Check out this article:
What's 'waste'?
I can't really say it better than that. Also, it is late and i want to get this out before the big day.
it is another reason I'm not voting Tory.
If it convinces you not to, or gives you ammo to persuade someone else not to, I'll be happy.
I am not voting Tory.
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
Reason seven
Cameron is on record saying in February that intruders “leave their human rights outside”. On the surface, this looks like 'tough talk' but to me what he seems to be saying is that a home owner has a licence to be judge, jury and executioner on anyone who comes on their property without permission. Does this include the postman who foolishly thinks that, because the door was open, it's okay to leave a parcel on the kitchen table? Or the girl breaking in, due to being chased by an attacker, looking for nearby refuge?
A charged murder suspect still has rights - a right to defend himself in court, a right to trial by jury, etc. Why are these rights left at the door if you're a thief stealing a DVD player? A home owner has a right to use 'reasonable force'. This right protects him, but it also protects the postman and the vulnerable girl. This is a good thing.
This is not about a specific Tory policy outlined in their manifesto, but it exposes their attitude. The Tories are about the protection of the individual. That could be a good thing if it wasn't so often at the expense of other individuals.
You only have to read this Johann Hari article to see this attitude in action.
I cannot vote for a party that thinks and acts in such ways.
I cannot vote Tory.
A charged murder suspect still has rights - a right to defend himself in court, a right to trial by jury, etc. Why are these rights left at the door if you're a thief stealing a DVD player? A home owner has a right to use 'reasonable force'. This right protects him, but it also protects the postman and the vulnerable girl. This is a good thing.
This is not about a specific Tory policy outlined in their manifesto, but it exposes their attitude. The Tories are about the protection of the individual. That could be a good thing if it wasn't so often at the expense of other individuals.
You only have to read this Johann Hari article to see this attitude in action.
I cannot vote for a party that thinks and acts in such ways.
I cannot vote Tory.
Sunday, 2 May 2010
Reason six
In the Tories' manifesto, they say they would "recognise marriage and civil partnerships in the tax system ... making 4 million couples up to £150 per year better off".
This, along with the Tories' proposed reform of inheritance tax (which will make the richest ever richer), rewards those that fit with the Conservative idea of they might call 'people like us'. At the same time, it penalises those that do not fit that mould, 'people not like us'. But this is not the only reason I am not in favour of it.
What they are trying to do is promote marriage as the best way to form a family unit and raise children. It does the exact opposite of this: it cheapens it. People will not get married out of love, or commitment to another human being, but for cash. When people are accused of marrying for money that money won't just come out of the rich partner's bank account, it'll also come from the tax payer.
Also, this proposed tax break gives unhappily married people in loveless relationships an incentive to stay married, against their better judgment.
And if Cameron is so convinced that a stable family unit is best served by a married mother and father, why does he need to promote it with a money incentive? Isn't marriage a good in itself, Dave?
This policy is a message to single mothers, to single fathers, to couples that have chosen to not marry: the Tories think you should be married. They see you not being married to the father or mother of your child as a problem to be solved. They regard your family unit to be a broken family, perhaps a family contributing to our so-called 'broken society' in so-called 'broken Britain' - a phrase that owes its memorable-ness more to its alliteration than to any actual evidence or argument.
I say that tax breaks for the married is a slap in the face to anyone who doesn't comply with Cameron's utopian family unit.
I say that if any tax cut can be afforded at a time when the deficit is as large as it is it should not be used to celebrate something as arbitrary as people's decision to marry (or to punish someone for deciding for not marrying).
I say that if Britain is broken then funds should be used on fixing it by improving healthcare, education and policing - instead of diverting some of those funds to people who happen to have got hitched.
I'm not in favour of this policy.
I'm not voting Tory.
This, along with the Tories' proposed reform of inheritance tax (which will make the richest ever richer), rewards those that fit with the Conservative idea of they might call 'people like us'. At the same time, it penalises those that do not fit that mould, 'people not like us'. But this is not the only reason I am not in favour of it.
What they are trying to do is promote marriage as the best way to form a family unit and raise children. It does the exact opposite of this: it cheapens it. People will not get married out of love, or commitment to another human being, but for cash. When people are accused of marrying for money that money won't just come out of the rich partner's bank account, it'll also come from the tax payer.
Also, this proposed tax break gives unhappily married people in loveless relationships an incentive to stay married, against their better judgment.
And if Cameron is so convinced that a stable family unit is best served by a married mother and father, why does he need to promote it with a money incentive? Isn't marriage a good in itself, Dave?
This policy is a message to single mothers, to single fathers, to couples that have chosen to not marry: the Tories think you should be married. They see you not being married to the father or mother of your child as a problem to be solved. They regard your family unit to be a broken family, perhaps a family contributing to our so-called 'broken society' in so-called 'broken Britain' - a phrase that owes its memorable-ness more to its alliteration than to any actual evidence or argument.
I say that tax breaks for the married is a slap in the face to anyone who doesn't comply with Cameron's utopian family unit.
I say that if any tax cut can be afforded at a time when the deficit is as large as it is it should not be used to celebrate something as arbitrary as people's decision to marry (or to punish someone for deciding for not marrying).
I say that if Britain is broken then funds should be used on fixing it by improving healthcare, education and policing - instead of diverting some of those funds to people who happen to have got hitched.
I'm not in favour of this policy.
I'm not voting Tory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)