@Huskaris that's a shame if true. The truth of the matter is I asked @cafcnick1992 a genuine and polite question why someone of his age was attracted to the Tories. Given he didn't reply and has only made a ridiculous comment without any basis in fact since I think it can be assumed he's only after reactions from people.
But you took the time to respond albeit it included a number of assumptions and slight digs about me, for want of a better word. In turn I replied to each of your main points setting out why I thought the situation was far from as clear cut as you set out and with some background to my own experience.
Nothing I said was abusive or agressive or meant to belittle your views in any way only to illicit further clarification on what you meant or to offer an alternative (and fact based view) on the issues.
That's the nature of a sensible debate tbh and I think attempting to portray yourself as being on the receiving end of attacks from "people having views so entrenched that they can not ever consider changing their mind" is both ironic and unfair.
I am 25 years old now and i don't feel much affinity to any political party as such. I don't warm towards parties on the left because i see them as anti-aspiration.
I pay my taxes. If i work hard and climb the ladder, why should my efforts be massively penalised?
If i have a child, why can't i send them to a private school?
Why should bright children from poor backgrounds be denied access to a grammar school just to fit into the socialist agenda. A total waste of talent.
I am 25 years old now and i don't feel much affinity to any political party as such. I don't warm towards parties on the left because i see them as anti-aspiration.
I pay my taxes. If i work hard and climb the ladder, why should my efforts be massively penalised?
If i have a child, why can't i send them to a private school?
Why should bright children from poor backgrounds be denied access to a grammar school just to fit into the socialist agenda. A total waste of talent.
Anti aspiration.
So increasing taxes on people who already poorer in real terms and lower funding for schools is aspiration? Basically you are saying if you're currently lower class then tough luck you've got no hope of you or your children climbing out. Better to keep the middle and upper classes to carry on upwards and especially if you're a pensioner, let's make sure their pensions keep rising. All in it together people.
I am 25 years old now and i don't feel much affinity to any political party as such. I don't warm towards parties on the left because i see them as anti-aspiration.
I pay my taxes. If i work hard and climb the ladder, why should my efforts be massively penalised?
If i have a child, why can't i send them to a private school?
Why should bright children from poor backgrounds be denied access to a grammar school just to fit into the socialist agenda. A total waste of talent.
Anti aspiration.
So increasing taxes on people who already poorer in real terms and lower funding for schools is aspiration? Basically you are saying if you're currently lower class then tough luck you've got no hope of you or your children climbing out. Better to keep the middle and upper classes to carry on upwards and especially if you're a pensioner, let's make sure their pensions keep rising. All in it together people.
I am 25 years old now and i don't feel much affinity to any political party as such. I don't warm towards parties on the left because i see them as anti-aspiration.
I pay my taxes. If i work hard and climb the ladder, why should my efforts be massively penalised?
If i have a child, why can't i send them to a private school?
Why should bright children from poor backgrounds be denied access to a grammar school just to fit into the socialist agenda. A total waste of talent.
Anti aspiration.
So increasing taxes on people who already poorer in real terms and lower funding for schools is aspiration? Basically you are saying if you're currently lower class then tough luck you've got no hope of you or your children climbing out. Better to keep the middle and upper classes to carry on upwards and especially if you're a pensioner, let's make sure their pensions keep rising. All in it together people.
Blimey, that's a horrific leap. He's said nothing of the sort and you know it, yet more hyperbole and exaggerations being banded about.
I'd argue that Nick has said the exact opposite of this - "aspiration" in the sense of Nick's post seems to be a synonym for social mobility, so "tough luck you've got no hope of you or your children climbing out" is completely false and out of order. For what it's worth, I'm curious as to how you believe Labour are the party of social mobility, because my own views are the same as Nick's.
Tying in nicely with Huskaris' point, it's exactly this kind of post which has led me to read this thread, but not openly participate.
I am 25 years old now and i don't feel much affinity to any political party as such. I don't warm towards parties on the left because i see them as anti-aspiration.
I pay my taxes. If i work hard and climb the ladder, why should my efforts be massively penalised?
If i have a child, why can't i send them to a private school?
Why should bright children from poor backgrounds be denied access to a grammar school just to fit into the socialist agenda. A total waste of talent.
Anti aspiration.
So increasing taxes on people who already poorer in real terms and lower funding for schools is aspiration? Basically you are saying if you're currently lower class then tough luck you've got no hope of you or your children climbing out. Better to keep the middle and upper classes to carry on upwards and especially if you're a pensioner, let's make sure their pensions keep rising. All in it together people.
Blimey, that's a horrific leap. He's said nothing of the sort and you know it, yet more hyperbole and exaggerations being banded about.
I'd argue that Nick has said the exact opposite of this - "aspiration" in the sense of Nick's post seems to be a synonym for social mobility, so "tough luck you've got no hope of you or your children climbing out" is completely false and out of order. For what it's worth, I'm curious as to how you believe Labour are the party of social mobility, because my own views are the same as Nick's.
Tying in nicely with Huskaris' point, it's exactly this kind of post which has led me to read this thread, but not openly participate.
Quite a leap from you there. Where ha e I ever said I believe Labour are the solution to all this. In fact have I ever said I'm a Labour supporter? I'll save you some trawling, no I haven't.
Nick was saying why he supports party's to the right of the political spectrum. The Tories have announced or at the very least hinted they will implement the things in my post when they retain control. Therefore it really isn't a leap to question why someone would vote for that if they value aspiration? Unless they only value it for people who are fortunate enough to be born into a life that pretty much guarantees it already.
I am 25 years old now and i don't feel much affinity to any political party as such. I don't warm towards parties on the left because i see them as anti-aspiration.
I pay my taxes. If i work hard and climb the ladder, why should my efforts be massively penalised?
If i have a child, why can't i send them to a private school?
Why should bright children from poor backgrounds be denied access to a grammar school just to fit into the socialist agenda. A total waste of talent.
Anti aspiration.
You've made some really good points here, Nick. And what's good is that, while you haven't said whom you're voting for (and no-one should feel compelled to do so), you have highlighted three areas that you think are important and that will (probably) sway your decision. No-one should have to say where their vote will go; and no-one should be compelled to justify it. So you've added to the debate by making these three points.
It's only fair, however, to counter each of them. If only to give you (and anyone else) pause for thought.
I pay my taxes. If i work hard and climb the ladder, why should my efforts be massively penalised?
Well, in short, your efforts shouldn't be massively penalised. They shouldn't be penalised at all. You should almost always be rewarded for hard work. However, what happens if you work hard, but don't climb the ladder? What happens if you find yourself out of work, through no fault of your own? What happens if the company you work for - or even the company you set up yourself - goes bust? Do you want a safety net? Or do you think that people should always simply look out for themselves? If that does happen to you, would your preference be for a social safety net, funded by a fair set of progressive taxes; or would you be entirely happy that, even though you were out of work (maybe made homeless too..?) business owners would be taxed as low as possible? What's more important to you: having a safety net, or being reassured that the people that don't need a safety net get tax breaks?
(For what it's worth, people do find themselves out of work, through redundancy, for example. It's happened to me. Six times).
If i have a child, why can't i send them to a private school?
If you can afford it, there is no reason at all why you shouldn't send you child (children?) to a fee-paying school. No-one is going to deny you that chance. If you can do it, and you want to do it, go ahead. Here's another point worth thinking about: your partner can claim a cash benefit when you have a child. This helps us all, because it enables that child to be looked after as well as possible, taking away from you some of the cost burdens of bringing up the next generation. Your partner will also get this benefit when you have a second child. But this government has decided that, if you hve a third, your partner will have to *prove* that she was raped before you can claim again.
(Full disclosure: I went to a fee-paying school. And one of my classmates went into politics and became the Schools Minster!)
Why should bright children from poor backgrounds be denied access to a grammar school.
Some people like Grammar Schools, in part because they offer a good, all-round education. Some oppose them, because, where the Grammar School educates the "brightest" kids in an area, they starve the rest of the kids in the same area, of finances and opportunity. If Grammar Schools meet the needs of some kids, that's great. But if they're divisive and reduce the opportinities for other schoolkids, they're indefensible.
One other point. I hope you do work hard and succeed, in whatever line of business you're currently in, or whatever you might change to in the future. But remember that no-one succeeds through their own endeavour alone. We all rely on public services, paid for by taxes. We all have colleagues, suppliers and customers, who also rely on public services, the health service and free education. We all succeed when we all succeed. We fail when some people want to take themselves out of the responsibility to share wealth.
The public services from which we now benefit aren't safe with some of the parties looking to be elected in June.
I am 25 years old now and i don't feel much affinity to any political party as such. I don't warm towards parties on the left because i see them as anti-aspiration.
I pay my taxes. If i work hard and climb the ladder, why should my efforts be massively penalised?
If i have a child, why can't i send them to a private school?
Why should bright children from poor backgrounds be denied access to a grammar school just to fit into the socialist agenda. A total waste of talent.
Anti aspiration.
Or looking at it another way, you benefit more from living in a civilised society, and you can afford to contribute more to funding the infrastructure and services of that society, so it is in your interests to do so. There are very few (if any) circumstances where an increase in salary means a drop in take home pay, so I don't see how being in favour of progressive taxation is anti-aspiration. While you may be young and healthy now, there's no guarantee that you will always be so, and your contributions help to keep the societal safety net in place for when you need it.
As far as I'm aware, no-one's saying you can't send your kids to a private school, just that as profit making enterprises they shouldn't get tax breaks for dubious charitable status. And what's aspirational about going to private school exactly?
As for grammar schools, why should all children from poor backgrounds be denied access to the best education to make the most of their talents and improve their chances in life, just to fund extra provision for a small proportion who were top of the ability range at age 11? The evidence from Kent is that the selective system widens the gap between rich and poor pupils over the ability range as a whole. If anything the left's agenda is "aspiration for all" rather than "aspiration for a few".
I am 25 years old now and i don't feel much affinity to any political party as such. I don't warm towards parties on the left because i see them as anti-aspiration.
I pay my taxes. If i work hard and climb the ladder, why should my efforts be massively penalised?
If i have a child, why can't i send them to a private school?
Why should bright children from poor backgrounds be denied access to a grammar school just to fit into the socialist agenda. A total waste of talent.
Anti aspiration.
So increasing taxes on people who already poorer in real terms and lower funding for schools is aspiration? Basically you are saying if you're currently lower class then tough luck you've got no hope of you or your children climbing out. Better to keep the middle and upper classes to carry on upwards and especially if you're a pensioner, let's make sure their pensions keep rising. All in it together people.
Blimey, that's a horrific leap. He's said nothing of the sort and you know it, yet more hyperbole and exaggerations being banded about.
I'd argue that Nick has said the exact opposite of this - "aspiration" in the sense of Nick's post seems to be a synonym for social mobility, so "tough luck you've got no hope of you or your children climbing out" is completely false and out of order. For what it's worth, I'm curious as to how you believe Labour are the party of social mobility, because my own views are the same as Nick's.
Tying in nicely with Huskaris' point, it's exactly this kind of post which has led me to read this thread, but not openly participate.
Quite a leap from you there. Where ha e I ever said I believe Labour are the solution to all this. In fact have I ever said I'm a Labour supporter? I'll save you some trawling, no I haven't.
Nick was saying why he supports party's to the right of the political spectrum. The Tories have announced or at the very least hinted they will implement the things in my post when they retain control. Therefore it really isn't a leap to question why someone would vote for that if they value aspiration? Unless they only value it for people who are fortunate enough to be born into a life that pretty much guarantees it already.
I edited the Labour bit in, as I was curious after I made the original post. Apologies if I've misrepresented your views, but the point remains though; Nick said quite the opposite of how you took his post though.
You say that the Tories have announced (or "hinted") all of the things in your post.. so increased taxes on the poorer and lower funding for schools? What makes you think the removal of the pledge to keep tax levels the same will be targeted at poorer people? Their last failed foray with regards to tax was aimed at the self-employed after all.
On the other hand, you also make it appear that they are unfairly favourable to pensioners.. despite the fact that they're refusing to commit to the triple-lock for pensioners?
I think it makes more sense to await the full manifesto and a confirmation of what they intend to be quite honest, as it's all conjecture at the moment - and I think you may be surprised.
I am 25 years old now and i don't feel much affinity to any political party as such. I don't warm towards parties on the left because i see them as anti-aspiration.
I pay my taxes. If i work hard and climb the ladder, why should my efforts be massively penalised?
If i have a child, why can't i send them to a private school?
Why should bright children from poor backgrounds be denied access to a grammar school just to fit into the socialist agenda. A total waste of talent.
Anti aspiration.
As far as I'm aware, no-one's saying you can't send your kids to a private school, just that as profit making enterprises they shouldn't get tax breaks for dubious charitable status. And what's aspirational about going to private school exactly?
Maybe i've misinterpreted what Corbyn has been saying, but isn't it that school fee's will attract VAT? Nothing to do with charitable status etc?
I am 25 years old now and i don't feel much affinity to any political party as such. I don't warm towards parties on the left because i see them as anti-aspiration.
I pay my taxes. If i work hard and climb the ladder, why should my efforts be massively penalised?
If i have a child, why can't i send them to a private school?
Why should bright children from poor backgrounds be denied access to a grammar school just to fit into the socialist agenda. A total waste of talent.
Anti aspiration.
what's aspirational about going to private school exactly?
I've voted in four general elections and I've voted for Labour twice and Conservative twice.
I can't pinpoint why.
I came from a working class family, went to Dartford Grammar (one of six from my primary school in York Road) and was the first to go to university and graduate in 2004. I had a student loan (now paid off) and had to watch the bank balance but my parents helped me with a £100 here and there.
I got a job within 2 months of graduating earning £16,000 living at home and since bought a house in 2005 with two other mates (they have both moved out and I still live in the same place in Dartford with my wife and son). I probably have less disposable income now then I've ever had but I've had a great (and continue to have) life with some amazing memories.
You know what though? It's always been on me. I've worked long hours and earned decent bonuses and I've spunked too much money on nights out and felt guilty. But it's on me.
My voting preference is based on the future of my family but taking into account Arthur works hard and doesn't expect anything handed to him.
What does that mean? Fuck knows. I've been out with five other Lifers all day and I'm pissed.
Your destiny is in your own hands. Take ownership Lifers.
Love you all. x
EDIT: I've edited this so many times for spelling and grammar alterations.
I am 25 years old now and i don't feel much affinity to any political party as such. I don't warm towards parties on the left because i see them as anti-aspiration.
I pay my taxes. If i work hard and climb the ladder, why should my efforts be massively penalised?
If i have a child, why can't i send them to a private school?
Why should bright children from poor backgrounds be denied access to a grammar school just to fit into the socialist agenda. A total waste of talent.
Anti aspiration.
So increasing taxes on people who already poorer in real terms and lower funding for schools is aspiration? Basically you are saying if you're currently lower class then tough luck you've got no hope of you or your children climbing out. Better to keep the middle and upper classes to carry on upwards and especially if you're a pensioner, let's make sure their pensions keep rising. All in it together people.
Blimey, that's a horrific leap. He's said nothing of the sort and you know it, yet more hyperbole and exaggerations being banded about.
I'd argue that Nick has said the exact opposite of this - "aspiration" in the sense of Nick's post seems to be a synonym for social mobility, so "tough luck you've got no hope of you or your children climbing out" is completely false and out of order. For what it's worth, I'm curious as to how you believe Labour are the party of social mobility, because my own views are the same as Nick's.
Tying in nicely with Huskaris' point, it's exactly this kind of post which has led me to read this thread, but not openly participate.
Quite a leap from you there. Where ha e I ever said I believe Labour are the solution to all this. In fact have I ever said I'm a Labour supporter? I'll save you some trawling, no I haven't.
Nick was saying why he supports party's to the right of the political spectrum. The Tories have announced or at the very least hinted they will implement the things in my post when they retain control. Therefore it really isn't a leap to question why someone would vote for that if they value aspiration? Unless they only value it for people who are fortunate enough to be born into a life that pretty much guarantees it already.
I edited the Labour bit in, as I was curious after I made the original post. Apologies if I've misrepresented your views, but the point remains though; Nick said quite the opposite of how you took his post though.
You say that the Tories have announced (or "hinted") all of the things in your post.. so increased taxes on the poorer and lower funding for schools? What makes you think the removal of the pledge to keep tax levels the same will be targeted at poorer people? Their last failed foray with regards to tax was aimed at the self-employed after all.
On the other hand, you also make it appear that they are unfairly favourable to pensioners.. despite the fact that they're refusing to commit to the triple-lock for pensioners?
I think it makes more sense to await the full manifesto and a confirmation of what they intend to be quite honest, as it's all conjecture at the moment - and I think you may be surprised.
Well let's look at how people have faired since they took control. Wages in real terms are down, public services spending down in real terms but at the same time cut corporation tax. Schools and the NHS are a mess. The increase in tuition fees. Over the same time it has been shown that pensioners have more disposable income. Now obviously all these affect us all but it's the impact of those that is the main point.
I'm lucky enough that personally I haven't been that affected by any of the events since 2008 that have led us to this situation. From a selfish point of view I should vote Tory as I am on paper the sort of person that should be attracted to a party and what they represent. But I'm not, I want a party that treats everyone equally. And frankly what they have done to social services and what they continue to do to the NHS disgusts me. I realise that had I been born 15 Years later I would not have had the opportunities I did. That shouldn't be the case.
I am 25 years old now and i don't feel much affinity to any political party as such. I don't warm towards parties on the left because i see them as anti-aspiration.
I pay my taxes. If i work hard and climb the ladder, why should my efforts be massively penalised?
If i have a child, why can't i send them to a private school?
Why should bright children from poor backgrounds be denied access to a grammar school just to fit into the socialist agenda. A total waste of talent.
Anti aspiration.
As far as I'm aware, no-one's saying you can't send your kids to a private school, just that as profit making enterprises they shouldn't get tax breaks for dubious charitable status. And what's aspirational about going to private school exactly?
Maybe i've misinterpreted what Corbyn has been saying, but isn't it that school fee's will attract VAT? Nothing to do with charitable status etc?
Ah, slightly different policy, but similar principle. Given private school is a luxury and not an essential, it's ridiculous that they don't currently charge VAT on school fees, particularly given some of the things that VAT _is_ charged on, that are far more basic expenditure.
I am 25 years old now and i don't feel much affinity to any political party as such. I don't warm towards parties on the left because i see them as anti-aspiration.
I pay my taxes. If i work hard and climb the ladder, why should my efforts be massively penalised?
If i have a child, why can't i send them to a private school?
Why should bright children from poor backgrounds be denied access to a grammar school just to fit into the socialist agenda. A total waste of talent.
Anti aspiration.
As far as I'm aware, no-one's saying you can't send your kids to a private school, just that as profit making enterprises they shouldn't get tax breaks for dubious charitable status. And what's aspirational about going to private school exactly?
Maybe i've misinterpreted what Corbyn has been saying, but isn't it that school fee's will attract VAT? Nothing to do with charitable status etc?
Ah, slightly different policy, but similar principle. Given private school is a luxury and not an essential, it's ridiculous that they don't currently charge VAT on school fees, particularly given some of the things that VAT _is_ charged on, that are far more basic expenditure.
Sort of agree with that, but the three people at work I know who send their kids to private school couldn't afford to take a 20% hit let alone the additional income tax they'd no doubt pay under labour/Corbyn. Still i'm sure the state won't mind having to find places for their 7 kids......
It's a bit of an oxymoron really, if the state had to pay for the 3/4 million children currently in private school at an average of £6,500 pound a year that's roughly £5bn to find...... you could argue those who don't send their children to state schools should get a tax break (and maybe the no VAT is that break).
There's clearly the super rich who 20% more wouldn't effect them but in my experience the vast majority who send their children to private school aren't on millions a year. Far from it, the chap I sit next to earns under £100k a year, drives an oldish car, lives in a 3bed semi and doesn't go on expensive holidays. He chooses to put a large chunk of his income on his children education.
Anyway, wonder what Diane Abbot thinks of the policy Or Valerie Vaz.
Labour have announced an additional 4 bank holidays (UK has the lowest public holidays in Europe) St David's Day (March 1), St Patrick's Day (March 17), St George's Day (April 23) and St Andrew's Day (November 30)
Labour have announced an additional 4 bank holidays (UK has the lowest public holidays in Europe) St David's Day (March 1), St Patrick's Day (March 17), St George's Day (April 23) and St Andrew's Day (November 30)
I was trying to work out the wind up here, couldn't see it and then realised you're telling the truth!
Labour have announced an additional 4 bank holidays (UK has the lowest public holidays in Europe) St David's Day (March 1), St Patrick's Day (March 17), St George's Day (April 23) and St Andrew's Day (November 30)
Well that's stupid, it'll mean up to 7 bank holidays between march and may, then just 1 between then and late November.
Plus Easter can be the same weekend as at George's day.
We need more bank holidays, but we need them in summer and autumn, not all crush into 2 months of spring.
Labour have announced an additional 4 bank holidays (UK has the lowest public holidays in Europe) St David's Day (March 1), St Patrick's Day (March 17), St George's Day (April 23) and St Andrew's Day (November 30)
Sounds like a desperately inane way to try to attract votes.
If I was writing the Labour manifesto I'd go all guns blazing with the citizens income and worry about whether it's really affordable after the election. The bank holiday idea feels a bit half arsed.
Labour have announced an additional 4 bank holidays (UK has the lowest public holidays in Europe) St David's Day (March 1), St Patrick's Day (March 17), St George's Day (April 23) and St Andrew's Day (November 30)
That would be great as i get treble time for working bank holidays .
Labour have announced an additional 4 bank holidays (UK has the lowest public holidays in Europe) St David's Day (March 1), St Patrick's Day (March 17), St George's Day (April 23) and St Andrew's Day (November 30)
Sounds like a desperately inane way to try to attract votes.
As opposed to going for a hard Brexit due to media induced xenophobia?
So increasing taxes on people who already poorer in real terms and lower funding for schools is aspiration? Basically you are saying if you're currently lower class then tough luck you've got no hope of you or your children climbing out. Better to keep the middle and upper classes to carry on upwards and especially if you're a pensioner, let's make sure their pensions keep rising. All in it together people.
Blimey, that's a horrific leap. He's said nothing of the sort and you know it, yet more hyperbole and exaggerations being banded about.
I'd argue that Nick has said the exact opposite of this - "aspiration" in the sense of Nick's post seems to be a synonym for social mobility, so "tough luck you've got no hope of you or your children climbing out" is completely false and out of order. For what it's worth, I'm curious as to how you believe Labour are the party of social mobility, because my own views are the same as Nick's.
Tying in nicely with Huskaris' point, it's exactly this kind of post which has led me to read this thread, but not openly participate.
Quite a leap from you there. Where ha e I ever said I believe Labour are the solution to all this. In fact have I ever said I'm a Labour supporter? I'll save you some trawling, no I haven't.
Nick was saying why he supports party's to the right of the political spectrum. The Tories have announced or at the very least hinted they will implement the things in my post when they retain control. Therefore it really isn't a leap to question why someone would vote for that if they value aspiration? Unless they only value it for people who are fortunate enough to be born into a life that pretty much guarantees it already.
I edited the Labour bit in, as I was curious after I made the original post. Apologies if I've misrepresented your views, but the point remains though; Nick said quite the opposite of how you took his post though.
You say that the Tories have announced (or "hinted") all of the things in your post.. so increased taxes on the poorer and lower funding for schools? What makes you think the removal of the pledge to keep tax levels the same will be targeted at poorer people? Their last failed foray with regards to tax was aimed at the self-employed after all.
On the other hand, you also make it appear that they are unfairly favourable to pensioners.. despite the fact that they're refusing to commit to the triple-lock for pensioners?
I think it makes more sense to await the full manifesto and a confirmation of what they intend to be quite honest, as it's all conjecture at the moment - and I think you may be surprised.
Well let's look at how people have faired since they took control. Wages in real terms are down, public services spending down in real terms but at the same time cut corporation tax. Schools and the NHS are a mess. The increase in tuition fees. Over the same time it has been shown that pensioners have more disposable income. Now obviously all these affect us all but it's the impact of those that is the main point.
If wages are down then why are you against reducing corporation tax; corporation tax goes beyond the likes of Starbucks and Amazon, it's paid for by every single company. Reducing the liabilities of companies seems like an economically sound way of enabling salary increases, and it's not difficult to see how that could introduce new jobs.
Similarly, the tuition fee topic has been done to death - but when calculated in real terms it quickly becomes incredibly minor on a monthly pay-check basis.
I'll give you both schools and the NHS, and I'll even hand you the police and prison services. The cuts are something I find very difficult to defend, and I wont even attempt to. This was the area that personally set me off on my journey away from The Conservative Party.
I've already pointed out the pension issue though, the triple-lock ensuring pensions increase above interest do not look as though they are going to be kept. In fact, if you look at the Workplace Pensions scheme (Introduced under the coalition IIRC?) this is a burden that they are keen to remove from the taxpayer altogether in the long run.
I'm lucky enough that personally I haven't been that affected by any of the events since 2008 that have led us to this situation. From a selfish point of view I should vote Tory as I am on paper the sort of person that should be attracted to a party and what they represent. But I'm not, I want a party that treats everyone equally. And frankly what they have done to social services and what they continue to do to the NHS disgusts me. I realise that had I been born 15 Years later I would not have had the opportunities I did. That shouldn't be the case.
Interesting, but as a counter-point - I was in social housing from the age of 17, I was under psychiatric treatment for most of those years, and I was written off. No exaggeration, I was actually given a tour of what could best be described as a "half-way house" at one point. There was no expectations for me, not by care coordinators or anyone else involved.
Within 10 years I've managed to pick my life back up, I've worked in a whole plethora of environments and I now run my own company - a company that this year will hopefully look at employing another person (which will be made easier to an extent by the lower Corporation Tax rate.). The majority of this journey has been made under a Conservative led-government, and I find it bizarre how people separate the economics of business from the economics of the public. I do not feel I would've had the same opportunities if I were born 7 years earlier; the policies aimed at small businesses not only allowed the first companies I worked for to take a chance on me, but now they're actively helping me look at taking a chance on someone else - creating a job and providing a salary and financial independence for someone else.
I didn't grow up in a mansion, nor am I free from money worries, and I don't have the nice accent - although I did attend a grammar school. I am by all accounts disabled (legally speaking) and from quite a modest (poor, considering we lost our own home.) background - and although you haven't done this yourself, I do take exception when people assume that people like myself have all been shat on by Conservatives. For people like me, they provided a real lifeline and provided real social mobility.
The last bit wasn't directed specifically at you @colthe3rd, mate. In fact, I'll give you a thanks for putting your point across quite succinctly and cutting it down to precisely how you feel and what concerns you. I genuinely appreciate that, it's good to talk that way - and as I say, we even have a degree of common ground with regards to cut backs. (family/friends in both the NHS and the Police, and a partner who is not only a teacher, but the SENCO at a school who see's how scarce resources for certain special needs can be)
Ultimately I think there needs to be a new option. I genuinely do believe that The Conservatives can provide social mobility, and I say that as someone who was once subjected to the horrible Atos treatment when being assessed for DLA and ESA. I also support tax breaks for businesses... but I think that the tax breaks could be bigger if the larger companies were taxed fairly.
The extent of the cuts though? That's where my support wavered, and ultimately placed me in the position I am now: a bit stumped as to where I really belong on the political landscape.
Labour have announced an additional 4 bank holidays (UK has the lowest public holidays in Europe) St David's Day (March 1), St Patrick's Day (March 17), St George's Day (April 23) and St Andrew's Day (November 30)
St Pat's day is already a bank holiday in the whole of Ireland and the jocks have a bank holiday for St Andrew's day.
Labour have announced an additional 4 bank holidays (UK has the lowest public holidays in Europe) St David's Day (March 1), St Patrick's Day (March 17), St George's Day (April 23) and St Andrew's Day (November 30)
Well that's stupid, it'll mean up to 7 bank holidays between march and may, then just 1 between then and late November.
Plus Easter can be the same weekend as at George's day.
We need more bank holidays, but we need them in summer and autumn, not all crush into 2 months of spring.
I think it's a good idea but i see your point, maybe the early May Bank Holiday could be moved to July.
Had to cut out all the previous posts as it was too long:
On the corporation tax point. I take your point but the vast majority of medium to large companies are just going to use the savings to boost profits to appease shareholders. I sound like a complete lefty socialist but I'm really not, I believe in free market economics so I guess I'm a bit of a contradiction. At the moment that model won't work given the state we've gotten ourselves into and that's a much wider issue than just who is in government and far too much to put into one post.
I really do not trust them on the pension issue. These people are largely the Tories biggest supporter base so I can understand why they would do it but I fundamentally disagree with it especially when Cameron and Osborne frequently told us we're all in it together.
I did omit one of the reasons I dislike May and that's the snoopers charter. She was hell bent on getting this through during her time as home secretary and I believe it is an infringement on our privacy.
I imagine we're all influenced by our own experiences under who is in power at the time as highlighted by both our posts. Good to see you've come through rough times and hope you do well. I guess we'll just have to respect that we have political differences.
Don't worry about your response, I didn't take offence to it. Urrgh, sympathising with a Tory, must go for a shower now.
Comments
But you took the time to respond albeit it included a number of assumptions and slight digs about me, for want of a better word. In turn I replied to each of your main points setting out why I thought the situation was far from as clear cut as you set out and with some background to my own experience.
Nothing I said was abusive or agressive or meant to belittle your views in any way only to illicit further clarification on what you meant or to offer an alternative (and fact based view) on the issues.
That's the nature of a sensible debate tbh and I think attempting to portray yourself as being on the receiving end of attacks from "people having views so entrenched that they can not ever consider changing their mind" is both ironic and unfair.
I hope you reconsider.
I am 25 years old now and i don't feel much affinity to any political party as such. I don't warm towards parties on the left because i see them as anti-aspiration.
I pay my taxes. If i work hard and climb the ladder, why should my efforts be massively penalised?
If i have a child, why can't i send them to a private school?
Why should bright children from poor backgrounds be denied access to a grammar school just to fit into the socialist agenda. A total waste of talent.
Anti aspiration.
I'd argue that Nick has said the exact opposite of this - "aspiration" in the sense of Nick's post seems to be a synonym for social mobility, so "tough luck you've got no hope of you or your children climbing out" is completely false and out of order. For what it's worth, I'm curious as to how you believe Labour are the party of social mobility, because my own views are the same as Nick's.
Tying in nicely with Huskaris' point, it's exactly this kind of post which has led me to read this thread, but not openly participate.
Nick was saying why he supports party's to the right of the political spectrum. The Tories have announced or at the very least hinted they will implement the things in my post when they retain control. Therefore it really isn't a leap to question why someone would vote for that if they value aspiration? Unless they only value it for people who are fortunate enough to be born into a life that pretty much guarantees it already.
It's only fair, however, to counter each of them. If only to give you (and anyone else) pause for thought.
I pay my taxes. If i work hard and climb the ladder, why should my efforts be massively penalised?
Well, in short, your efforts shouldn't be massively penalised. They shouldn't be penalised at all. You should almost always be rewarded for hard work. However, what happens if you work hard, but don't climb the ladder? What happens if you find yourself out of work, through no fault of your own? What happens if the company you work for - or even the company you set up yourself - goes bust? Do you want a safety net? Or do you think that people should always simply look out for themselves? If that does happen to you, would your preference be for a social safety net, funded by a fair set of progressive taxes; or would you be entirely happy that, even though you were out of work (maybe made homeless too..?) business owners would be taxed as low as possible? What's more important to you: having a safety net, or being reassured that the people that don't need a safety net get tax breaks?
(For what it's worth, people do find themselves out of work, through redundancy, for example. It's happened to me. Six times).
If i have a child, why can't i send them to a private school?
If you can afford it, there is no reason at all why you shouldn't send you child (children?) to a fee-paying school. No-one is going to deny you that chance. If you can do it, and you want to do it, go ahead. Here's another point worth thinking about: your partner can claim a cash benefit when you have a child. This helps us all, because it enables that child to be looked after as well as possible, taking away from you some of the cost burdens of bringing up the next generation. Your partner will also get this benefit when you have a second child. But this government has decided that, if you hve a third, your partner will have to *prove* that she was raped before you can claim again.
(Full disclosure: I went to a fee-paying school. And one of my classmates went into politics and became the Schools Minster!)
Why should bright children from poor backgrounds be denied access to a grammar school.
Some people like Grammar Schools, in part because they offer a good, all-round education. Some oppose them, because, where the Grammar School educates the "brightest" kids in an area, they starve the rest of the kids in the same area, of finances and opportunity. If Grammar Schools meet the needs of some kids, that's great. But if they're divisive and reduce the opportinities for other schoolkids, they're indefensible.
One other point. I hope you do work hard and succeed, in whatever line of business you're currently in, or whatever you might change to in the future. But remember that no-one succeeds through their own endeavour alone. We all rely on public services, paid for by taxes. We all have colleagues, suppliers and customers, who also rely on public services, the health service and free education. We all succeed when we all succeed. We fail when some people want to take themselves out of the responsibility to share wealth.
The public services from which we now benefit aren't safe with some of the parties looking to be elected in June.
As far as I'm aware, no-one's saying you can't send your kids to a private school, just that as profit making enterprises they shouldn't get tax breaks for dubious charitable status. And what's aspirational about going to private school exactly?
As for grammar schools, why should all children from poor backgrounds be denied access to the best education to make the most of their talents and improve their chances in life, just to fund extra provision for a small proportion who were top of the ability range at age 11? The evidence from Kent is that the selective system widens the gap between rich and poor pupils over the ability range as a whole. If anything the left's agenda is "aspiration for all" rather than "aspiration for a few".
You say that the Tories have announced (or "hinted") all of the things in your post.. so increased taxes on the poorer and lower funding for schools? What makes you think the removal of the pledge to keep tax levels the same will be targeted at poorer people? Their last failed foray with regards to tax was aimed at the self-employed after all.
On the other hand, you also make it appear that they are unfairly favourable to pensioners.. despite the fact that they're refusing to commit to the triple-lock for pensioners?
I think it makes more sense to await the full manifesto and a confirmation of what they intend to be quite honest, as it's all conjecture at the moment - and I think you may be surprised.
I can't pinpoint why.
I came from a working class family, went to Dartford Grammar (one of six from my primary school in York Road) and was the first to go to university and graduate in 2004. I had a student loan (now paid off) and had to watch the bank balance but my parents helped me with a £100 here and there.
I got a job within 2 months of graduating earning £16,000 living at home and since bought a house in 2005 with two other mates (they have both moved out and I still live in the same place in Dartford with my wife and son). I probably have less disposable income now then I've ever had but I've had a great (and continue to have) life with some amazing memories.
You know what though? It's always been on me. I've worked long hours and earned decent bonuses and I've spunked too much money on nights out and felt guilty. But it's on me.
My voting preference is based on the future of my family but taking into account Arthur works hard and doesn't expect anything handed to him.
What does that mean? Fuck knows. I've been out with five other Lifers all day and I'm pissed.
Your destiny is in your own hands. Take ownership Lifers.
Love you all. x
EDIT: I've edited this so many times for spelling and grammar alterations.
I'm lucky enough that personally I haven't been that affected by any of the events since 2008 that have led us to this situation. From a selfish point of view I should vote Tory as I am on paper the sort of person that should be attracted to a party and what they represent. But I'm not, I want a party that treats everyone equally. And frankly what they have done to social services and what they continue to do to the NHS disgusts me. I realise that had I been born 15 Years later I would not have had the opportunities I did. That shouldn't be the case.
It's a bit of an oxymoron really, if the state had to pay for the 3/4 million children currently in private school at an average of £6,500 pound a year that's roughly £5bn to find...... you could argue those who don't send their children to state schools should get a tax break (and maybe the no VAT is that break).
There's clearly the super rich who 20% more wouldn't effect them but in my experience the vast majority who send their children to private school aren't on millions a year. Far from it, the chap I sit next to earns under £100k a year, drives an oldish car, lives in a 3bed semi and doesn't go on expensive holidays. He chooses to put a large chunk of his income on his children education.
Anyway, wonder what Diane Abbot thinks of the policy
Plus Easter can be the same weekend as at George's day.
We need more bank holidays, but we need them in summer and autumn, not all crush into 2 months of spring.
Ultimately I think there needs to be a new option. I genuinely do believe that The Conservatives can provide social mobility, and I say that as someone who was once subjected to the horrible Atos treatment when being assessed for DLA and ESA. I also support tax breaks for businesses... but I think that the tax breaks could be bigger if the larger companies were taxed fairly.
The extent of the cuts though? That's where my support wavered, and ultimately placed me in the position I am now: a bit stumped as to where I really belong on the political landscape.
Had to cut out all the previous posts as it was too long:
On the corporation tax point. I take your point but the vast majority of medium to large companies are just going to use the savings to boost profits to appease shareholders. I sound like a complete lefty socialist but I'm really not, I believe in free market economics so I guess I'm a bit of a contradiction. At the moment that model won't work given the state we've gotten ourselves into and that's a much wider issue than just who is in government and far too much to put into one post.
I really do not trust them on the pension issue. These people are largely the Tories biggest supporter base so I can understand why they would do it but I fundamentally disagree with it especially when Cameron and Osborne frequently told us we're all in it together.
I did omit one of the reasons I dislike May and that's the snoopers charter. She was hell bent on getting this through during her time as home secretary and I believe it is an infringement on our privacy.
I imagine we're all influenced by our own experiences under who is in power at the time as highlighted by both our posts. Good to see you've come through rough times and hope you do well. I guess we'll just have to respect that we have political differences.
Don't worry about your response, I didn't take offence to it. Urrgh, sympathising with a Tory, must go for a shower now.