Why won't the Tories talk about policies?

[Titanic99]

Bear in mind that the French president can't do much of anything, unless he enjoys a Prime Minister with a Parliamentary majority like over here: it's not a symbolic appointment in the sense of e.g. the Irish (Republic) President, but the actual political power of the sitting president (in terms of getting things voted through and done) is directly proportional to the parliamentary majority which his Prime Minister enjoys.

 

Whenever a coalition has occurred (think "Tory president, Labour majority in the House Commons" - or reciprocally ), which has been a few times during the Vth Republic, relatively little got done. Similarly with e.g. Obama in the US, snookered for a long time by the GOP majority in Congress.

 

It's not as ideal as it sounds, nor a panacea. Still, I suppose it's a tad more democratic (than the UK's FPTP system).

 

I’m sure you’re correct, I just look at our system with utter despair and look for alternatives that could produce a result that suits more people.

 

To me it breaks down broadly into two schools of thought.

 

The first is the state should pay for as little as possible and people should be left with as much of their income as possible to pay for the services they need.

 

The second is the state should provide as many services as possible paid for from taxation.

 

The problem we seem to have is there’s one party believing in the first philosophy in the Tories and there’s a multitude of them believing in the second (Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, Green, Plaid Cymru, UKIP). This second viewpoint then gets so diluted that the first philosophy wins and the majority of us are left with a government we don’t want.

 

Take the NHS or taxation for example:

 

Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, UKIP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens would increase spending and taxation to pay for it. Between them they’ll get probably 60-65% of the vote so it’s fair to say that’s what the majority of us want, but we’ll end up getting the alternative.

 

Perhaps if it became a straight fight between the two viewpoints we’d get a different result.

[crookedspire]

Now May has turned into a workers friend by promising more rights I thought she was a Tory not a radical left winger is she ill?

[Hairyloon]

Now May has turned into a workers friend by promising more rights I thought she was a Tory not a radical left winger is she ill?

She's promising "the biggest expansion of workers' rights by any Conservative government".

Not removing any would qualify for that. An election promise she can meet by doing nothing...

[tinfoilhat]

She's promising "the biggest expansion of workers' rights by any Conservative government".

Not removing any would qualify for that. An election promise she can meet by doing nothing...

 

No, she is. Sort of.

 

Theyre pledging you can take a year off to look after a sick relative. Thats the headline stuff.

 

Underneath the headlines (or ignored by most papers) is the fact you will not receive any money form the government what so ever. So youll need savings (HA!). And your employer better be on board or youll have to fight for your job once your relative has recovered or shuffled off.

 

So, yeah, not really for the workers - more like trying to get you to fill the the social budget.

[Hairyloon]

Underneath the headlines (or ignored by most papers) is the fact you will not receive any money form the government what so ever...

 

So they're cutting the carer's allowance? Or did they already do that?

[I1L2T3]

She's promising "the biggest expansion of workers' rights by any Conservative government".

Not removing any would qualify for that. An election promise she can meet by doing nothing...

 

It's like their council housing pledge. They can do the minimum without spending any more money and still claim they met their pledge.

[crookedspire]

She's promising "the biggest expansion of workers' rights by any Conservative government".

Not removing any would qualify for that. An election promise she can meet by doing nothing...

 

:hihi. Promise the world deliver sod all.

[L00b]

<...>

 

To me it breaks down broadly into two schools of thought.

 

The first is the state should pay for as little as possible and people should be left with as much of their income as possible to pay for the services they need.

 

The second is the state should provide as many services as possible paid for from taxation.

 

<...>

There should be a third way, reconciling both: accepting that the first way is socially unsustainable, that the second way is economically unsustainable, and developing a new model wherein the state can provide a safety net against absolute poverty, life-threatening levels of mental affliction and non-lifestyle ill health sustainably.

 

A pragmatist, technocratic 'back to basics' approach grounded in social ethics, if you will, (re-)balancing resources to end the sort of ATOS-like culling sessions on the one hand, but cancelling spend on boob jobs, teeth straightening, gastric bands <and whatnot> on the other hand for balance.

 

I daresay few are really ready and willing to let go of much of these nice-to-have-but-not-exactly-life-saving advantages.

Edited May 15, 2017 by L00b

[Hairyloon]

Binary systems are useful in electronics, but almost nowhere outside of them.

[Anna B]

Now May has turned into a workers friend by promising more rights I thought she was a Tory not a radical left winger is she ill?

 

Does a leopard change its spots?

 

I think Jeremy's got her worried...