I have not been canvassed during this election so I have had to piece together the following from what I have been presented with during the campaign…
Why should I vote Tory?
As a working homeowner in your forties you should consider the Conservative Party as your natural home. We know that you will appreciate that you are better off than many of your fellow countrymen and will be keen to ensure that this situation continues. You have ‘worked hard’ to be where you are and the fact that you had a free university education and were able to get on the property ladder in the late ’90s are mere coincidences in providing the wealth you now enjoy. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. You will appreciate that the Coalition government has strived hard to ensure that you, as a person who is very likely to cast a vote, have been largely protected from the cuts that we were forced to make as we tackled the mess we inherited from Labour.
Ah yes, the “mess”. How did this come about again?
By 2008 the increased investment that the Labour goverment had made in the NHS and the money that they spent on re-building schools caused people in the southern USA to default on their mortgages which brought about the collapse of Lehmann Brothers.
Right. But didn’t you pledge to match Labour’s spending at the time?
So you would not have carried out your promise? That sounds familiar, does that explain this?
The Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman rejects your analysis of why the global crash happened and states that your austerity policies significantly delayed a recovery, is he wrong?
A minister in the last government left a note stating there was no money left. Thanks to a compliant media and lack of scrutiny of our argument, this weak joke carries far more weight than the evidenced based research of a world renowned academic. Thankfully.
You do seem to have the support of a large section of the printed media certainly. Why is that?
Does that extend to making things up to support your cause?
The Sunday Times Rich List confirmed last week that the richest people in the country are more than 100% richer than they were in 2010, yet food bank use has risen by more than 1000%. Why is this?
By keeping tax rates down for ‘wealth creators’ we benefit everyone. The cash they spend trickles down and eventually reaches the pockets of the rest of us. Obviously there are a lot at the bottom and not very many at the top so its effects aren’t immediately apparant.
I am concerned about growing inequality in this country, this economic approach doesn’t seem to address it?
We understand that being presented with evidence of hardship can be unsettling but, fortunately, for every Comic Relief appeal pointing out that over 600,000 under 16s are primary carers for an older member of their family there are several reality series on extreme caricatures of people on benefits. As such our narrative that the poor are responsible for their own poverty seems to have caught on. In that spirit, food bank use has grown because people who can’t manage their finances properly are more aware that they exist…
So is that why there is such a contrast in resources used to investigate tax evasion and benefit fraud?
I’d heard that. Are there any details of where these cuts will be found?
Rest assured it is possible to find these cuts but we don’t wish to tell you precisely how until we are in government again as you might not like what you hear. Take it from us, they won’t affect the disabled, carers or child benefit. As our record since 2010 testifies.
My friends are concerned that they won’t be able to get a place for their child at a primary school of their choice. Why are there insufficient places in some areas of the country?
The previous Labour government failed to plan for children that hadn’t yet been born.
My children are a little older, what education policies would be of interest to me?
Want your children to avoid ‘bigger kids’, or those children from the estate down the road? Why not open your own school? We are pledging to open a further 500 ‘free schools’ by 2020.
According to articles this week, money is increasingly tight in state schools so I assume these ‘free schools’ are only opening in areas with a need for places?
It depends what you mean by ‘need’. If you can collect enough signatures then we believe that this demonstrates that there must be a ‘need’ for a school. The National Audit Office confirmed that £241M was spent on free schools in areas with surplus places so you’ll see that ‘need’ is an easily surmounted technicality. As we’re so keen that they succeed, we’ll even give you preferential funding to give you a head start over neighbouring schools.
But I thought the schools budget had been ‘ringfenced’? If you are providing preferential funding for schools where there is no need for places doesn’t that mean that other areas of the budget are cut? I thought you stood for financial competence?
Yes. But ‘money is no object’ for those likely to be our core voters.
I am uncomfortable with your treatment of the most vulnerable in society and think ‘trickle down’ economics is patently not going to address increasing inequality. The LibDems have pledged to add ‘heart’ to your policies, perhaps I should vote for them instead?
Be our guest…