 'Tory policy' by any sensible measure?
We could do this all day. Let's call it a Maundy Thursday truce or something and agree to disagree on the existential and phenomenological formulations of what a policy actually *is*.
We just don't agree on what a specific definition on what a specific party's policy is. These things happen. Particularly when there's ambiguity around it. All of DK's points are fair, granted, but the logical conclusion of this is to say `all of these policies are Coalition policies` and be done with it. That would probably hand `victory` to DK on points but, the next time he points out the wretchedness of a `Tory policy` I'll be there saying `Actually mate it was a Coalition policy, not in the Tory manifesto and not enacted by a government solely made up of Tories` and we can have this gloriously pointless argument all over again. Yippee.
Either way a few weeks ago a new law was passed which gave same-sex couples the same rights to be married as male-female couples. This is a brilliant thing, and I really don't give a shit who's policy it was. Politics should be about changing peoples' lives for the better; not arguing about who can claim ownership for what.
We have gay marriage in this country because of the Conservative Party.
We have gay marriage in this country in spite of the Conservative Party.
There was a great deal of arm twisting to vote the votes that they did. There was a genuine fear that the bill may not pass.
might be the only thing.
because what they enact could be completely different.
I recall a bunch of posters with good ol' Dave Plastic's face on saying he wouldn't do anything to destroy the NHS, and yet here we are watching him fuck it up. Even the likes of Kitchmo's going to have to agree he went back on his promise, regardless of whether they approve of what's being done.
As to same sex marriage, I thought that was something the Conservatives brought in post-election, no? I thought a lot of their party's objections to it centred around that whole 'lack of mandate' guff?
Happy to be wrong though!
though there were some promising-looking tax breaks in the recent budget
was a good one.
Got some propaganda in the post from my council (Islington) not so long ago taking the credit for it though. Shitheads.
the lefties just can't help infighting. You all did my work for me. It took the fun out of it.
And anyway, with Marckee going, well, full-Marckee, there was no way I could compete.
The right wing looks for converts, the left wing looks for traitors.
Lefties man. They just wanna be outraged (and I'm a lefty).
and gay marriage.
Also perhaps means testing for child benefit but I see serious problems with that, but I agree with the intention.
Possibly others but it's very very rare.
Not sure if they've actually done this comprehensively yet, but they have in some areas and that's a good thing.