@DamoNorthStand I used to agree with you fully, now I agree with you to a certain extent.
I agree with the fundamental there is nothing wrong with people being rewarded for hard work, entrepreneurship etc. we should always be encouraging that. I agree with the dislike of thinking the world owes you a living.
However, I strongly believe as well that we as a society have a social responsibility to help the poor and those that need help, both domestically and (probably even more so) internationally. That a society is only really as good from the bottom up. That we are generally maintaining too much of an "I'm alright jack" mentality and don't (most of us) appreciate how lucky we are.
When that assistance / approach is abused, either through a corrupt benefit system, or a corrupt overseas government, that is the real problem.
So if you take the fundamentals of BOTH parties / political approaches, you theoretically should have the above. Encouraging work, making work pay, raising the living standards of the lower levels.
Tories don't only look after the rich, Labour don't just give hand outs to all and sundry. While one side shouts one set of exaggerated bollocks against the other, the bottom line imo is there is effectively a fag paper between both in this day and age in terms with of what decisions they take (not historically, politics is different now).
We live in a time of fundamentally central politics that is governed by the media, short-termism, and thanks to social media, pr safety for fear of decision making that will lead to a true public backlash.
I just don't see why the Labour party are to blame for all of the troubles 7-8 years ago. Sure, they were in power at the time but many, many countries were affected. It was a worldwide situation..
Labour being accused of causing the global recession? Really?
Pretending that's what Labour is being accused of allows them a convenient response to avoid answering the real accusation. They borrowed and spent assuming the debts being built up would be serviceable come what may. They encouraged personal debt to stimulate demand and growth in the economy. They saw de-regulation of financial services as a get rich quick strategy to boost tax revenues. The flaw was high risk, imprudent management of the economy that left the UK exposed when the crap hit the fan, not that they caused the global crisis.
One angle that might be worth exploring is that individual people were responsible.
Leading up to the crisis hardly a day went by when I didn't get a letter encouraging me to start a credit card, or take out a loan. Mortgages were lent out willy nilly at stupid multiples of income, people juggled debts and credit cards to manage, and all the usual stuff like flash cars, big telly's, and exotic holidays were promoted as almost entitlements. House prices continued to rise not based on anything beyond greed, certainly a persons ability to pay seemed to be hardly a consideration. Fanny Mac and Freddie Mae (?) mortgage companies were doing the same in America, housing development was the big thing in Ireland, and similar irresponsibility seemed to be rife everywhere. It may be what caused the global crisis was good old fashioned greed. People lived way beyond their means 'because I'm worth it'. It is us to blame by collaborating with the whole shebang system that promoted such greed and consumption. Some in the older generation like me still hung on to the idea that if you wanted something you saved up for it. beyond borrowing for my mortgage I have never for example run up a credit card bill, but paid it off in full every month. I now realise that we are all financing the bad debts run up by others, even if we were personally prudent. People spent lavishly money they didn't have on the hope that it would all work out in the end, I don't see that as the fault of any particular party, but our own stupid fault. Sometimes I wish I had borrowed and spent over my head for exotic holidays and big telly's, and then walked away from the debt, at least I would have got something out of it all, because I have sure been part of paying it all back in the last seven years or so. Funnily enough the loan and credit card letters have not been arriving for years now. The global financial crisis is a complex combination of factors I know, but at the base of it is a lot of selfish greedy feckers.
They are by no means perfect but a white, heterosexual, married, working, car driving man like me is completely disenfranchised by both the major and remaining minor parties.
They are by no means perfect but a white, heterosexual, married, working, car driving man like me is completely disenfranchised by both the major and remaining minor parties.
Who let Alan Partridge on here? ;-)
That statement is even beyond the parody of Partridge.
For those complaining about how Labour opened the borders answer me this. What changes have the conservatives done in the past 5 years to immigration policy?
The main change has been a crack down on student visas.
Why do Brits abroad get to vote anyway? Or aussies over here get to vote back home etc.
Because (in my case):
- I am a UK citizen and passport holder - I pay UK income tax - I own a house in the UK - I have savings which are UK based - I will be entitled to a UK state pension - I have family in the UK whose welfare I care about - I would not get a national vote in the Czech Republic unless I become a Czech citizen, so I'd be without a national vote anywhere, if I could not vote in the UK - I listen to the Today programme and PM more or less every day, so I'm as up to date with UK politics as most people on here. - incidentally I don't get to vote in local or mayoral elections and choose where to vote in the EU election
Winds me up big time that people think you can criticise someone for going to private school. Have you ever considered why they were in a position to go there? Money doesn't just land out of nowhere into a families lap. Once, at least via a certain past generation, someone in that family would have worked hard and delivered in some way to bring success to that family to benefit their future generations.
I work hard and will be sending both my children to private school. I am certainly not 'rich'. What if, in generations to come, my children or grandchildren ran for govt? Are they 'out of touch' because they went to private school? Not if I can help it. Even now, my oldest has learnt he won't get anything on a plate. If he wants pocket money then he has to do chores or help his mummy when I am at work. If he works hard and does his spellings and reading after school (how well he does is irrelevant) then he will get rewarded.
I hate the sense that the world owes you a living in any walk of life. And I hate the way that some people think it's ok to talk people down for being successful.
It's a combination of the above that means I am conservative through and through.
You don't have to have a government that is 'in touch' with the working class. You just need a country of people that will work to be the best they can. And just accept that, as in any society, some will be more successful than others. It's life. As long as we have a benefits system that helps those really in need (and not those who think they are) then that's ok.
The idea that Labour and many of its supporters are opposed to hard working successful people is a myth. And Labour most certainly does not promote the view that the '...world owes you a living...' Quite the opposite in fact. Are you saying that your children and grandchildren deserve better opportunities in life than the children of a feckless drunk who lives his life on benefits or the children of a disabled person who can never work for a living, simply because you worked hard and were successful? At the moment we have a situation where the only young people who can afford to buy homes in many parts of London are not those that are hard working, talented or entrepreneurial but those that by an accident of birth benefit from subtantial inherited wealth passed down from previous generations. What really winds me up is when I hear people who receive these type of benefits complain about people on state benefits!
I believe you have every right to seek the very best opportunities for your children and to send them to private school. If I had children, and I could afford it, I think I would send them to private school. But, ideally, I would prefer that we lived in a society where the education provided for all children by the state was so good that the advantages of a private education were much less than they are today.
Everybody agrees one of the fundamental problems with societies in the developed economies is the increasing gap between the rich and everybody else. If this is not addressed soon the very fabric of those societies will begin to strain. The only solution is to stop wealth and property being passed from generation to generation. Provide your children with a private education, help them buy a house. But, beyond that I think there should be limit to the wealth and advantages you can pass onto your children.
One of the reasons I am a bit disillusioned with the Labour party over the last 20 or 30 years is that they always look to the hardworking people and families to bear the increase tax burden to pay for their spending plans rather than asking the people who have benefited from un-earned inherited wealth to pay their fair share. And, the more I think about the unfair and iniquitous 'Mansion Tax' that Miliband, a man who along with his brother benifited hugely from inherited wealth, has included in the current Labour manifesto, it makes my blood boil. How is it fair that a man who works hard and is successful and as a result is able buy outright or with a mortgage a £2 million house but has to pay the same extra taxes on that house as the man next door who has not done a days work in his life but inherited his house from his parents or grandparents.
Comments
I agree with the fundamental there is nothing wrong with people being rewarded for hard work, entrepreneurship etc. we should always be encouraging that. I agree with the dislike of thinking the world owes you a living.
However, I strongly believe as well that we as a society have a social responsibility to help the poor and those that need help, both domestically and (probably even more so) internationally. That a society is only really as good from the bottom up. That we are generally maintaining too much of an "I'm alright jack" mentality and don't (most of us) appreciate how lucky we are.
When that assistance / approach is abused, either through a corrupt benefit system, or a corrupt overseas government, that is the real problem.
So if you take the fundamentals of BOTH parties / political approaches, you theoretically should have the above. Encouraging work, making work pay, raising the living standards of the lower levels.
Tories don't only look after the rich, Labour don't just give hand outs to all and sundry. While one side shouts one set of exaggerated bollocks against the other, the bottom line imo is there is effectively a fag paper between both in this day and age in terms with of what decisions they take (not historically, politics is different now).
We live in a time of fundamentally central politics that is governed by the media, short-termism, and thanks to social media, pr safety for fear of decision making that will lead to a true public backlash.
Pretending that's what Labour is being accused of allows them a convenient response to avoid answering the real accusation. They borrowed and spent assuming the debts being built up would be serviceable come what may. They encouraged personal debt to stimulate demand and growth in the economy. They saw de-regulation of financial services as a get rich quick strategy to boost tax revenues. The flaw was high risk, imprudent management of the economy that left the UK exposed when the crap hit the fan, not that they caused the global crisis.
Leading up to the crisis hardly a day went by when I didn't get a letter encouraging me to start a credit card, or take out a loan. Mortgages were lent out willy nilly at stupid multiples of income, people juggled debts and credit cards to manage, and all the usual stuff like flash cars, big telly's, and exotic holidays were promoted as almost entitlements. House prices continued to rise not based on anything beyond greed, certainly a persons ability to pay seemed to be hardly a consideration.
Fanny Mac and Freddie Mae (?) mortgage companies were doing the same in America, housing development was the big thing in Ireland, and similar irresponsibility seemed to be rife everywhere.
It may be what caused the global crisis was good old fashioned greed. People lived way beyond their means 'because I'm worth it'. It is us to blame by collaborating with the whole shebang system that promoted such greed and consumption.
Some in the older generation like me still hung on to the idea that if you wanted something you saved up for it. beyond borrowing for my mortgage I have never for example run up a credit card bill, but paid it off in full every month. I now realise that we are all financing the bad debts run up by others, even if we were personally prudent.
People spent lavishly money they didn't have on the hope that it would all work out in the end, I don't see that as the fault of any particular party, but our own stupid fault. Sometimes I wish I had borrowed and spent over my head for exotic holidays and big telly's, and then walked away from the debt, at least I would have got something out of it all, because I have sure been part of paying it all back in the last seven years or so. Funnily enough the loan and credit card letters have not been arriving for years now.
The global financial crisis is a complex combination of factors I know, but at the base of it is a lot of selfish greedy feckers.
By your figure (I assume), 345000 Irish nationals registered to vote in the UK. There were 45.6m people registered to vote in the last general election, so 0.76% of the electorate.
Whenever someone posts a badly articulated left-wing opinion, the usual suspects begin a nauseating episode of sycophantic back-slapping.
Never mind
- I am a UK citizen and passport holder
- I pay UK income tax
- I own a house in the UK
- I have savings which are UK based
- I will be entitled to a UK state pension
- I have family in the UK whose welfare I care about
- I would not get a national vote in the Czech Republic unless I become a Czech citizen, so I'd be without a national vote anywhere, if I could not vote in the UK
- I listen to the Today programme and PM more or less every day, so I'm as up to date with UK politics as most people on here.
- incidentally I don't get to vote in local or mayoral elections and choose where to vote in the EU election
That enough?
Are you registered in Hackney?
I believe you have every right to seek the very best opportunities for your children and to send them to private school. If I had children, and I could afford it, I think I would send them to private school. But, ideally, I would prefer that we lived in a society where the education provided for all children by the state was so good that the advantages of a private education were much less than they are today.
Everybody agrees one of the fundamental problems with societies in the developed economies is the increasing gap between the rich and everybody else. If this is not addressed soon the very fabric of those societies will begin to strain. The only solution is to stop wealth and property being passed from generation to generation. Provide your children with a private education, help them buy a house. But, beyond that I think there should be limit to the wealth and advantages you can pass onto your children.
One of the reasons I am a bit disillusioned with the Labour party over the last 20 or 30 years is that they always look to the hardworking people and families to bear the increase tax burden to pay for their spending plans rather than asking the people who have benefited from un-earned inherited wealth to pay their fair share. And, the more I think about the unfair and iniquitous 'Mansion Tax' that Miliband, a man who along with his brother benifited hugely from inherited wealth, has included in the current Labour manifesto, it makes my blood boil. How is it fair that a man who works hard and is successful and as a result is able buy outright or with a mortgage a £2 million house but has to pay the same extra taxes on that house as the man next door who has not done a days work in his life but inherited his house from his parents or grandparents.
This is an interesting commentary on austerity, it is from the New York Times which I believe is to the right of centre.