Election - Something About to Happen ?

[Nick W]

So now you've decided to change the game and quote the typical low-income workers, who have a marginal tax rate of around 60%. I think that using your quoted you have to concede that this is a minority of workers, under 2%, and therefore not a barrier than everyone must climb.

Once again, however, you have simply failed to mention why benefits, in principle are a bad thing. Your argument so far has been predicated on the specific implementation. I do concede that the implementation is wrong, and I would support the Liberal Democrat's policy to increase the lower tax threshold to £10,000, which itself would reduce the marginal tax rate to 40% for those who earn less than £10,000 annually. They propose to fund this by closing the very tax loopholes you are so against! I do not see any promises from the Conservatives to address this problem, so you might want to consider this in two months time when you vote!

You make a very good point of social justice, however the Conservatives gave Labour a Country with a huge social divide: a nation that featured a hugely successful financial service industry while hoards of industry closed down as a result of Tory policy. Even by 1997, and even today, much of Britain's economy relies on extensive public spending to prop it up, there is little the Government can do increase social justice other than spite the rich and cripple the successfully industries that we have. Yes there is a strong case for taxing the richer members of society more to narrow the divide and help pay off national debt and yes, the 50% tax rate should have been implemented much sooner. However apart from investing in both child and adult education, health and giving out benefits, there is little the Government can do to reverse the short-signed actions in the 80s. You may ask, is it acceptable to blame a Government over 20 years ago for today's problems? Well of course it is - the financial market may be flexible but the labour market simply isn't.

I would be very interested in knowing more about the allegations of Labour encouraging immigrant for political engineering purposes. Regarding your idea that the state should be in charge of establishing whether or not there is need for a particular skill or not, I believe they already do take this into account using a points based scoring system.

Lies and distortions of the truth a matter of course for Labour are they? I thought that was the job of the tabloid press.

I totally agree with you that if it can be demonstrated that there are immigrants here who are a drain on the economy, and it would not be more of a drain on the economy to remove them, they should be removed. However you have yet to provide substantial proof of this.

 

[Mojo]

Once again, however, you have simply failed to mention why benefits, in principle are a bad thing.

Because there is no need for people to be living their whole lives on benefits. If it were easier and more attractive for companies and individuals to employ people there would be more wealth to go around and more jobs that could be provided.

You make a very good point of social justice, however the Conservatives gave Labour a Country with a huge social divide: a nation that featured a hugely successful financial service industry while hoards of industry closed down as a result of Tory policy.

That's pretty unfair to claim industry "closed down as a result of Tory policy." Individuals want things to be produced at as much of a low cost as possible, and in Britain for a lot of things this simply isn't possible, due to competition from overseas. I'd say the people of this country and the trade unions pushing for less competitive working conditions are more responsible for it than any Conservative government.

Even by 1997, and even today, much of Britain's economy relies on extensive public spending to prop it up, there is little the Government can do increase social justice other than spite the rich and cripple the successfully industries that we have.

Is it right that in some cities, such as Birmingham, public sector workers make up the majority of the population? Of course not, which is why governments have a duty, in certain areas to make their populations more productive and give incentives for businesses to move to those areas.

 

[Nick W]

Ok if we're going to play the quote by quote game.

Because there is no need for people to be living their whole lives on benefits. If it were easier and more attractive for companies and individuals to employ people there would be more wealth to go around and more jobs that could be provided.

You have failed to show any link between benefits and ease of employment. We provide benefits for three major reasons. Firstly because we believe that without the extra income they would end up living below the standards we see is accept. This would clearly be immoral. Secondly, by increasing living standards and wealth for lower-rater earners, we ensure that they maintain a healthy life, both physically and mentally, and that they are remain fit to work in the long-term. This is good for the economy and society. Thirdly, extra wealth provides a greater means for the low-end earners to climb ladders, through education, programs, investment or starting their own business, thus increasing social mobility, benefiting the economy and strengthening the labour market.

That's pretty unfair to claim industry "closed down as a result of Tory policy." Individuals want things to be produced at as much of a low cost as possible, and in Britain for a lot of things this simply isn't possible, due to competition from overseas. I'd say the people of this country and the trade unions pushing for less competitive working conditions are more responsible for it than any Conservative government.

The Unions were most certainly foolish for assisting the Conservative government from gaining power, however in most cases the unions were simply fighting for a fair pay that allowed them to keep their families in conditions that they felt were fit for them. If a similar policy had been carried out in countries similar to ours, your argument would stand up, but this clearly isn't the case.

Is it right that in some cities, such as Birmingham, public sector workers make up the majority of the population? Of course not, which is why governments have a duty, in certain areas to make their populations more productive and give incentives for businesses to move to those areas.

I didn't quite say that, just that economies should not be propped up by public spending, as this is unsustainable. The way we can achieve this is by providing workers who are healthy and have the right skills, through improved healthcare and both adult and child education. Not though scrapping benefits which, as I have demonstrated, would actually work against this.

 

[Old Timer]

So now you've decided to change the game and quote the typical low-income workers, who have a marginal tax rate of around 60%. I think that using your quoted you have to concede that this is a minority of workers, under 2%, and therefore not a barrier than everyone must climb. .

I have not changed anything I have simply extended out the demonstration of how this does not affectr "a very small grouop pf people" and shows your lack of appreciation, or maybe interest in people who are at the lower end of the earnings scale. I would say that this definitely places you a Socialist or a Liberal then.

Once again, however, you have simply failed to mention why benefits, in principle are a bad thing. .

Why should I mention benefits as being a bad thing ? I don't believe that they are and your attempt to disingenuously suggest that I (and therefore by extrapolation, anyone to the Right of Centre) does not support them, comes straight out of thre Labour Dirty Tricks book.

You make a very good point of social justice, however the Conservatives gave Labour a Country with a huge social divide: a nation that featured a hugely successful financial service industry while hoards of industry closed down as a result of Tory policy.. .

The sad thing is that you probably actually do believe thi. Yet another series of lies and distortions, and disingenuous comment, probbaly from the same Labour Dirty Tricks book, or more probably just parrotted out having listened to the various crap spouted out by those on the Left who seek to re-write history. :roll:

In 1997 the divide between those at the lower end of the earnings scale and the upper end was probably the smallest it has ever been. In effect this demonstrates how Conservative policies had actually benefitted those at the lower end. Labour's policies have simply re-opened and indeed dramatically widened that gap. At the same time social cohesion and justice have collapsed, as for example Labour have removed the ability of workers to take their bosses to the EAT by removing funding, they have alos capped awards, and have removed the ability of Tribunals to awar punitive damages. Going to an EAT these days is simply not worth it because even if you DO win you still have to pay your own costs and these swallow up a large proportion of any award which of course is capped :roll: So there we have it, another example of how Labour have undone previous Conservative good work, to the disadvantage of their so called "natural" supporters. However as I stated in an earlier post, Labour being full of Champagne Socialist "Intellectuals" dont actually have much regard for the poor do they ?

Under the Conservatives many many of those at the working end of the scale obtained the opportunity to own their own homes and set up their own businesses, and it is an indisputable fact that you yourself will have benefitted from the Consrvative policies of the 1980s. Of course as a true Socialist that you purport to be I would not expect you to own a house or work in a highly paid job ? If you talk to the average worker what thye seek is far removed from what Labour will ever offer.

...a nation that featured a hugely successful financial service industry while hoards of industry closed down as a result of Tory policy. .

Yet again another perfect example of your lack of research, and reliance upon tired and disingenuous Leftist propaganda. I have gone into this aspect many times before on here, and frankly if people want to believe that then fine. If people only did a LITTLE research before making such stupid and inaccurate comments, which simply regurgitate Socialist distortions of fact and mistruths, they would understand so much more.

Even by 1997, and even today, much of Britain's economy relies on extensive public spending to prop it up, there is little the Government can do increase social justice other than spite the rich and cripple the successfully industries that we have. .

What public sector spending ? What Industries are propped up by Government spending ?

Labour have sold off pretty much all of our public infrastructure, and what remained of our Utilities and defence industries and have gone on a spending spree based on credit.

They even closed down many of the remaining mines, interestingly though as usual when these things happen under a Labour Government nothing is said by the Left Wing media. Even mines that were productive have been closed ?

WHY ?

Because the economics now are the same as they were then. Foreign Countries (in many cases led by the Left, and in some cases by means of Government subsidies) have made the price of goods cheaper than they can be produced here. Who buys these goods ? Why the very people who work in the same sort of Industries, thus effectively authoring their own redundancies. They then complain about it and people such as you blame the Conservatives :roll::roll::roll:

Yes there is a strong case for taxing the richer members of society more to narrow the divide and help pay off national debt and yes, the 50% tax rate should have been implemented much sooner. However apart from investing in both child and adult education, health and giving out benefits, there is little the Government can do to reverse the short-signed actions in the 80s. You may ask, is it acceptable to blame a Government over 20 years ago for today's problems? Well of course it is - the financial market may be flexible but the labour market simply isn't. .

Refer to previous observations.

I would be very interested in knowing more about the allegations of Labour encouraging immigrant for political engineering purposes. Regarding your idea that the state should be in charge of establishing whether or not there is need for a particular skill or not, I believe they already do take this into account using a points based scoring system. .

You do not read the Press ? or maybe only that to the Left which has played this whole matter down ?

You only have to Google or go to Hansard.

...I totally agree with you that if it can be demonstrated that there are immigrants here who are a drain on the economy, and it would not be more of a drain on the economy to remove them, they should be removed. However you have yet to provide substantial proof of this.

Again you seem not to be aware of what is being discussed in the public domain

 

[Nick W]

Thank you very much for conceding that benefits, if implemented correctly, are a good thing.

The effect of a Conservative Government was to take away jobs from people who had spent their whole life in said jobs. These people tended to be the lower-earners, since lower-earners typically have fewer transferable skills. I find it hard to see how this could in anyway benefit these people. Moreover, by destroying these industries, for which people had the right skills, in favour of industries for which these same people did not have skills, the Conservatives lowered the maximum possible sustainable output of the nation. You also wrongly claim that the social divide between the richest and the poorest was the lowest in 1997. It was lower in the 1970s!

I note that you mention the Conservative's "right to buy" programme. It was woefully irresponsible that the Conservatives sold off our councils houses at prices that would always be less than the market value of a similar house without the stigma attached, and then not to build new council houses at the same rate. Such a policy reduced the number of council houses, and the ability for the state to house people with the greatest needs.

I would love you to to tell me how I benefited from the Conservative policies of the 1980s. As you should be aware, the Conservatives cut spending on higher education leading to the closer of many University departments around the country. Ironic isn't it that the apparently bankrupt state of the 70s was able to afford to pay more. Regrettably Labour now appear to be aiming to carry out the same ill-conceived policies, just another reason I don't support them. Also, it's worth mentioning that child poverty in Britain in 1997 was the highest in Europe. If I have benefited because I was in the :right" 70% not the unfortunate 30% of families, can I really drop my social libertarian ways.

Am I true socialist? I'm actually very much an elitist. I have no objection for those who work the hardest and take the less desirable and most stressful jobs to be paid well for their work. All I'm pushing for is for social mobility, and for everyone independent of earnings to have the minimum standards of living under which I'd be happy living, and for this to be the case, we do have to tax the better off. Just like you, I vehemently oppose those who I see as not contributing or having contributed to society. Since you wish to know whether I will seek a high paid job and a decent house, I'll kindly point out that two close mates have successfully secured contracts to work in the investment banking industry over the summer. I see no reason why I wouldn't have been equally successful had I chosen to go down the route of wealth. My passions are in Engineering, in which I think I contribute far more to society than simply developing the latest state of the art trading algorithm. I don't know what I'll go in to yet, but I'll happily accept a pay-hit to work more interesting or more fulfilling work.

Public spending is currently almost half of GDP, and Labour have created many new public sector jobs over their terms, many in less productive regions, many in positions whose benefits are dubious. In many cases I believe that this was a step in the right direction towards reversing the effect of Tory policy on our industries but these jobs are not sustainable. If Labour can be condemned for any one thing, it's for not doing enough to reverse the effects that the Tories had on our economy. Fortunately, under the banner of New Conservative, the Tories do claim that they have seen the error of their ways and are no longer pushing for the same extreme "reform" that many people still continue to justify. Sadly, there are many problems than you have kindly identified which the Tories do not appear to wish to address in their policy, whereas the Liberal Democrats profess a range of measures, and therefore they will receive my vote.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It's probably also worth me quoting some figures, so here is proof of the effect of the Tory rule on income inequality. Shame on Labour for letting it increase in the last few years!

 

[Old Timer]

Thank you very much for conceding that benefits, if implemented correctly, are a good thing.

The effect of a Conservative Government was to take away jobs from people who had spent their whole life in said jobs. These people tended to be the lower-earners, since lower-earners typically have fewer transferable skills. I find it hard to see how this could in anyway benefit these people. Moreover, by destroying these industries, for which people had the right skills, in favour of industries for which these same people did not have skills, the Conservatives lowered the maximum possible sustainable output of the nation.

Wrong again, and quite frankly uninformed nonesense straight from the Leftist book of historically distorted fact.

The Conservatives did not go around shutting down Industry. Industry shut down because it could not compete with foreign manufacturers who were producing cheaper and more reliable products than the UK.

THAT is why it was one-upmanship to own a foreign car and buy foreign white goods in the 1970s.

A combination of trade union action and Labour mismanagement of the economy brought the UK to the point where it was technicaly bankrupt and was only kept liquid by loans from the IMF. The IMF effectively dictated the fiscal Policies of certainly the first Conservative Government, as a little checking up through economic fact and various biographies will prove.

Coal from abroad (ironically so called Socialist Countries) was heavily and (in many cases) illegally subsidised by National EU Governments. It could be mined, shipped to the UK, and delivered to the door step cheaper than it could be mined to the pithead in the UK. Who bought the coal ? Could it by chance be the population of the UK ?

Continuing strikes brought Britsh Leyland to its knees, destroyed opportunities for efficiencies at a time when the rest of Europe was investing heavily in new methods of production. As a result Germany, France, Spain, and Italy saw marked rises in the exports to the UK. Someone bought their cars. Not the Conservative Government.

Steel plants were modernised in Europe whilst at the same time UK Unions opposed all attempts to modernise. As a result steel production costs were far greater than that from abroad, and steel markets contracted and were lost to cheaper suppliers. Again the fault of the Conservative Government I suppose ?

You also wrongly claim that the social divide between the richest and the poorest was the lowest in 1997. It was lower in the 1970s!

It depends how you want to represent it. I presume you are taking the differential between highest and lowest pre-tax ?

I note that you mention the Conservative's "right to buy" programme. It was woefully irresponsible that the Conservatives sold off our councils houses at prices that would always be less than the market value of a similar house without the stigma attached, and then not to build new council houses at the same rate. Such a policy reduced the number of council houses, and the ability for the state to house people with the greatest needs.

Again another wrong statement. Most Councils were unable to maintain their housing stock, let alone build new housing. Most people stayed in a Council House for generations so the house was not "lost" in the ether. That being the case how is a Council going to house people ?????

The Right to Buy scheme released money back to Councils against which new propertiers could be built. You also fail to acknowledge that there was clear evidence emerging of an increase in people living on their own which defeats the point of building 3 bedroom properties.

No-one forced anyone to buy their house, it was something that those who bought wanted to do. It was also notable that having bought their houses, they then spent money improving them and this in turn led to areas improving their status.

People moving from Council housing to buy their own homes released council properties, something you fail to recognise or mention.

If you talk to anyone in rented accommodation they will pretty much all express a desire to own their own property. I am sure your parents did.

I would love you to to tell me how I benefited from the Conservative policies of the 1980s. As you should be aware, the Conservatives cut spending on higher education leading to the closer of many University departments around the country.

Would you back this up with facts and figures please.

Also, it's worth mentioning that child poverty in Britain in 1997 was the highest in Europe

Wrong again as a little fact checking will show that the UK NOW has the highest level of child poverty in Europe. Child poverty has actually risen after 13 years of Labour Governments. The UK now has the highest level of child poverty in the Industrialised world.

Am I true socialist? I'm actually very much an elitist. I have no objection for those who work the hardest and take the less desirable and most stressful jobs to be paid well for their work. All I'm pushing for is for social mobility, and for everyone independent of earnings to have the minimum standards of living under which I'd be happy living, and for this to be the case, we do have to tax the better off. Just like you, I vehemently oppose those who I see as not contributing or having contributed to society. Since you wish to know whether I will seek a high paid job and a decent house, I'll kindly point out that two close mates have successfully secured contracts to work in the investment banking industry over the summer. I see no reason why I wouldn't have been equally successful had I chosen to go down the route of wealth. My passions are in Engineering, in which I think I contribute far more to society than simply developing the latest state of the art trading algorithm. I don't know what I'll go in to yet, but I'll happily accept a pay-hit to work more interesting or more fulfilling work.

Yes, as I suspected someone who was not even born when Mrs Thatcher took power, yet you feel you can argue with those who were actually living and working during that time. You presumably have done no investigation into what happened before 1979, as to most people who hold your style of view, the World started in 1979. Again something that was being drilled into children by a fair proprtion of teachers in the early 1980s.....Something I happen to know as a fact.

Am I true socialist? I'm actually very much an elitist.

You should do well if you go into the Labour Party then

Public spending is currently almost half of GDP, and Labour have created many new public sector jobs over their terms, many in less productive regions, many in positions whose benefits are dubious. In many cases I believe that this was a step in the right direction towards reversing the effect of Tory policy on our industries but these jobs are not sustainable.

Government does not destroy jobs. Take a tip, go and talk to an economics Lecturer and get them to explain this ?

If Labour can be condemned for any one thing, it's for not doing enough to reverse the effects that the Tories had on our economy.

You mean that the Conservatives should have used the money that the UK did not have because it was bankrupt to maintain Industries that were producing goods that no-one wanted to buy either because the quality was too poor or because they were too expensive ???? :roll::roll::roll:

Economics is obviously not your strong point.

Fortunately, under the banner of New Conservative, the Tories do claim that they have seen the error of their ways and are no longer pushing for the same extreme "reform" that many people still continue to justify. Sadly, there are many problems than you have kindly identified which the Tories do not appear to wish to address in their policy, whereas the Liberal Democrats profess a range of measures, and therefore they will receive my vote

The Liberal Deomocrats have been unelectable for generations because they have never held any form of Political belief that was acceptable to the vast majority of the UK electorate. They have U-turned on just about every Policy that they ever held.

You must be one of those who wears rose tinted spectacles because most of the LibDems Policies unravel soon after they are published, that of course presumes they are even discussed collectively by the Party leaderships rather than being announced on TV and radio by Vince Cable after they have been made up to catch the latest public poll.

The way things are going they may well end up as the official Opposition.