stevenw888 wrote:I've thought long and hard about it for the last two months or so, and I've finally decided I will vote tory.
A chacun a son gout, mate.
I live in a marginal constituency, so I like to think that my vote will somehow help to decide the structure of a future goverment.
You think that? Aahh, sweet!
I have never voted Tory before, but a number of things that have happened during the last administration have helped to make my mind up.
1) Theresa May managed to get that man with a hook instead of a hand deported to America. I remember both David Blunkett and Jackie Smith tried for many years but utterly failed to get him deported. I was glad to see him go.
Hamza was deported after a legal process which started in 2004, while Labour was in power, and ended in 2014, while The Conservatives were in power. But correlation is not causation Steven, as you should know.
Some people genuinely don't understand the concept of 'the rule of law'. They really think the govt tells the lawcourts what to do. This kind of ignorance is entirely forgivable, IMO, at least in some individuals who have been poorly educated. But this ignorance is
perpetuated by some politicians trying to get credit for things they didn't do. Which group do you belong to, Steven?
2) Cameron took an axe to the Legal Aid fiasco. I remember reading previously how those big fat cat solicitors and barristers in London used to lap at the "legal aid fountain" claiming fortunes in legal aid whilst pretending vaguely that they cared about some illegal immigrant or other. I've also read since about anger and upset from those self-same barristers and solicitors, now that the legal aid tap has been turned off, which delighted me. I bet this affected Cherie Blair (hope so).
I'm not quite sure what you are cross about here, Steven. Is it that lawyers get too much money, or is it that the legal aid system was helping poor people to get the same access to justice that rich people have? If it is the former, how do you suggest that we can change that, given the principles of your new Tory chums? If it is the latter, can you defend your position ethically?
. . .
4) The headline in Saturday's Times was "Cameron proposes to limit benefits paid to obese people." I realise that this is just a "Daily Mail" statement
But, but... You just said it was a Times statement, Steven !
and, in practice, this policy could never be enacted (how does someone make a decision on whether another person is obese or not, especially over a period of time) but it does really annoy me that some vast obese people claim benefits. If they are on benefits, how can they be fat? I read that Labour propose to try and hit(tax) purveyors of fattening food harder - MacDonalds, KFC and like, but this, to me, is not getting to the root of the problem. The solution lies in educating the fat people, not prohibiting them from buying fatty foods.
Your level of ignorance about the process whereby children become, and then remain, obese is inexcusable. You may be pleased to know that it is a lot easier these days to cure this level of ignorance (research, lad, research!) than it is to reverse the process of obesity once it has started.
5) I have welcomed most of Michael Gove's reforms. Most of them have seemed sensible and intelligent. I remember Tony Blair claiming that in 1997 his main focus was "education, education, education" and then having 11 ministers for education in about as many years. Not much joined up thinking there.
O sancta simplicitas!
People are fat because they consume more calories than they use up and you can consume too many calories very cheaply. Serious question: What do you expect unemployed people to live on if you limit their benefits further or do you think they get enough? Do you think the children of obese unemployed people should be punished for the 'gluttony' of the parents?