The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[daylightrobber]

I mean, are either justifiable morally? Clearly the bedroom tax is hitting the most vulnerable in our society as well as those able to contribute more, and is widely seen as a failing tax. However, taxing someone on a house worth over £2m seems outrageous, seeing as often these people bought their houses in well to do areas, before the housing boom, and are not actually that well off, and also, it does not consider incomes. There is an argument, well sell your house then, but doesn't it then face the same problems as bedroom tax? Neither seem okay to me, one reason I am not totally sure I will be voting Labour this election.

It absolutely does consider incomes. The proposals would very much take them into account. Discussed many pages back.

 

[daylightrobber]

Joking aside, I think the changes in inequality are much larger than anything this government, or indeed any government, is responsible for. Things like globalisation, technology changes, the role of assets in wealth creation and the like are far more responsible for the change in income distribution than anything governments can do.

For sure, they probably haven't helped matters, and the welfare system does appear to be a complete mess at the moment, but I'm not sure that any state anywhere in the world has really got to grips with how work is changing. The welfare state was devised in a (relatively speaking) much simpler time and it will take a while before it adapts I suspect.

Why is acceptable to cut at the bottom but not the top?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Why is acceptable to cut at the bottom but not the top?

I appreciate it's a semantic issue but the super rich probably haven't got much to cut. If they use private schools and hospitals and so on, then they aren't going to be effected by 'cutting' any public service from them as they don't really depend on them.

In many ways, the situation is almost a reflection on how politics so often plays out these days. As I said to Esk the other day, there are certain things that are political dynamite in the current climate. Pensions are one, so pensioners have largely escaped from the recession unscathed. The NHS is another, and the funding for that has been ringfenced.

Those two things alone make up roughly a third of the state budget, so if those things are out of bounds then it inevitably means that other areas bare the brunt. I wouldn't say that's right (it probably isn't), but it's probably a consequence of how politics works, in terms of the demographic of the voting population, the way opposition parties look to score points, and how the media look to sensationalise every little thing.

It's not a mature way to undertake something as important as this, and it does appear that there are some very real consequences of it.

 

[1966efc]

In many ways, the situation is almost a reflection on how politics so often plays out these days. As I said to Esk the other day, there are certain things that are political dynamite in the current climate. Pensions are one, so pensioners have largely escaped from the recession unscathed. The NHS is another, and the funding for that has been ringfenced.

I believe this is quite right.

Left wing inclined voters (like me) need to wise up to the fact that the population and its needs / expectations are not those which prevailed at the time of the Welfare State's introduction.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

To give an example. This week saw NASA open up all of the data it holds from its various missions.

https://data.nasa.gov/

The idea is that there are a whole lot of smart folks out there that can do cool things with that data, and far more than exist within NASA itself.

A few years ago there were plans to do the same with the data held by the NHS, but a whole lot of scaremongering and sensationalising put paid to that. It's a shame, it really is.

And for the record, this is how it's going, and you can see on the GDS site (https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/technology/open-data.html) how many other government departments, councils, quangos and the like are opening up their data. But the NHS is so 'weaponised' (to use the unfortunate phrase)...

 

[daylightrobber]

I appreciate it's a semantic issue but the super rich probably haven't got much to cut. If they use private schools and hospitals and so on, then they aren't going to be effected by 'cutting' any public service from them as they don't really depend on them.

In many ways, the situation is almost a reflection on how politics so often plays out these days. As I said to Esk the other day, there are certain things that are political dynamite in the current climate. Pensions are one, so pensioners have largely escaped from the recession unscathed. The NHS is another, and the funding for that has been ringfenced.

Those two things alone make up roughly a third of the state budget, so if those things are out of bounds then it inevitably means that other areas bare the brunt. I wouldn't say that's right (it probably isn't), but it's probably a consequence of how politics works, in terms of the demographic of the voting population, the way opposition parties look to score points, and how the media look to sensationalise every little thing.

It's not a mature way to undertake something as important as this, and it does appear that there are some very real consequences of it.

Oooooh! The question of who benefits most from public services, the individual or the nation? Got to think longer term and bigger picture here Bruce. The one asset the super rich benefit from more than anything else is their workforce. Got to look after them.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Oooooh! The question of who benefits most from public services, the individual or the nation? Got to think longer term and bigger picture here Bruce. The one asset the super rich benefit from more than anything else is their workforce. Got to look after them.

To be fair, the rest of my post (and subsequent ones) have been pretty big picture I think. If they aren't things you can dispute then that kind of underlines the problem doesn't it? I reckon we'd be much better off (as a society and individually) if we set out to learn rather than prove wrong.

The parties don't seem to want to do that (in public at least).

 

[peteblue]

My views couldn't be more founded in the society we live in today. It's 2015 and kids are going hungry.

Where?....where are the stories in the media of all of these kids going hungry ?......where are the images of destitute children in a state of malnutrition ?.........Gordon Brown started all this nonsense with his child poverty indices......I grew up in real poverty, not this imagined stuff, and yet we never went hungry.......just pull out the pictures of today's children going hungry.........

 

[Jags]

It absolutely does consider incomes. The proposals would very much take them into account. Discussed many pages back.

My bad. With some more research done, I can begin to understand mansion tax, but ONLY if it is done responsibly. Doubt that though.

 

[daylightrobber]

Where?....where are the stories in the media of all of these kids going hungry ?......where are the images of destitute children in a state of malnutrition ?.........Gordon Brown started all this nonsense with his child poverty indices......I grew up in real poverty, not this imagined stuff, and yet we never went hungry.......just pull out the pictures of today's children going hungry.........

Oh dear! Are you for real?

 

[peteblue]

Austerity is required because of the debt crisis according to the Government - there is no debt crisis. Not once have international debt markets viewed the UK as a problem, look at Government bond yields, at historic lows!

However, let's get back to society and individuals - remember Margaret Thatcher?

"you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour."

The Labour Party is not driven by envy, it is driven by compassion for those that through circumstances do not have the means, ability, education or motivation to help themselves. How much stronger is a society that helps the poor and weak than a society that says "each for their own"?

The wealthy, the educated, the skilled, the motivated will always succeed regardless of macro-economic circumstances (I know that through personal circumstances) - the poor, uneducated, unskilled, and unmotivated require the assistance of the State, and for the State it is a much more meaningful and profitable investment than a reduction in borrowing or tax cuts for those that don't need it.

I think that once upon a time the Labour party was driven by a belief to help the poor and disadvantaged while ensuring that workers who were likely to vote labour were properly rewarded. That was the Labour party I grew up with, supported and helped. Today's Labour party is nothing of the sort. It seeks to create a client state from which it will be given the reins of power. Tony Blair and co changed Labour and changed the real beliefs of the party. There are very few proper Labour MP's anymore, they are bright young things straight from university or professional politicians with nice houses in London. I have never complained about the taxes I have paid, and I have no problem with supertaxes for the very rich (I would willingly vote for a 90% tax on footballers, bankers etc who make more than £1M per year), but we must not kill off the very people who create and run businesses that create wealth. Labour do not understand this, today's Labour is like some hectoring nanny who believes she knows best when actually she has no experience in the real world and is cocooned from its effects.............

 

[peteblue]

Oh dear! Are you for real?

Is the usual retort from those that cannot provide evidence.......go on just one picture......

 

[chewee]

If you want to see child poverty in this country feel free to swing by the food bank I help out at. If that's not your cup of tea then come doorknocking in my local constituency and hear some of the horror stories people have faced.

This is a serious offer, it may open your eyes a little.

 

[peteblue]

If you want to see child poverty in this country feel free to swing by the food bank I help out at. If that's not your cup of tea then come doorknocking in my local constituency and hear some of the horror stories people have faced.

This is a serious offer, it may open your eyes a little.

I've seen poverty. Why is it now called child poverty as opposed to family poverty or just poverty....

The other guy said that 'children are going hungry' and I challenged him to provide evidence, just one picture of evidence of this....

 

[daylightrobber]

If you want to see child poverty in this country feel free to swing by the food bank I help out at. If that's not your cup of tea then come doorknocking in my local constituency and hear some of the horror stories people have faced.

This is a serious offer, it may open your eyes a little.

Likewise, I'm sure that my Mrs would welcome you to come and see the some of the work that she does with Banardos