2015 post UK election discussion

[peteblue]

You "expected" wrong then ...........................................................

Not all the responses are in yet..... lol

 

[Tubey]

Which is exactly what Osbourne is promoting.......

But he isn't - he's saying cut state support now up north with nothing to fill the gap.

He's expecting a miracle to happen if he sticks to ideology. It won't. Without the infrastructure funding, which means maintaining state spending and targeting it, then private enterprise won't be tempted up north.

 

[daylightrobber]

You're either showing a complete lack of understanding or you're being wilfully ignorant, I'm afraid.

If the SNP was a kingmaker in a Labour government, they would have had an incredible amount of influence over the government of the day, because Labour would have been reliant on the SNP for every single vote. The SNP would not have supported Labour unconditionally, they would of course push for the fiscal autonomy that they want and Labour would have no alternative but to grant it to them.

After fiscal autonomy, the next step is full independence, and that would be unstoppable. That is why the Tories were well within their rights to warn of this, whether you like them or not.

But your last sentence is risible - if you genuinely think the Tories want an independent Scotland, you have been reading some very, very dodgy history books.

Please, just on this occasion, remove any political affiliations or prejudices you may have and look at the facts.

You are asking me to look at facts when you are using ifs and buts and what might have happened to present your argument.

You also seem to have adapted the pre election narrative to suit. The Tory argument was not one of "in return for Labour support the SNP will get their independence". It was one of "the Scots will be governing England unless they get independence". A subtle but important difference.

Let's agree to disagree.

 

[peteblue]

But he isn't - he's saying cut state support now up north with nothing to fill the gap.

He's expecting a miracle to happen if he sticks to ideology. It won't. Without the infrastructure funding, which means maintaining state spending and targeting it, then private enterprise won't be tempted up north.

Fine.....then Liverpool is screwed, and Manchester will grow......next issue......

 

[Tree13]

That drop in income to Maternity Pay may be a bit bigger of a drop thatn you firt than you first envisaged, now lets say that you'd done all your sums, consulted ovulation charts and set into motion your intentions, no sooner celebrated the 'pee on a stick' and this is announced....

They also included a benefit payments freeze, limiting payments to family size and even the abolition of statutory maternity pay.


Goalposts moved despite all of your planning, and all of a sudden you are x amount down on what you anticipated, off the income you talked about its quite possible that only a minor adjustment is required but for a great many it would be an amount that would then make it where they'd be in dire straits.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pure-evil-bedroom-tax-hit-5670809#rlabs=1

I think this is a continuation of our earlier conversation, yes?

Things like this are precisely why Mrs Tree and I are planning, and saving in advance BEFORE having kids. On our current joint income we can save a chunk per month to more than tie us over for the period when she will be off work, regardless of the levels of statutory maternity pay in the future. Benefits payments and statutory maternity pay don't factor into the calculations for us, for the exact reason you've highlighted - they are subject to changes beyond our control. Her contractual maternity pay is ok, and her job security is good because she is a full-time permanent employee in degree-level profession. Looking at how difficult it could be to start having children without substantial savings already in place, I don't think we'll be altering our approach. I'm surprised at the number of replies in this thread who are suggesting otherwise, particularly in light of you recounting your own current situation.

Obviously such an approach doesn't apply to people who ALREADY have children, but isn't it a pretty sensible template for FUTURE generations to follow? Something has to be done to make teenagers and people in their twenties realise just how expensive and difficult it can be to raise children, surely? Otherwise don't rising birth rates simply place more and more pressure on an already overburdened NHS, and state education system?

 

[Tubey]

Fine.....then Liverpool is screwed, and Manchester will grow......next issue......

Manchester won't either unless it receives the exact same thing. There's no difference between the two cities, in that they are actually pretty well off compared to the areas around them.

They are islands of wealth in a sea of poverty. It's the best way of describing them. The London network of wealth spreads throughout the whole of the south; Liverpool and Manchester are extremely isolated.

 

[daylightrobber]

How though? State spending per head seems alright. The city has two decent universities (and several more in relatively close proximity. What is missing?

Unemployment in the NW is 7.9%, yet it's 12.1% in Liverpool. What's behind that?

Scousers are lazier good for nothings than the lazy good for nothings elsewhere across the region , no?

 

[peteblue]

Manchester won't either unless it receives the exact same thing. There's no difference between the two cities, in that they are actually pretty well off compared to the areas around them.

They are islands of wealth in a sea of poverty. It's the best way of describing them. The London network of wealth spreads throughout the whole of the south; Liverpool and Manchester are extremely isolated.

Manchester will grow, it already is..... Perhaps they should bring Liverpool into the Greater Manchester area as a suburb.........

 

[Mrk]

You are asking me to look at facts when you are using ifs and buts and what might have happened to present your argument.

You also seem to have adapted the pre election narrative to suit. The Tory argument was not one of "in return for Labour support the SNP will get their independence". It was one of "the Scots will be governing England unless they get independence". A subtle but important difference.

Let's agree to disagree.

Maybe I haven't been clear enough, because the fact I was asking you to look at was that of the Conservatives support for the union, which to any fair-minded person is unconditional.

And yes, that was also part of the Tories strategy, and again, they had every right to say that, because why should a party that wants nothing to do with England have the casting vote on England's laws?

 

[edge]

How though? State spending per head seems alright. The city has two decent universities (and several more in relatively close proximity. What is missing?

Unemployment in the NW is 7.9%, yet it's 12.1% in Liverpool. What's behind that?

the nw covers a big area bruce mate, a lot of rich bits a more accurate reflection could be that a quarter of greater manchesters unemployment is in the city of manchester and salford accounds for a fair chunk of the rest not far under 50% of the total when combined, both are near are figure when taken on there own
As for liverpool it has an image problem and is to inward looking, or has been and due to its near desalation of jobs in the 70,s the docks, tates and loads of other big empoyers it has been an uphill struggle to get up to speed again and be seen as a place to do buisness instead of say manchester or leeds, also it has pockets of areas were its now become a way of life to not be in work, sad to say , but that could be the way in most places

 

[Tubey]

Manchester will grow, it already is..... Perhaps they should bring Liverpool into the Greater Manchester area as a suburb.........

Which brings us back to why people would be tempted by any split away from London in a hypothetical scenario.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/why-manchester-works

^ an interesting read - what happens when money is invested in infrastructure and not cut centrally. Manchester has an advantage on Liverpool as the region is well equipped.

Much of the infrastructure spending Manchester has already made has gone on transport, particularly on the Metrolink light rail system, which now serves all points of the compass, from Ashton-under-Lyne in the east to Eccles in the west, and from Bury and Rochdale in the north to Altrincham and East Didsbury in the south. You can now travel, without changing trams, from the Etihad Campus in east Manchester, where Manchester City Football Club is building an enormous new training facility and reviving a previously neglected inner suburb in the process, to MediaCityUK in Salford, the broadcasting complex built next to what used to be Manchester docks where the BBC transferred 26 departments in 2011.



THAT needs to happen with the all the cities up north. The money for such things does not come from thin air - like anything, you need seed money to grow and a plan.

Don't just cut budgets mindlessly - target them.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

s

Manchester won't either unless it receives the exact same thing. There's no difference between the two cities, in that they are actually pretty well off compared to the areas around them.

They are islands of wealth in a sea of poverty. It's the best way of describing them. The London network of wealth spreads throughout the whole of the south; Liverpool and Manchester are extremely isolated.

Manchester is to be given powers that Liverpool isn't though isnt it ?

A North West solution would be better imo with both cities in it together, theyve just electrified the train line but I'm sure with a bit of tweeking it could be made where it was less than 1/2 hour travel between the 2. With both in it together the whole region would benefit as opposed to creating a bigger split between the 2. The North West managed correctly could imo be a prosperous area unequalled in the uk (apart from obv. London cos of the value of the financial sector).

If only something could be done about the weather though so that we could have Palm Lined Promenades and pure white sandy beaches under clear blue skies.

 

[Tubey]

s


Manchester is to be given powers that Liverpool isn't though isnt it ?

A North West solution would be better imo with both cities in it together, theyve just electrified the train line but I'm sure with a bit of tweeking it could be made where it was less than 1/2 hour travel between the 2. With both in it together the whole region would benefit as opposed to creating a bigger split between the 2. The North West managed correctly could imo be a prosperous area unequalled in the uk (apart from obv. London cos of the value of the financial sector).

If only something could be done about the weather though so that we could have Palm Lined Promenades and pure white sandy beaches under clear blue skies.

It has, but the right funding has been there and the right political will - look at HS2. It's a poor idea in practice but the theory is the correct one - redistribute wealth creation. All of that goes away if cuts bite in and the poor are battered, meaning resources have to go to rescue a crumbling lower class.

Again from the above article:

Manchester was reversing a trend identified by Heseltine in his report. He observed that over several decades local authorities had come to focus on social provision at the expense of economic strategy and development. And this, he thought, was one of the reasons our cities, in particular, weren’t doing as they well as might. Heseltine recommended that local authorities have a legal duty to take economic development into account in the normal exercising of their functions. And they should collaborate on economic strategy where they share a labour market or travel-to-work area.

This is, for me, the key issue in our country today. Mindless cutting is horrendous - but smart reallocation of investment is brilliant.

 

[peteblue]

If only something could be done about the weather though so that we could have Palm Lined Promenades and pure white sandy beaches under clear blue skies.

It's in the next Labour manifesto......

 

[tim cahill]

I think this is a continuation of our earlier conversation, yes?

Things like this are precisely why Mrs Tree and I are planning, and saving in advance BEFORE having kids. On our current joint income we can save a chunk per month to more than tie us over for the period when she will be off work, regardless of the levels of statutory maternity pay in the future. Benefits payments and statutory maternity pay don't factor into the calculations for us, for the exact reason you've highlighted - they are subject to changes beyond our control. Her contractual maternity pay is ok, and her job security is good because she is a full-time permanent employee in degree-level profession. Looking at how difficult it could be to start having children without substantial savings already in place, I don't think we'll be altering our approach. I'm surprised at the number of replies in this thread who are suggesting otherwise, particularly in light of you recounting your own current situation.

Obviously such an approach doesn't apply to people who ALREADY have children, but isn't it a pretty sensible template for FUTURE generations to follow? Something has to be done to make teenagers and people in their twenties realise just how expensive and difficult it can be to raise children, surely? Otherwise don't rising birth rates simply place more and more pressure on an already overburdened NHS, and state education system?

So many jobs don't offer wages that allow people to save though. So if people can't get the work they need to be able to save like you can then they shouldn't have kids?