3 ms·

Because for a while they were the only party who supported a free market. Labour wanted to nationalise all business until new labour arrived. The Tories are sh

by pipes 3y ago

Because for a while they were the only party who supported a free market. Labour wanted to nationalise all business until new labour arrived. The Tories are shit, but if you believe (like me) that free enterprise is the best way to lift humans out of poverty , they were the best we had. Unfortunately now they are more interested in banning things and meddling in our personal lives.

immibis 3y ago
Unlimited free markets have failed every time they've been tried. But the trees kept voting for the axe, because they thought its handle was one of them.
- scarby2 3y ago
  Market failure is a thing with insufficient oversight/regulation. But it's just as easy to cripple something by nationalizing and over regulating it. Take the housing market, when there was no regulations we ended up with inadequate housing and the poor being housed in terrible conditions. Now we brought in all the wrong regulations and it's no longer just the poor who are struggling. Next we'll vote for universal rent control, do nothing else and sooner or later nobody will be able to move. Edit: and if we completely nationalize it we might end up with inadequate commie blocks for everyone.
  - immibis 3y ago
    > if we completely nationalize it we might end up with inadequate commie blocks for everyone. oh no! the horror of everyone having a home that's ugly on the outside!
    - themoonisachees 3y ago
      It might even remove the tents in the city? They're part of the charm you can't do that!
    - scarby2 3y ago
      well.. I have no issue about ugly on the outside if the quality of the accommodation is adequate. If you actually knew anything about soviet buildings this was pretty far from the truth. Multiple families were often assigned to share kitchens/bathrooms and often just one or two rooms per family to live in. They were not well designed, poorly heated and ventilated and generally pretty miserable places to live. It was not uncommon for the entire family to sleep huddled around the single kerosene heater. They did get better as time went on but it wasn't really until the fall of the soviet union when a lot of these inadequate accommodations were demolished. Also i'm totally on board with having cheap to build ugly accommodation - so long as it's not 100% of the housing stock, By all means throw as much up as possible until we've housed all the poor, but what if i want something different?
- varispeed 3y ago
  The irony is that voters thought of free market for SMEs and regulation for big corporations* and the Tories did the opposite - big corporations have essentially a free reign and SMEs are crippled with high tax and regulation (e.g. IR35 to stop small service based business from operating, while exempting big corporations from it). *(with the focus of getting them to pay taxes - HMRC even today literally has no idea about the scale of tax avoidance, because they don't audit big corporations).

by pipes 3y ago

immibis 3y ago

Unlimited free markets have failed every time they've been tried. But the trees kept voting for the axe, because they thought its handle was one of them.

scarby2 3y ago
Market failure is a thing with insufficient oversight/regulation. But it's just as easy to cripple something by nationalizing and over regulating it. Take the housing market, when there was no regulations we ended up with inadequate housing and the poor being housed in terrible conditions. Now we brought in all the wrong regulations and it's no longer just the poor who are struggling. Next we'll vote for universal rent control, do nothing else and sooner or later nobody will be able to move. Edit: and if we completely nationalize it we might end up with inadequate commie blocks for everyone.
- immibis 3y ago
  > if we completely nationalize it we might end up with inadequate commie blocks for everyone. oh no! the horror of everyone having a home that's ugly on the outside!
  - themoonisachees 3y ago
    It might even remove the tents in the city? They're part of the charm you can't do that!
  - scarby2 3y ago
    well.. I have no issue about ugly on the outside if the quality of the accommodation is adequate. If you actually knew anything about soviet buildings this was pretty far from the truth. Multiple families were often assigned to share kitchens/bathrooms and often just one or two rooms per family to live in. They were not well designed, poorly heated and ventilated and generally pretty miserable places to live. It was not uncommon for the entire family to sleep huddled around the single kerosene heater. They did get better as time went on but it wasn't really until the fall of the soviet union when a lot of these inadequate accommodations were demolished. Also i'm totally on board with having cheap to build ugly accommodation - so long as it's not 100% of the housing stock, By all means throw as much up as possible until we've housed all the poor, but what if i want something different?
varispeed 3y ago
The irony is that voters thought of free market for SMEs and regulation for big corporations* and the Tories did the opposite - big corporations have essentially a free reign and SMEs are crippled with high tax and regulation (e.g. IR35 to stop small service based business from operating, while exempting big corporations from it). *(with the focus of getting them to pay taxes - HMRC even today literally has no idea about the scale of tax avoidance, because they don't audit big corporations).