If the Conservatives want my vote they have too:

#1
From the telegraph comments page -

If the Conservatives want my vote they have too:

Categorically state that they will hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty within 6 weeks of gaining power. Promise that should the referendum show that the majority is against the treaty that a further referendum will be held on UK leaving the EU.

Commit to make the UK energy independent within 10 years.

Close the borders to all none EU immigrants who do not have employment offers and ensure that no immigrant receives any benefits before they naturalise.

Commit to five years of 5% GNP to be spent on defence dropping to no less than 3% in any future year.

Complete overhaul of MOD & NHS.

Scrap no less than 10% of Quangos each year for the first five years.

Complete transparency of MPs finances, ALL expenses documented, ALL contributions documented.

Commitment to keep present Grammar Schools and pledge to support any local authority that wants to open new ones.
What would make you vote Tory? Keep it sensible no matter how attractive this other comment might be -

A certain vote winner is a commitment for every member of the New Labour regime to be put on trial for their crimes domestic and foreign; the penalties to include public execution. That together with a pledge to make full restitution to those injured by their crimes would guarantee a landslide victory.
Link

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...0IV0?xml=/news/2008/02/03/ntory103.xml&page=2
 
#3
Reduce benefits to subsistence levels to restore the status of benefits as a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.

Establish an entitlement system for the NHS and stop taxpayers funds paying for frivolous treatments.

Re-establish proper sentences for crime, free the Police from bureaucracy and allow them to be politically independent again (i.e sack the idiot Blair).

Root out the socialists ruining the education system and make all local authorities establish Grammar Schools.

Either revoke the ludicrous, half-arsed devolution attempts, or scrap the Barnett formula and precipitate independence, I no longer care which.

Oh, and the execution of New Labour politicians as well - not a pre-requisite, but I would look on it as an election bonus.
 
#4
Bring back the death sentence for kiddie fiddlers and big-time drug dealers
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#5
Accountability by MPs for their actions/inactions:

i.e
if caught with their hand in the till - sacked as MPs and new election.
if caught deliberately lying to Parliament/media (therefore us) lose any ministerial post they have
if they blame their staff for any actions carried out on their behalf then that demonstrates they are unfit to be leaders of the country - sack em.

Also there should be a complete review of the priviledges parliamentarians get in Westminster. Paid a very high salary yet have subsidised bars/ restaurants - why?

A promise from Cameron that he would lead a change in attitude from doing as much for themselves (MPs) to "what can we (MPs) do for the country?"
 
#6
Direct everyone who works for the Equal Opportunities Commission to the nearest job centre.
 
#7
Rescind the Human Rights Act

Introduce a flat tax system

Follow the Australian example of publishing all government contracts.

Publish all 'consultants' reports commissioned by at the tax payers' expense

Have a genuine commitment to striking a law off the statue books for every new one they introduce

Promise not to publish knee-jerk, populist legislation when the laws we already have are perfectly adequate.

msr
 
#8
How about:

Start governing the country on behalf of the people instead of seeing the position as an opportunity to feather one's own nest.
 
#9
If the Conservatives want my vote they have too:

Categorically state that they will hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty within 6 weeks of gaining power. Promise that should the referendum show that the majority is against the treaty that a further referendum will be held on UK leaving the EU.
No problem there. About time some democracy was introduced to the Europe debate.

Commit to make the UK energy independent within 10 years.
Hmmm. What with? Although a revitalised coal industry might not be a bad thing - a stabilising factor in deprived areas. Otherwise, the technology for renewables isn’t well enough developed to take on the load. We should certainly be making more of them and of efficiency technologies, but where’s the ‘independence' in switching from one fuel to another if we don’t have enough of it within our borders?

Close the borders to all none EU immigrants who do not have employment offers and ensure that no immigrant receives any benefits before they naturalise.
So long as Scotland gets to keep Fresh Talent, no problems. A one-size-doesn't-fit-all approach is what got us in the current constitutional situation in the first place.

Commit to five years of 5% GNP to be spent on defence dropping to no less than 3% in any future year.
Hear hear!

Complete overhaul of MOD & NHS.
The phrase decimation springs to mind.

Scrap no less than 10% of Quangos each year for the first five years.
A good start. But we'll need to root out all the other opportunities for cronyism and patronage that infest our body politic.

Complete transparency of MPs finances, ALL expenses documented, ALL contributions documented.
And bin this idea that there's any argument for State funding of political parties. Apply Market Forces to politics same as any other facet of public life. Sauce for the goose.

Commitment to keep present Grammar Schools and pledge to support any local authority that wants to open new ones.
Provided we also keep good quality schools open for pupils who aren’t capable of or interested in academic study. We’ll still need plumbers and joiners, they just need to be able to do a minimum level of reading, writing and arithmetic.

A certain vote winner is a commitment for every member of the New Labour regime to be put on trial for their crimes domestic and foreign; the penalties to include public execution. That together with a pledge to make full restitution to those injured by their crimes would guarantee a landslide victory.
I can see a few potential pitfalls with the first batch, but that last one is a sure fire vote winner. Why exclude it? I’m not particularly pro-Tory, preferring to vote the person not the party, but that’d get my vote straight away.

With the proviso that the injured get priority seats by the scaffold and a lot in the draw to pull the lever.
 
#10
Unfortunately I grew up in a single parent family during the height of the Tory era and remember the downright shoddy treatment that my mother received off the government. Raising three kids alone is difficult enough but with no childcare support and insufficient benefits to live on, including no supplementary income allowance it was no picnic.

If the Tories pledge to help those that, in my view, need help, whilst expunging more vigorously those that don't, then I would consider getting past my bitterness. However, my experience of the butt-end of social reform policy is that Tory governments deal with these issues like most rich, privileged white men with no true understanding of the situation they're addressing; with a meat cleaver instead of a scalpel.
 
#11
If it gets rid of this labour shite then they will have my vote
I only hope that the great unwashed and benifit claimers do the same however i truly do not believe so
 
#12
Chalky said:
Unfortunately I grew up in a single parent family during the height of the Tory era and remember the downright shoddy treatment that my mother received off the government. Raising three kids alone is difficult enough but with no childcare support and insufficient benefits to live on, including no supplementary income allowance it was no picnic.

If the Tories pledge to help those that, in my view, need help, whilst expunging more vigorously those that don't, then I would consider getting past my bitterness. However, my experience of the butt-end of social reform policy is that Tory governments deal with these issues like most rich, privileged white men with no true understanding of the situation they're addressing; with a meat cleaver instead of a scalpel.
I know I'm going to over simply things and probably upset some in doing so, but this really is a simple issue once you remove the personal element.

If you were brought up in a single parent family because one of your parents lost their life in the service of this country (military, police etc), then you should rightly expect the country to support you.

If you were brought up in a single parent family because your parents first made a life-style choice to have 3 kids, and then at some later stage decided to make another life-style choice not to be a family any longer, then I don't see why the country should fund your parents' life-style choices.

I have the greatest sympathy for you, as a child growing up in this situation, as you had no 'choice' in the matter. Did your parents 'choose' it to be this way?

As someone mentionned above, the welfare system should be a safety net for the unfortunate and unlucky, not an life-style option for the irresponsible or the bone-idle.
 
#13
The sad reality is that our choices are restricted to either Nu Liabour or Tory. NL are not going to consider any of the very sensible preconditions listed, which only leaves Cameron's mob. However, as I have yet to see an elected government live up to it's manifold manifesto promises, I am not going to hold my breath...
 
#14
In answer to you point, it was my father's choice and not my mothers. He left, took the house, the car and, of course, the money and left my stay-at-home mother and the three of us to live in a bed-sit for a year until we were forced to live with my grandparents as my Mum could no longer afford to look after us as her benefits weren't measured on a per child basis.

I do find the term 'life-style choice' to be widely inadequate to cover any number of situations where people can become single-parent families. Further to this, you are correct that the benefits system did punish children and not parents.
 
#15
Chalky said:
In answer to you point, it was my father's choice and not my mothers. He left, took the house, the car and, of course, the money and left my stay-at-home mother and the three of us to live in a bed-sit for a year until we were forced to live with my grandparents as my Mum could no longer afford to look after us as her benefits weren't measured on a per child basis.

I do find the term 'life-style choice' to be widely inadequate to cover any number of situations where people can become single-parent families. Further to this, you are correct that the benefits system did punish children and not parents.
Obviously, cases like that of your family should be handled with sympathy. Your mother was not at fault. But for every woman like you're Ma, there are a lot of other stupid slags who get knocked up either because they are too fcuking stupid/lazy to take precuations, or because they want the "benefit lifestyle".

IMHO, if you don't believe, at the time you get pregnant, that you can provide for a child - don't have it. If you have a child and expect the State to provide for you, the child should be taken off you and put up for adoption by a family that can pull it's own weight.

End rant.
 
#16
#19
FrankCastle said:
If you have a child and expect the State to provide for you, the child should be taken off you and put up for adoption by a family that can pull it's own weight.
And, given that we can't find homes for the children currently in protection, how would that work?

It is in society's interests to take care of those who falter until - and this is important - they can put their lives back together. People should not be penalised for the choices they make in such a way that they can never recover. It speaks volumes about us if we are unwilling to offer help on the basis of tight-assed economics wrapped in a blanket of self-interest. What we seem to miss is that help can occur ahead of time. Yes, there are a lot of single mothers in the world who should have thought more carefully and didn't, but why is that? Yes there are people who can come off benefits and can work and then don't, but why is that? Our money and time would be better spent on changing society from the front end rather than at the exhaust vent and this process would be helped even more if stopped writing off significant portions of the population with unhelpful monikers and presumptive groupings.

And still, after all of this, there will be people who are, in our modern economy, largely unemployable. There will be people who are disabled and unable to work and there will always - always - be single parents who need help to rebuild their lives. No amount of government money will be able to prevent that and until we accept that there will always be people that need help and that we should help them as much as we can, then we can never move away from an unhelpful, judgemental partisan standpoint.

Now I've finished my rant.
 

Latest Threads