General Election - 8 June 2017

[basalte]

I agree that rent needs to be capped and incomes need to increase to lessen the need for benefits. In addition council housing must be built again to give people a stable life. Once you have a stable life, the chance to bring up a family  and rights, dignity can be found doing valuable and valued work without letting go of studies to advance ambitions and take further opportunities.  

There was a time in the 1960s when people thought that in the future we would live on the moon and all drive around in cars like the Lotus Elite.

We laugh now and whether they were right or wrong, that mentality stemmed from a society where everyone felt that they had a stake in the future instead of being the latest recipient of a cut in services / receiving a massive bill for their offspring`s tuition fees / getting a repossession notice because they`ve defaulted on the mortgage/ living from year to year hand to mouth in rented accommodation because there is no security and no rent controls. 

Financing the future ? The only actual numbers you`ll find in the Tory manifesto to give us hope for the future are the page numbers . Nothing in there for the young.

McDonnell plans to tax people who earn over £80,000 a year, the rest of us are left alone.

Unfortunately Theresa May has chickened out of every debate with anyone who was elected to challenge her so there is a bit of an information blackout from those in power.

Bit like Uzbekistan really (not my opinion the words of the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray in his blog).

And a parting thought. If Theresa May is so keen to tell us all that Keir Starmer QC is such a lousy Brexit negotiator why did she call an election to allow him the chance to negotiate in the first place ? If it wasn`t for her mega rich mates Rupert Murdoch, Paul Dacre, Paul Desmond and the Barclay Twins yelling in your ear every day for her, she would be a non-starter. "Overpromoted" is the polite way to put it.  

Edited June 2, 2017 by basalte
typo

[comem47]

Sounds like you need "the rent is too damn high" party like we have in NY as an alternate party. Jimmy McMillan is going at it again here.

 

 

[Barrykearley]

http://news.sky.com/story/parties-must-address-social-mobility-problem-to-win-general-election-10901477

 

you need to watch all of this - I'm sure there's some relevance to the dying beetle on its back

You need to see the full article - the above appears to be massively edited!! Doh

[comem47]

I guess he finally gave up after-all, but here is a followup in the Rocky spirit

 

[Steve V8]

3 hours ago, basalte said:

I agree that rent needs to be capped and incomes need to increase to lessen the need for benefits. 

Once again, I completely disagree. You, Old Mcdonald and Neil Kinnock should put your heads together, you seem to share a lack of foresight and the inability to understand basic economics, you can't just increase incomes, money doesn't grow on trees, it has to come from somewhere.

If you increase the income in the private sector, the cost of the goods and services has to increase to cover the wage bill, which then makes those goods and services uncompetitive in the marketplace, if they are uncompetitive they won't sell, the company will go under, all those once well paid staff WILL BE ON BENIFITS.

What is your plan for the private sector... Any increase in income is the burden of the taxpayer, IMO most are overpaid anyway, too much holiday, too much sick pay, and l should know, my wife works in the NHS. Of course teachers are underpaid, they need some extra spending money as they spend 50% of the year on holiday, with full pay of course. The fire service, dangerous job... A company rep is 20 times more likely to be killed in an accident than a fireman is in a fire. Early retirement due to the demands of the job, what a cop out, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen, get another job and work to retirement age like the rest of us have to. M.O.D, early retirement on final salary pentions, no wonder this country is in such a mess.

 

 

[Chillidoggy]

Tuition fees.

The state has a duty to educate up to the age of 16. But beyond that, I don't believe I should have to pay for anyone to go to a uni to study worthless degrees. They should pay for it themselves. And I say this as a dad who's paying his own son's tuition fees. When I were a lad, a degree really meant something. Sadly Blair's idea that everyone should have one has dumbed them down so much.

[Barrykearley]

@ian29gte - this course perhaps ??

 

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/study/masters/courses/list/01167/ma-gender-sexuality-and-culture/course-details/#course-profile

[Chillidoggy]

49 minutes ago, Barrykearley said:

@ian29gte - this course perhaps ??

 

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/study/masters/courses/list/01167/ma-gender-sexuality-and-culture/course-details/#course-profile

Nail on the head.

When I needed to employ an engineer, there weren't any out there. Plenty of degree students in all manner of such disciplines, but none in engineering. And don't get me started about apprenticeships, I have the money waiting, and cannot get the right college course locally so that the lad can get a modern apprenticeship certificate.

[basalte]

"You can`t just increase incomes, money doesn`t grow on trees it has to come from somewhere".

The central thrust of your argument is of course entirely legitimate - that companies have to pay wages as part of their overall turnover. There would come a point when increases so as to hit the core of the business. Having worked for small businesses all my life I am well aware of this. But wage bills are one cog in the process. At the other extreme, If all profits went in dividends instead of wage increases that would ultimately be unhealthy for the economy-these "Captains of Industry" can only buy so many conservatories and Jaguars. One cause of the 1929 crash was the availability of goods compared to the ability of the vast mass of people to afford them .One cause of the 2008 crash was the availability of cheap home loans to the vast mass who could not afford to repay them. Seems a bit of a pattern emerging there. Reharding the effect of wage rises on employment I well remember the uproar that introduction of the Minimum Wage caused-that it would lead to mass unmployment . It quite simply did not do so.  

Myself and hundreds of thousands of others want an explanation for the fact that CEO pay is now over 160 times more than  pay on the shop floor. In the 1960s it was 12 times that of the shop floor. Or are our Chief Exceutives now 150 times better at their jobs ? And don`t get me started on the bankers, six-figure bonuses paid out for making a loss !

That the purchasing power of UK wages has declined by 10.4 % since 2010. Politicians spout off about wage increases but of course if housing transport and living costs have soared those wage increases are not going to help . What they have done which makes people so angry, is give 60-70 billion in tax giveaways to corporations. Has that stimulated fantastic economic growth ? No it certainly has not. What has been happening since the economic crash of 2008 is that wealth has been flowing from the poor to the rich. That well-known socialist rag the Sunday Times Rich List confirms an increase in private wealth of 14% over the past year.

£648 billion amongst 1000 families  is a mighty big Money Tree ! Their private money tree, blocking the light to small businesses and small investors. 

If a nurse or police officer asked for a 14% rise now they would be laughed out of court. That`s what is meant when people like Corbyn or Sanders in the USA talk about " system rigged in favour of the rich". 

There is always a feeling on these threads that the "public sector" have it easy, That is arguable and public sector jobs have diminished hugely because there is no profit to be made in (for example) putting fires out. The ranks of the self-employed have increased to about 4.5 million people in proportion. People who by and large really do not have spare income and who are not even paid the minimum wage . Regarding the "cushiness" of public-v-private jobs, if everyone travelled by train (which I am NOT suggesting) then the risk of an accident to a Company Rep. would be almost zero compared to the risk to a firefighter but I digress.( Is it fanciful to venture that Company Reps suffer so many accidents because they are so busy speeding to the next crumb of commission that they can`t concentrate on safe driving ? Meanwhile the Boss has his chauffeur-driven 7-series...)  

Sir Philip Green is an extreme example but does symbolise the problems with your argument. There were billions  and thousands of jobs at stake, so what does he do to help his country`s economic strength ? Sells the business for a quid to an asset-stripper and buys a new luxury yacht while his thousands of ex-employees -now on benefits- are left fretting over their pensions.

The system that allows that to happen is inherently unfair to people who put the stability of their family life and their ability to resist stress and depression in the hands of a complete spiv. At least directors in the public services owe some accountability. Other public services (of which BHS clearly isn`t one) should be taken back into public ownership if only for strategic reasons. Regional investment and growth must be coordinated and lots of privateers make that inefficient at best and near- impossible at worst.  

A variable rate of Corporation Tax is the proposal-the bigger your Comapny the more you have to pay.

We can all agree here that training in substantive subjects and apprenticeships such as engineering is desperately needed. That is exactly why massive long-term investment in education is needed togther with the abolition of tuition fees to give talented but poorer students a level playing field.. 

I know the philosophy behind this; that "Free Money" for everyone is a very Bad Thing. It encourages laziness, sloth etc. My short answer is "not necessarily". If the resources are there to motivate people then  some money to give them and their families security is money well spent. At the moment we just have free money for the Rich and I don`t particularly see them getting off their backsides to help their country either. 

The longer answer starts with the concept of money seen as a form of  social relationship because obviously we cannot live on bits of paper and metal discs alone; they merely signify our entitlement to food and goods.

But what happens when it is so easy to produce goods (via automation) that there simply aren`t the jobs there ? The possible solution will be counter-intuitive to many but paying a universal basic income may be the only answer.  That may make some peoples` blood boil on here !     

 

[C8RKH]

I'm getting rather sick of having the top 1,000 families rammed down my neck as being the cause of all problems and ill in the world and to be honest it is a fading argument now. Yes, I do agree it is obscene for any individual or family to have such wealth, however, based on my education at my state comprehensive schools History lessons, ever since we've had a money/cash focused economy the top 0.05% of the population have had wealth that is 1,000 times, often more, than the common peasant or worker.

The kings of Rome, of Greece. The Emperors and Shogun of China and Japan. Moving into the Kings of the Vikings, the counties of England, of Scotland and the Celts, of France. Of Germany. Of Spain. Don't get started on religion and the Bishops, the Cardinals, the Popes etc.  What you are constantly bleating on about has been with us practically from the dawn of time. It's not new. It's not a "modern" phenomena. There has always been, and will always be, a wealthy and powerful elite. Their names might change. Their titles might change from King, Emperor, or Lord, to CEO, Innovator, Entrepreneur or even Philanthropist. What has changed is that as we have all become more obsessed with wealth and possessions, our greed, jealously and spite of and for people who have more than us, whether inherited or earned, has become more tuned and vitriolic.  I hate them as they have so much. It's not fair.

What about the richest of them all, Bill Gates? He has dedicated the rest of his life and his wealth to the service of helping and enriching the lives of others and is convincing many of his peer group to do the same - they are not all Philip Greens you know. How many normal working people got rich, were able to provide for their families, were able to provide a strong and firm foundation for their extended families, on the back of the exploits, ideas, graft and innovation of people like gates?  For once, let's stop with the easy soundbites that the super rich are all evil bastards. Unless of course we are OK to use soundbites that say at the other end of the spectrum that the super poor are all lazy, bottom feeding scumbags. Of course that is outrageous and not a true statement and is offensive. But it is funny that offense these days it seems can only be taken, and be valid, when it is "claimed" by the minority groups or the disadvantaged. It seems that if you don't belong to these groups you are worthy of being offended as you are too privileged. What utter nonsense.

I want more! The language of the left these days is all about "want and entitlement".  The language of the left used to be about hard work should be rewarded and peoples basic human needs/rights should be protected and provided - access to food, somewhere to live, a safe environment, health care and education. It used to be equal and fair opportunities for us all - those that worked hard and seized the opportunity prospered and rose. Every child in the UK is entitled to free education up to the age of 18, so in old money that is O and A level standards at school or National Diploma's and Certificates.  Anything else, as has been said before, why should it not be paid for by the individual?  Is it right that someone who leaves school at 16 or 18, gets a lower paid job, then has a portion of their taxes taken to pay for an 18-23 year old to get a degree that will give them the chance of a higher paid job?  i don't think it is. You go to university to study and get a chance of a better job. That is your choice and it is one that if you want you should have to pay for.  The current system seems fair to me, as you only pay it back when you achieve a certain salary level and after a certain time the debt is written off anyway. Hardly a "millstone" around your neck is it but it is easy to spin it as a tax on education. Just don't mention it is was a tax introduced by the Labour Party!  Haha.

The problem that the socialists face is that even though for many life is hard in the UK, actually, compared to the rest of the world, even that hard life is multiple times better than 70% of the rest of the world's population!  So with basic human rights and needs met, they now want more and more to be provided. A higher baseline in the UK of "entitlements" and provision mean a lower standard of living for someone already in a worse position somewhere else as the goods or services they produce or provide will need to be even cheaper to ensure that the enhanced baseline of "entitlements" in the UK is affordable. So, the citizens of the Uk do even better, on the backs of the already poor and impoverished elsewhere. Great idea. not!

We have a safe country. We have democratic political system that prevents excess on the right or left. Everyone has access to clean water and sanitation. We have a free at the point of use healthcare system for all (yes it is stretched but it is there). Everyone has a right to a roof over their heads. We have free education for all children to age 18. We have so much more already than 70% of the worlds population. What we lack, increasingly, is the drive, the innovation, the motivation and the sheer guts and determination that you find in that 70% rest of the worlds population. Many of them have nothing but dreams and the desire and will and determination to graft, to work hard, and to exploit what the have and can access to forge a better life for themselves and their families.  In the face of that, what do we have in response? A load of people who sit on their arses and complain about how life is not fair whilst watching Jeremy Kyle.  FFS, we don't even deserve what we have.

To say it is all the fault of a 1,000 rich families misses the point in my humble opinion. We have many social problems and they are not all down to the rich or the middle class!

[Chillidoggy]

You know what? I actually have no desire for the rich, or anyone else, to fund whatever lifestyle I choose. I have my pride to thank for that.

[Steve V8]

@basalte Dan, I totally agree with a large proportion or your views, huge multi nationals and CEOs receiving massive bonuses after running businesses into the ground, tax avoidance, and parasites like Philip Green. But theese are just a few bad apples, selfish greedy unscrupulous so called business men always have and always will be a problem.

I'm talking about the bigger picture, hundreds of thousands of small businesses, employing less than 50 people, theese are the backbone of Britain, and are being continually targeted, to name a few in the last year, massive hikes in business rates, compulsory pension schemes into which the employer has to contribute, the recent raise in the minimum wage, and threats to raise it further, a small company with 50 employees would have to find another £4000 per month with an increase of just 50p on the minimum wage, that's enough to put a lot of struggling companies under.

 

[Barrykearley]

4 hours ago, basalte said:

But what happens when it is so easy to produce goods (via automation) that there simply aren`t the jobs there ? The possible solution will be counter-intuitive to many but paying a universal basic income may be the only answer.  That may make some peoples` blood boil on here !     

Whoa slow down.... there's no shortage of jobs is there - there can't be as we have eu migrants clamouring for those jobs......

what we have is generations of workshy sponging (getting off fence and onto soap box) lazy good for nothing excuse making under achieving scum who believe they have an entitlement to free money for doing jack all.

#andbreathe

[C8RKH]

We've had automation ever since the industrial revolution.  Ever since then the nature of work has been changing. Becoming less physical and moving from "labour" intensive to a more service based economy.  Not sure why this is being touted as new news or as a new risk to workers.  I mean, it's never been easier to produce goods. Work has changed but workers have been adapting for decades and will continue to adapt for decades.

It was only 10 years ago that with the ever growing rise of Amazon the naysayers and doomsayers predicted the death of bookshops, the end of knowledge and civilisation as we know it!  Well, only just this year Amazon started to open, erm, well wait for it,  BOOKSHOPS!

I think we have all become sooo comfortable we get scared shitless by change. The thought of change. The idea of change.  

[C8RKH]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/40118317/while-we-work-hard-others-are-xbox-bums

[franjipane]

Bill gates is awesome, hugely inspirational and a massive philanthropist that obviously cares about health and social issues all over the world. We need more people like him  and less greedy/lazy/complacent folks.

[Barrykearley]

 

Don't watch if you don't like sweary words

[oilmagnet477]

Dan, the crux of your argument (and that of Jeremy Corbyn, if I'm honest), is right and highly laudable.

However, the single biggest failing against the suggested cure for the problems of the country are to increase taxes on those that HRMC can wring it out of.

Someone earning in excess of £80k a year on PAYE (and there will be many of them) IS already paying way more tax than lower earners.

Someone on £150K/YR takes home £90k after deductions. Therefore, they are already paying £60k per annum in Tax and NI. The Labour manifesto states that it thinks it fair that this person should lose a further £10k PA NET (assuming they have 2 kids in private education). That is a MASSIVE 15% hike in tax. That according to Corbyn is the well off paying a little more.

Just because someone earns perceptively more that someone else, doesn't mean they have loads of spare cash sloshing around to suddenly fund a 15% additional tax bill.

Just because it is seen as politically popular amongst those in the population who don't enjoy such lifestyle benefits, doesn't mean it is fair.

Corbyn has some good ideas but sadly zero economic credibility to deliver any of his promises without bankrupting the country. I'm not supporting the existing system as there are massive failings - I totally agree that those that owe tax should pay what is due but tarring everyone with the same brush has never been a good idea - not all people on benefits are spongers, just as not all CEOs are  crooks. Politicians and BIG Govt only tend to make things worse.

[C8RKH]

Thanks @oilmagnet477 you have made my argument/point better than I did.  The other problem is when you look at how many in the household earn. Under Labours great plan, I get battered as I am the only breadwinner. So yes, I get paid a great salary but I do also pay a huge amount in tax every year as a PAYE employee.

So to make my point. You tax someone who is earning £90k hard, but they are the only breadwinner supporting the full family. That person loses benefits should as child allowance too. Being the only breadwinner puts a lot of stress on an individual to perform. You have to make sacrifices and you have to work harder and longer as you cannot afford to lose your job as there is no plan B, however small the income from Plan B might be.

Meanwhile, next door, you have someone earning £60k a year and someone earning £40k a year ( so two teachers for example, one a head of department and year or deputy head and one a normal teacher). A total household income of £100k but they pay less tax combined than the first case and get to keep additional benefits like child allowance too.

That is not a progressive and fair system and actually puts for instance, my kids at a significant disadvantage just because we took the decision together, that my wife should give up work and be a full time mum as we wanted to bring our kids up to our values, not to outsource it to some nursery or child minder at a large cost.

I agree that those who earn more should pay more. But by saying anyone who earns £80k a year or over is rich is just folly and actually plain wrong.  My kids never went to private school. (1) because me and my wife don't believe in it (2) we could not afford it.  However, I did manage to support my daughter through university by sacrificing stuff I wanted, and holidays for me and the missus. But then we have a daughter who did us proud, has a cracking degree, no debt and therefore stress, and is now a fully contributing, working and tax paying member of society.  I managed to buy my first decent car, a 5 year old Lotus Evora NA, 2 years ago, ONLY after I had got my daughter through Uni.  So, whilst I may earn over £80k and whilst Corbyn and MacDonald might think I am rich, I can assure you, the only thing I am is an "easy tax target" (oh, and a cranky old fat bastard, but that's a different story).

So, can everyone stop going on about the billions the top 1,000 families earn and how it is wrong and linking that as a justification to tax sole breadwinners like myself who earn on a PAYE basis over £80k a year.  The difference between a Billion and someone earning £40k and £80k is about 0.0004%!  

 

[franjipane]

Agree that tax could consider a households income and if you have a spouse earning or dependents those factors should impact the rates you pay. Makes total sense.

Still though for me, issues like not selling off the NHS, reversing police and NHS cuts are just too important to me.  Each party means some compromises, some issues I just feel more strongly about.

[C8RKH]

When you say not selling off the NHS. You are aware that GP practices have always been, and are, private businesses run for the benefit and profit of the GP's? A lot of people assume that GP's are NHS employees. They are not. They contract their practices to the NHS and their practices are businesses that have shareholders and pay dividends.

I agree we need to reverse the cuts to Police. But first we need to work out how we pay for it.

As for reversing cuts to the NHS, which cuts? Please see here https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget . This is an independent view of NHS spend and you will see that total spend year on year since 2009/10 on the NHS has increased.  So, please describe the cuts you mention that need to be reversed.

There is a myth that is self perpetuating that the NHS is dying a death by a thousand cuts. The Labour Party peddles this, and the stories of Tory privatisation of the Health Service, as way of trying to hoodwink people that ONLY the Labour Party will ensure the existence of the NHS.

The actual reality is that we are spending more than ever on the NHS.  The real issue is that the demand for NHS Services is increasing at a higher rate than the amount of increase in the budget for the NHS. This is a social-demographic issue on the one hand (we are living longer, we are last active, so our healthcare needs are rising faster) and the result of inefficiency in the NHS that means that budgets are being squeezed as costs are rising (don't ask how much a 25p bottle of asprin from the supermarket costs when you get it for and on the NHS).

These are not my words but I can provide the source if needed.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"However, in 1999 ‘New Labour’ marked the start of a transition of the NHS from a public sector provider to include the private sector under the disguise of choice and competition. New Labour’s reforms of the NHS proved to be highly unpopular both within and outside the mainstream Labour Party. Unfortunately, the last Labour Government laid the groundwork for everything that the Tory-led coalition is now doing to the NHS. Market structures, foundation trusts, GP consortia and the introduction of private corporations into commissioning were all products of an ill-conceived Labour vision of “public service reforms”."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So whilst I have no wish to see the NHS privatised nor starved of funds. I am certain that in the future, especially under a Conservative Government, but also highly likely under a future Labour one, we will see an increasing use of "Private Sector" firms and contracts to deliver NHS services. Is this necessarily a bad thing?  What if it brings innovation, efficiency and a rise in care standards?

What do we care most about? Is it, that the NHS is run by owned by the Government rather than private companies? Or, is it that everybody within the UK has the right to the best medical care and attention, free at the point of need? If it is the latter, and private contracts can compete side by side with public owned facilities and prove they can do it better and cheaper, why would we not want this at is means we get what we need at a lower cost, which means we can spend the "savings" on more care? And if those savings come despite a shareholder making a profit (but with the high quality of care maintained) is that really evil?

Again, a lot of posturing around the NHS, it is too much a political porn these days. Public is not good or bad. Private is not good or bad. What we need to measure is the quality of the outcomes for the inputs. A shift in thought is needed and people need to wake up to the fact that the old "peddled" messages from the Political Parties is largely just spin these days.

NHS and Tuition fees. Both hot topics that the Tories are lambasted for. Both situations that we find ourselves in, as a direct result of LABOUR policies in the first place, just then executed by the Tories!  Wake up folks...

 

[franjipane]

I'll have a read of that article when I have time, but for now yes I'm aware that GPs are private.

That's not really what I'm opposed to, I have a problem with say 200m pounds of NHS services being sold to Virgin, and then Virgin avoiding paying tax on income in the UK.

[C8RKH]

So actually your issue is not NHS cuts nor privatisation, not even the quality of care, it is that you believe private companies will not pay tax on their profits?

Rather than Labour going after PAYE tax payers, maybe they should really be focusing their efforts then on ensuring that ALL private companies pay their full tax dues based on the business and profits they make in the US?  I agree with that. In fact the ONLY politician who seems to have the balls to do that, and go for the big corps to make it happen is..............................................................wait for it .................................................................. Trump!  Lol......

 

[Barrykearley]

I'd scrap all income tax under 100k - after that flat rate 10%

Hike VAT up nice and high - say 35%, more border controls to limit imports, that way the scuzzers at the bottom get a tax hike for doing naff all, the guys in the middle pay less tax on income and can choose how to spend and what to spend on. Whilst the rich at the top will just spend anyway.

it would solve the throw away society as well. 

Just a thought 

[franjipane]

That article shows that spending on the NHS is down well below the average percentage increase historically. Which is effectively a cut, it's not getting the money it should be. It should go up as our GDP does but since 2010 it hasn't been.

"Though NHS funding is continuing to grow, the rate of growth is slowing considerably compared to historical trends. The Department of Health budget will grow by 1.1 per cent in real terms between 2009/10 and 2020/21. This is far below the long-term average increases in health spending of approximately 4 per cent a year (in real terms) since the NHS was established.

Looking ahead, between 2017/18 and 2019/20 the Department of Health budget will increase by just 0.6 per cent on average each year in real terms. This will place increasing pressure on the NHS, as demand for services is continuing to grow ."

There's more details from the same site here

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2015/10/nhs-spending-squeezed-never

 

Granted it's not as simple as the left wing (or right!) press try and make out!