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.
There were elements of your arguments that I can empathise with. Not long after we bought out last home (with a whacking mortgage via my hard worked for salary) my wife's best friend bought a similar house in then same street to try and 'keep up'. Her mum gave them 300k to do it. Naffed me right off and still does. I bought a new Audi Q7. Her husband gets an X5 given to him by his father in law. Etc etc. And it winds me up, even if it is a bit sad and desperate on their part.
But then again part of me thinks that its up to their family what they want to do with their money. They earned it and if they want to give it to their kids then it is up to them.
Whilst I want to encourage my sons to work hard and be as successful as they can, when I am pushing up the daisies everything I have worked for will be theirs. I don't want the government getting their hands on it. My kids are my world and I want them (and my grandkids) to benefit from anything I can achieve. And frankly that's nobody else's business.
The fact of the matter is that some people will never , ever stray from their party political allegiances as we have see on this thread. Same old Left Wing , right Wing Bullshit gets banded around by the same old faces ( and i'm just as guilty being a died in the wool socialist ) when the fact is that it's not all as black and white as some people like to portray . Tories aren't all Toffs in it for themselves , Not all Labour curry up to the unions , Not everyone in UKIP are racist and the Liberals & Greens aren't all Yogurt knitters. This stereotyping is at best Lazy and at worst just plain ignorant.
I hope this thread gets back to what it was originally meant for and that's people just saying who they are/might vote for.
It would be interesting to see a CL poll nearer the time although i already suspect which party would win by a landslide if it was down to Charlton supporters . ;-)
They saw de-regulation of financial services as a get rich quick strategy to boost tax revenues.
Did the conservatives oppose that at the time?
The Tories said Labour hadn't de-regulated enough. What point are you making, Labour aren't to blame for actually doing it? Or an error isn't an error on the basis that your opponents encouraged it or didn't criticise it?
I was talking about the fact, excuses blaming the opposition for it does little to advance Labour's credibility, but accept it might give an excuse for not changing allegiances.
The fact of the matter is that some people will never , ever stray from their party political allegiances as we have see on this thread. Same old Left Wing , right Wing Bullshit gets banded around by the same old faces ( and i'm just as guilty being a died in the wool socialist ) when the fact is that it's not all as black and white as some people like to portray .
This reminded me of one of my long-standing frustrations with British politics- the lack of a coherent party of the Centre. A vote for Merkel's CDU for example would be a centre party vote in UK terms. The largest non-left wing bloc in the European parliament is led by CDU. This was the bloc that Cameron pulled the Tories out of, thus instantly removing Britain's influence with reasonable, broadly pro -business Euroepan politicians.
I started voting Lib Dem by accident in 1997, to kick the Tories out tactically in Surbiton; of course at the time I didn't know anything about Ed Davey (he was only 30), and had some doubts about the Lib Dem heritage. But since then, living in continental Europe, I've become more and more interested in the politics of "the centre". All across Northern Europe the centre is strong and I think many British people seek such a party in vain. Instead any policy they endorse gets labelled by others as "right wing/Tory" or "Socialist". I think this echoes what you are talking about, Beds.
They saw de-regulation of financial services as a get rich quick strategy to boost tax revenues.
Did the conservatives oppose that at the time?
The Tories said Labour hadn't de-regulated enough. What point are you making, Labour aren't to blame for actually doing it? Or an error isn't an error on the basis that your opponents encouraged it or didn't criticise it?
I was talking about the fact, excuses blaming the opposition for it does little to advance Labour's credibility, but accept it might give an excuse for not changing allegiances.
Sounds like an error from both sides. If the conservatives at critised at the time they may have some creditability when blaming Labour for messing up the country.
They saw de-regulation of financial services as a get rich quick strategy to boost tax revenues.
Did the conservatives oppose that at the time?
The Tories said Labour hadn't de-regulated enough. What point are you making, Labour aren't to blame for actually doing it? Or an error isn't an error on the basis that your opponents encouraged it or didn't criticise it?
I was talking about the fact, excuses blaming the opposition for it does little to advance Labour's credibility, but accept it might give an excuse for not changing allegiances.
Sounds like an error from both sides. If the conservatives at critised at the time they may have some creditability when blaming Labour for messing up the country.
It wasn't just the legislation. Gordon's direct instructions to the FSA (as was) was for a light touch regulation. There was stuff that the FSA could have acted upon under the rules but which Gordon actively prevented.
Has anyone heard or seen anything by any party on the UK's woeful productivity figures? They bear down heavily on the prospects for strong economic growth. But I guess no one wants to tell us we've all got to work harder. Banning Charlton Life would be a good place to start....
As labour and tory policies have the same aim, labour will not mess up the economy. The difference will be where some of the money comes from and pace. Labour did not mess up the economy when they were last in power. There was a global crash. Up until then, labour were serving their third term as the economy was in rude health. I dont see how anybody can really argue with this.
Here's another graph. I don't think we would be in a noticeably different situation if Labour were in government over the last term. There's been some great spin.
As labour and tory policies have the same aim, labour will not mess up the economy. The difference will be where some of the money comes from and pace. Labour did not mess up the economy when they were last in power. There was a global crash. Up until then, labour were serving their third term as the economy was in rude health. I dont see how anybody can really argue with this.
Apart from Ed Balls then, who said he was deeply sorry for Labour's failings.
Will vote Tory for the 1st time in my life. The sole reason being they look as though they are getting the economy back on track after the Blair & Brown fiasco.
I'm in the same boat as a 1st time Tory voter. Don't like myself for doing it but I think we've got to let them finish the job on the course that's set. Once that's done then we, as a country, can afford more social policies.
Don't agree that they have had to clear up a Blair/Brown mess. It was predominately a global financial crisis caused by bad lending.
This is an interesting commentary on austerity, it is from the New York Times which I believe is to the right of centre.
Paul Krugman, however, is definitely left-of-centre and is a rather infamous economic commentator who has a very narrow-minded view on how national economies operate. He is completely wedded to Keynes' original vision and regularly denounces those who deviate from classical Keynesian economics. No surprise that Gordon Brown, himself a good old fashioned Keynesian, is one of his favourite politicians.
The problem with being a dogmatic Keynesian is that if you refuse to depart from what is purely theoretical Keynesian economics, you have to make some interesting assumptions as to how the global economy operates. For example, that there is no cost of borrowing money in the long-term. Krugman's argument that instead of imposing present term austerity, we should have just borrowed what we needed as according to Keynesian theory there are no long-term effects of prolonged periods of high levels of borrowing is frankly ludicrous. As our GDP-to-debt ratio increased, our creditors would start imposing sharper interest rates or investors would start demanding higher rates of return on gilts. Eventually someone somewhere is going to have to pay off that money.
Krugman also believes that high levels of government spending have no effect on levels of investment. This is demonstrably false. High levels of government spending usually goes hand in hand with markets becoming less efficient, rising inflation and investment falling as private investors find themselves crowded out by government spending. Also for those who think that having a high debt-to-GDP ratio or deficit-to-GDP ratio doesn't matter, these are actually requirements of our EU membership that should we exceed set levels (which we currently are) we need to take remedial steps to return to normality.
Paul Krugman is the favoured economist of choice for those who know nothing about economics because he simplifies things and sticks to dogmatic theory with uncomplicated assumptions. Unfortunately he has been proven wrong time and time again on his predictions of high unemployment, high inflation and high structural deficit - indeed all of these things have fallen over the course of this Parliament. Google 'Krugman wrong' and you'll find plenty of articles disproving Krugman's predictions, including in the Guardian.
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.
To be clear - I am left of centre ; but am comfortable with people earning wealth , comfortable with people going to private school , comfortable with people choosing to spend on private health care. I grew up in care , have virtually no qualifications and have gone on to a successful career. I believe in hard work and have never had one day unemployed.
What I object to is the institutionalisation of power and wealth. ie Powerful and wealthy people stacking the deck so that the average Jo is less likely to fulfil their potential and the average toff, is more likely to exceed theirs. I am not naive and understand that my children will likely do better than a kid growing up in Tower Hamlets whose parents are road-sweepers ( which incidentally I used to do). Thats life. It is the institutionalisation of advantage I object to.
I believable Meritocracy to be a fatuous empty philosophy( a political philosophy which holds that power should be vested in individuals almost exclusively according to merit.). If an entrepreneur is successful he / she has not achieved that in a vacuum. The people who make roads , mend roads , provide street lighting, protect his goods, put out fires, make people better , teach , pick fruit etc etc all play a part in that individual being successful. There success is not achieved in a vacuum. For that reason I believe in a progressive and fair tax system where wealthier people pay more.
Finally I object to the demonisation of the working poor. The picture being painted of the lazy feckless poor wasting the welfare budget on benefits is so far from the truth to be laughable ; and before someone quotes Fred from down the road whose never worked , I am on about the factual, provable evidence across the country. 0.7% of the welfare budget wasted on fraud. Too high but not the 25% trhat the right wing press will have you believe
I mostly object to a man who reached the position of Prime-Minister as a result of institutional advantage , mis-representing the truth, demonising vast swathes of our fellow countrymen and women. I don't object to you sending your kids to private school !!
I'll nail my colours here: I don't like Miliband, something about him is very false and he is a man who gives the impression that he will do and/or say most anything to get his own way .. the same could be said of Cameron-Clegg of course .. BUT, so far as Labour 'promises' go, they are the party which is promising to do things for the younger people in this country: Apprenticeships, reduced tuition fees, control on immigration, NHS spending which will encourage more employment in public services .. now, Labour might well renege on these policies if and when they get elected to run the country ... However, I am prepared to give them a go at changing things more in favour of the young .. if Labour does make another mess of things, at least we have the Tories to fall back on in 2020 to give us another dose of the lash .. older people have had quite a a good run under the coalition, younger people need their crack of the whip as well. Reluctantly I am voting Labour in May, I pray that my vote is not wasted and that my hopes for the future go some way to being fulfilled
Years ago we used to know where we were with the two main political parties. In a nutshell. Tories - vote for them if you are wealthy and want to remain wealthy. Labour - The party for the working class man, protecting workers rights.
However, there doesn't seem to be a political party for me, supporting or even aligned with my opinions....
A decent health service, with more hospitals being built. A cap on immigration (the country is too bloody full) A shift in the wealth ownership of this country (I thinks its something like 10% own 90% of the wealth, how can this be right?) A referendum on Europe. A cut in child benefit to only benefit for the first child. The abolishment of positive discrimination. The best person for the job (regardless of sex, creed or colour) Proper (and enforced) regulation of the banks and bonuses. The abolishment of zero hours contracts (the appalling law that has massaged the job figures in favour of the Tories)
I could go on.......
My point is, that I can't see any one party who can even tick 3 of the above, so as at the last election I shall spoil and write 'None of the above'. Its kinda sad really.
Comments
There were elements of your arguments that I can empathise with. Not long after we bought out last home (with a whacking mortgage via my hard worked for salary) my wife's best friend bought a similar house in then same street to try and 'keep up'. Her mum gave them 300k to do it. Naffed me right off and still does. I bought a new Audi Q7. Her husband gets an X5 given to him by his father in law. Etc etc. And it winds me up, even if it is a bit sad and desperate on their part.
But then again part of me thinks that its up to their family what they want to do with their money. They earned it and if they want to give it to their kids then it is up to them.
Whilst I want to encourage my sons to work hard and be as successful as they can, when I am pushing up the daisies everything I have worked for will be theirs. I don't want the government getting their hands on it. My kids are my world and I want them (and my grandkids) to benefit from anything I can achieve. And frankly that's nobody else's business.
Same old Left Wing , right Wing Bullshit gets banded around by the same old faces ( and i'm just as guilty being a died in the wool socialist ) when the fact is that it's not all as black and white as some people like to portray .
Tories aren't all Toffs in it for themselves , Not all Labour curry up to the unions , Not everyone in UKIP are racist and the Liberals & Greens aren't all Yogurt knitters. This stereotyping is at best Lazy and at worst just plain ignorant.
I hope this thread gets back to what it was originally meant for and that's people just saying who they are/might vote for.
It would be interesting to see a CL poll nearer the time although i already suspect which party would win by a landslide if it was down to Charlton supporters . ;-)
I think it will survive, it will have at least 130,000 views and 2,300 comments.
I was talking about the fact, excuses blaming the opposition for it does little to advance Labour's credibility, but accept it might give an excuse for not changing allegiances.
I started voting Lib Dem by accident in 1997, to kick the Tories out tactically in Surbiton; of course at the time I didn't know anything about Ed Davey (he was only 30), and had some doubts about the Lib Dem heritage. But since then, living in continental Europe, I've become more and more interested in the politics of "the centre". All across Northern Europe the centre is strong and I think many British people seek such a party in vain. Instead any policy they endorse gets labelled by others as "right wing/Tory" or "Socialist". I think this echoes what you are talking about, Beds.
ETA: Here's a recent significant paper discussing the issue, if anyone wants to get a headache - bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q201.pdf
Don't agree that they have had to clear up a Blair/Brown mess. It was predominately a global financial crisis caused by bad lending.
The problem with being a dogmatic Keynesian is that if you refuse to depart from what is purely theoretical Keynesian economics, you have to make some interesting assumptions as to how the global economy operates. For example, that there is no cost of borrowing money in the long-term. Krugman's argument that instead of imposing present term austerity, we should have just borrowed what we needed as according to Keynesian theory there are no long-term effects of prolonged periods of high levels of borrowing is frankly ludicrous. As our GDP-to-debt ratio increased, our creditors would start imposing sharper interest rates or investors would start demanding higher rates of return on gilts. Eventually someone somewhere is going to have to pay off that money.
Krugman also believes that high levels of government spending have no effect on levels of investment. This is demonstrably false. High levels of government spending usually goes hand in hand with markets becoming less efficient, rising inflation and investment falling as private investors find themselves crowded out by government spending. Also for those who think that having a high debt-to-GDP ratio or deficit-to-GDP ratio doesn't matter, these are actually requirements of our EU membership that should we exceed set levels (which we currently are) we need to take remedial steps to return to normality.
Paul Krugman is the favoured economist of choice for those who know nothing about economics because he simplifies things and sticks to dogmatic theory with uncomplicated assumptions. Unfortunately he has been proven wrong time and time again on his predictions of high unemployment, high inflation and high structural deficit - indeed all of these things have fallen over the course of this Parliament. Google 'Krugman wrong' and you'll find plenty of articles disproving Krugman's predictions, including in the Guardian.
What I object to is the institutionalisation of power and wealth. ie Powerful and wealthy people stacking the deck so that the average Jo is less likely to fulfil their potential and the average toff, is more likely to exceed theirs. I am not naive and understand that my children will likely do better than a kid growing up in Tower Hamlets whose parents are road-sweepers ( which incidentally I used to do). Thats life. It is the institutionalisation of advantage I object to.
I believable Meritocracy to be a fatuous empty philosophy( a political philosophy which holds that power should be vested in individuals almost exclusively according to merit.). If an entrepreneur is successful he / she has not achieved that in a vacuum. The people who make roads , mend roads , provide street lighting, protect his goods, put out fires, make people better , teach , pick fruit etc etc all play a part in that individual being successful. There success is not achieved in a vacuum. For that reason I believe in a progressive and fair tax system where wealthier people pay more.
Finally I object to the demonisation of the working poor. The picture being painted of the lazy feckless poor wasting the welfare budget on benefits is so far from the truth to be laughable ; and before someone quotes Fred from down the road whose never worked , I am on about the factual, provable evidence across the country. 0.7% of the welfare budget wasted on fraud. Too high but not the 25% trhat the right wing press will have you believe
I mostly object to a man who reached the position of Prime-Minister as a result of institutional advantage , mis-representing the truth, demonising vast swathes of our fellow countrymen and women. I don't object to you sending your kids to private school !!
.. now, Labour might well renege on these policies if and when they get elected to run the country ... However, I am prepared to give them a go at changing things more in favour of the young .. if Labour does make another mess of things, at least we have the Tories to fall back on in 2020 to give us another dose of the lash
.. older people have had quite a a good run under the coalition, younger people need their crack of the whip as well. Reluctantly I am voting Labour in May, I pray that my vote is not wasted and that my hopes for the future go some way to being fulfilled
In a nutshell.
Tories - vote for them if you are wealthy and want to remain wealthy.
Labour - The party for the working class man, protecting workers rights.
However, there doesn't seem to be a political party for me, supporting or even aligned with my opinions....
A decent health service, with more hospitals being built.
A cap on immigration (the country is too bloody full)
A shift in the wealth ownership of this country (I thinks its something like 10% own 90% of the wealth, how can this be right?)
A referendum on Europe.
A cut in child benefit to only benefit for the first child.
The abolishment of positive discrimination. The best person for the job (regardless of sex, creed or colour)
Proper (and enforced) regulation of the banks and bonuses.
The abolishment of zero hours contracts (the appalling law that has massaged the job figures in favour of the Tories)
I could go on.......
My point is, that I can't see any one party who can even tick 3 of the above, so as at the last election I shall spoil and write 'None of the above'. Its kinda sad really.