Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

2015 post UK election discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
daylightrobber said:
So, the long term impact this has on the country's finances is significant. If there are people who would otherwise live in the same community as their parents but are forced out for one reason or another, the likelihood is that they will not be there to care for their parents in their old age. The tax payer will inevitably pick up the tab.

There are plenty of other reasons why keeping a broad range of demographics in local communities is essential. By not doing so, there will inevitably be issues with employment, provision of facilities for all, including schools and adequate retail. There will also be knock ons to health provision whilst often seeing increased need (especially in the mental sector). Its complicated alright. Like I've stated previously, when the youth are priced out, there is literally no one there to provide for the elderly.
Click to expand...
The elderly can sell and move to where their children are but more practically we also have cars so its not like the children have to move too far.

People have to go where the work is in the modern world. It's just not practical otherwise and pouring government subsidize into keeping people in their local areas is really inefficient and costly.

It sucks but there are no workable alternatives.
 
the esk said:
I understand your thinking even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

The point about taking risks is the probability of success or failure. I'm not talking about being reckless, and I'm not asking tax payers to underwrite those risks.

I think you're confusing your own micro-situation with the macro. The point is, if you have ability and opportunity (which I'm guessing you have) - that combined with incentive (kid on way or present) will generate more income for most than ability, opportunity and incentive (kid on the way in x years)
Click to expand...
Ok, I see where you're coming from (I think!)

I look at the idea of having children WITHOUT making adequate financial provision in advance as following a reckless path, a path which asks the state to underwrite them should their chosen route go "wrong" in terms of falling on hard financial times. It also carries, as far as I can see, a greater likelihood of falling on hard financial times because of the lack of savings in place to tie the couple over should redundancy or illness play a part, and a refusal to acknowledge that income in a couple will INEVITABLY drop if one of the couple takes substantial time off work to give birth to, and raise, a child. I *think* you don't see this as reckless, because you view the level and likelihood of risk, and the resultant harm arising from that risk, as much lower than I do. Is that accurate, or have I missed your point?

This is a different scenario to that where a couple save up, plan, have one or two children and then some form of disaster strikes - industrial injury, or redundancy for instance. Through their prudence, they will have a cushion to keep them going. After that, for instance if the injury is life-changing or the redundancy is followed by long-term unemployment, then that's where I see the welfare state as having a vital role to play.
 
Tubey said:
You should be able to see the difference like night and day then.
Click to expand...

I can mate, and feel guilty about it when I go home and see the lads/family. I'm originally a flat roofer, but didn't want to carry it on when I moved down here, so ended up a supervisor for a landscaping company, I've just been made redundant from that job, but am in a position financially that we won't struggle because my other half is a director of services in a county council, I suppose I should welcome a Tory government, just can't forget my roots though.
 

Clint Planet said:
I see you're suddenly responding to my posts about other people. And yet when I addressed you......

Hombre, the man just said single-parent families were a threat to society. I'll leave it at that..
Click to expand...
You lectured me about, of all things, lecturing. You came across at the time as very angry and, additionally the thread had been locked. Apologies for not replying in those circumstances.

I want to try to understand your way of thinking. I don't want a pointless row. Meet me halfway sir?
 
LouReedwalkonthewildside said:
I can mate, and feel guilty about it when I go home and see the lads/family. I'm originally a flat roofer, but didn't want to carry it on when I moved down here, so ended up a supervisor for a landscaping company, I've just been made redundant from that job, but am in a position financially that we won't struggle because my other half is a director of services in a county council, I suppose I should welcome a Tory government, can't forget my roots though.
Click to expand...

In broadly the same boat myself.

Yes, I'll be personally better off probably with the Tories - but my conscience can't allow me to ignore that for every benefit I get from this government, thousands will get hammered for it.

Not worth the price.
 
Adversus said:
The elderly can sell and move to where their children are but more practically we also have cars so its not like the children have to move too far.

People have to go where the work is in the modern world. It's just not practical otherwise and pouring government subsidize into keeping people in their local areas is really inefficient and costly.

It sucks but there are no workable alternatives.
Click to expand...
You couldn't be more wrong. I'm involved with a community housing scheme which provides a brilliant solution. It's early days but we are providing the homes required and expanding. The model is being copied elsewhere. The scenario as it stands though is that the Tories are threatening it's very existance through the extension of right to buy.

Destroy communities and the opportunities migrate away too. Build them and the opportunities will follow.
 
daylightrobber said:
You couldn't be more wrong. I'm involved with a community housing scheme which provides a brilliant solution. It's early days but we are providing the homes required and expanding. The model is being copied elsewhere. The scenario as it stands though is that the Tories are threatening it's very existance through the extension of right to buy.

Destroy communities and the opportunities migrate away too. Build them and the opportunities will follow.
Click to expand...

Got to applaud you for the rational response to someone advocating social cleansing, because reasons. Good on you - I would have lost my rag haha
 

Tree13 said:
Ok, I see where you're coming from (I think!)

I look at the idea of having children WITHOUT making adequate financial provision in advance as following a reckless path, a path which asks the state to underwrite them should their chosen route go "wrong" in terms of falling on hard financial times. It also carries, as far as I can see, a greater likelihood of falling on hard financial times because of the lack of savings in place to tie the couple over should redundancy or illness play a part, and a refusal to acknowledge that income in a couple will INEVITABLY drop if one of the couple takes substantial time off work to give birth to, and raise, a child. I *think* you don't see this as reckless, because you view the level and likelihood of risk, and the resultant harm arising from that risk, as much lower than I do. Is that accurate, or have I missed your point?

This is a different scenario to that where a couple save up, plan, have one or two children and then some form of disaster strikes - industrial injury, or redundancy for instance. Through their prudence, they will have a cushion to keep them going. After that, for instance if the injury is life-changing or the redundancy is followed by long-term unemployment, then that's where I see the welfare state as having a vital role to play.
Click to expand...

Mate, I'm not saying you are wrong - if you wish to be more cautious then that is your choice - we all have to be true to ourselves.

For me the additional responsibility of a child on its way was sufficient incentive to position myself so that the risks became negligible. But even if I had failed I would have the most precious asset of all, a child. A child is no more or less precious because of your financial circumstances.
 
Tubey said:
Got to applaud you for the rational response to someone advocating social cleansing, because reasons. Good on you - I would have lost my rag haha
Click to expand...
Cheers fella. I guess doing something about it and beating it is what keeps me on the straight and narrow. I think the batshitcrazy will come when the government try to force us sell off our community assets on the cheap, in order to win future votes.

We've started to lobby our local MP already and have also written to the losing Tory candidate. Legal advice is already being sought too. There'll be challenges up and down the country.
 
daylightrobber said:
You couldn't be more wrong. I'm involved with a community housing scheme which provides a brilliant solution. It's early days but we are providing the homes required and expanding. The model is being copied elsewhere. The scenario as it stands though is that the Tories are threatening it's very existance through the extension of right to buy.

Destroy communities and the opportunities migrate away too. Build them and the opportunities will follow.
Click to expand...
How is that any different to UKIP closing the door to immigration. I know. You are using everyone's tax money to build houses for the lucky few that just happened to live in those areas.

Do you think that's fair?

It's another example of how socialism "picks" winners rather than allowing people to earn it.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top