Apologies @kings hill addick for calling you shooters, its the three words with Hill in the middle and being in SE London.
I think your post implied that Labour was bribing the young by offering to buy them houses and giving them money. In this bit from your post:-
Don't get me wrong I fully understand why you voted for Labour when you thought they were going to give you c. £25k and an affordable house to live in next door to one that someone paid £500k to buy
And the job bit was this:-
"If you managed two Ds at 'A' Level and went to a crappy Collage and managed a 2:2 then you might not find that there is a clamor for you to take a job on £50k with six figure bonuses"
Although reading that bit again it is fairly ambiguous so I will withdraw that example.
The crux of what I am saying is that lots of people do work hard, do get an education and do scrape and save but still do not get the benefit of rewarding and stable employment, a decent home or a debt free life. We are meant to live in a meritocracy but the dice are loaded for a lot of people.
Why do you need to apologise for calling someone me !!!!!!! ?
Because if I had spoken of my fawning admiration for you it would have been embarrassing for us both.
I do think the Labour Party offering to wipe off student loans is an incentive to vote for them. I wouldn't call it a bribe but I can see why some do.
I also think that offering to build more affordable housing will win votes from those that cannot afford to buy (or rent) a property where they want to live - even though this has been the case for many for decades.
I don't, really, have a problem with that or those that want it and vote for it.
Having said that I also don't have a problem with those with small limited companies voting Tory as they will benefit from lower Corporation Tax.
It is my belief that many people vote in their own financial interests. I know that not everyone does but many do. I'm ok with that and suspect that elections can be won by ensuring that the outcome will benefit enough of the electorate to secure a win.
If any of the under 25s that voted Labour did so because they thought that they would receive a windfall and/or their prospects would have been better then good for them. I just think it is a little disingenuous for any of them (especially those that have only recently left education or are still in it) to be demanding that their long term prospects are enhanced at great cost to the tax payer yet claim that they don't want free stuff.
The suggestion that one needs a degree to get a decent job in London, so they should be free, seems particularly hard on those that don't get one, but have to contribute to the cost of those that do.
Maybe the student loan thing was neither a bribe nor an incentive in it's intention. It might be a recognition that many of the older, and indeed political class had free University education, and it is shameful that we have withdrawn that opportunity for following generations. It might have been in the manifesto due to a sense of shame.
Seth, I respect your right to have a different opinion to me but I don't believe that for a second.
There may well be some politicians that make all their decisions independent of how popular they are with the electorate but I seriously doubt there are enough for anything this expensive to be floated if it were not going to win votes.
Incidentally, I also doubt that it would be a pledge for any party that thought that they were, actually, going to win. It's easy to promise something that you know you will never have to deliver on.
Well OK I am not in politics, but on a personal level I feel that sense of shame for sure, I am projecting that some others who are in politics share that same sense of shame that my generation had pulled up the ladder. Maybe I am too much of an idealist.
But our generation didn't pull the ladder up Seth. If anything our generation opened the doors to the next one. More teenagers than ever before are allowed to go to University now. The issue is that when so many go it is not easy to justify the cost to the tax payer. They are not forced to go it is a choice and if they don't want to pay the fees they can choose to get a job at eighteen and avoid them.
If I was going to feel any shame at all it would be that in my day a very small percentage of eighteen year olds were afforded a University education, that in most cases led to a better standard of living, yet it was funded from those that didn't go.
I would have had no problem with paying back the cost of my fees as I don't see why those that didn't get to go should have paid for it. Having 95% of the population pay for the 5% that go is unfair enough but how about 60% of the population (two thirds as many) paying for the 40% that go now (eight times as many).
Instead of having nineteen paying for one to go (which I still think is unfair) we would now have six paying for four to go.
Still don't have a problem for those with debts voting for the party that will wipe them off but I also don't have a problem with those struggling not wanting to add a load of students debts onto their tax bill.
Apologies @kings hill addick for calling you shooters, its the three words with Hill in the middle and being in SE London.
I think your post implied that Labour was bribing the young by offering to buy them houses and giving them money. In this bit from your post:-
Don't get me wrong I fully understand why you voted for Labour when you thought they were going to give you c. £25k and an affordable house to live in next door to one that someone paid £500k to buy
And the job bit was this:-
"If you managed two Ds at 'A' Level and went to a crappy Collage and managed a 2:2 then you might not find that there is a clamor for you to take a job on £50k with six figure bonuses"
Although reading that bit again it is fairly ambiguous so I will withdraw that example.
The crux of what I am saying is that lots of people do work hard, do get an education and do scrape and save but still do not get the benefit of rewarding and stable employment, a decent home or a debt free life. We are meant to live in a meritocracy but the dice are loaded for a lot of people.
Why do you need to apologise for calling someone me !!!!!!! ?
Because if I had spoken of my fawning admiration for you it would have been embarrassing for us both.
KHA I am staggered by your comments. I am currently unemployed and my local Jobcentre informed me that I had to prove I'd spent 30+ hours a week jobseeking to get JSA. But this would only last 4 months because my NI contributions were insufficient despite me paying into the system for 45 years.
I am single so do not have the advantage of a lazy wife sitting at home and transferring her tax breaks to her husband. I have no kids but pay my taves to educate other parents children. I am happy to pay university fees to keep our country at the cutting edge of tech advances.
I do think the Labour Party offering to wipe off student loans is an incentive to vote for them. I wouldn't call it a bribe but I can see why some do.
I also think that offering to build more affordable housing will win votes from those that cannot afford to buy (or rent) a property where they want to live - even though this has been the case for many for decades.
I don't, really, have a problem with that or those that want it and vote for it.
Having said that I also don't have a problem with those with small limited companies voting Tory as they will benefit from lower Corporation Tax.
It is my belief that many people vote in their own financial interests. I know that not everyone does but many do. I'm ok with that and suspect that elections can be won by ensuring that the outcome will benefit enough of the electorate to secure a win.
If any of the under 25s that voted Labour did so because they thought that they would receive a windfall and/or their prospects would have been better then good for them. I just think it is a little disingenuous for any of them (especially those that have only recently left education or are still in it) to be demanding that their long term prospects are enhanced at great cost to the tax payer yet claim that they don't want free stuff.
The suggestion that one needs a degree to get a decent job in London, so they should be free, seems particularly hard on those that don't get one, but have to contribute to the cost of those that do.
Maybe the student loan thing was neither a bribe nor an incentive in it's intention. It might be a recognition that many of the older, and indeed political class had free University education, and it is shameful that we have withdrawn that opportunity for following generations. It might have been in the manifesto due to a sense of shame.
Seth, I respect your right to have a different opinion to me but I don't believe that for a second.
There may well be some politicians that make all their decisions independent of how popular they are with the electorate but I seriously doubt there are enough for anything this expensive to be floated if it were not going to win votes.
Incidentally, I also doubt that it would be a pledge for any party that thought that they were, actually, going to win. It's easy to promise something that you know you will never have to deliver on.
Well OK I am not in politics, but on a personal level I feel that sense of shame for sure, I am projecting that some others who are in politics share that same sense of shame that my generation had pulled up the ladder. Maybe I am too much of an idealist.
But our generation didn't pull the ladder up Seth. If anything our generation opened the doors to the next one. More teenagers than ever before are allowed to go to University now. The issue is that when so many go it is not easy to justify the cost to the tax payer. They are not forced to go it is a choice and if they don't want to pay the fees they can choose to get a job at eighteen and avoid them.
If I was going to feel any shame at all it would be that in my day a very small percentage of eighteen year olds were afforded a University education, that in most cases led to a better standard of living, yet it was funded from those that didn't go.
I would have had no problem with paying back the cost of my fees as I don't see why those that didn't get to go should have paid for it. Having 95% of the population pay for the 5% that go is unfair enough but how about 60% of the population (two thirds as many) paying for the 40% that go now (eight times as many).
Instead of having nineteen paying for one to go (which I still think is unfair) we would now have six paying for four to go.
Still don't have a problem for those with debts voting for the party that will wipe them off but I also don't have a problem with those struggling not wanting to add a load of students debts onto their tax bill.
We will have to disagree. Personally I believe we all benefit from a highly educated society even if we're not highly educated ourselves. I wouldn't grumble about having to pay water rates, even if I only drunk beer and never washed.
David Davis apparently being lined up by backbenchers and rebels as the next Tory leader. Great news in terms of hopefully that kills may's internet security hard on as davis is a libertarian, but he doesn't strike me with confidence.
I watched that programme last night on how May become prime minister. After watching that, it is inconceivable there is not plotting and manouvering going on in the background.
David Davis apparently being lined up by backbenchers and rebels as the next Tory leader. Great news in terms of hopefully that kills may's internet security hard on as davis is a libertarian, but he doesn't strike me with confidence.
I suspect this is smoke and mirrors. At least I hope so. Davis would be an even worse Prime Minister than May. At least Theresa May appeared competent before she took over. Davis on the other hand...
"He who wields the knife never wears the crown". I think we're in stalking horse territory next. A blinking, swiverl-eyes backbencher will be put up to challenge May. She'll accept, see him off, but be mortally damaged in so doing, allowing a vacuum in which anyone who wants to challenge Boris will be encouraged to do so.
I always enjoy listening to Conservative voters decrying Labour for bribing voters. Back in the eighties, the conservative dogma was privatise everything possible, use the money raised plus the left overs from north sea oil to offer lower taxes to the electorate, thus guaranteeing another four years in power. The lower taxes may have stimulated some growth, but there were recessions, and NHS funding plus education and welfare spending have been under seige ever since. But sadly, it's only when people need their hospitals that the waiting lists become personal.
That's a very good point and an opportunity to remind ourselves about the North Sea Oil bonanza. The Norwegians benefitted too because the fields partly fell in their territory. Instead of spunking the oil wealth away, as we did, they have parked large amounts of it in their Sovereign Wealth Fund. Today you can see the results. I know a bit about Norway ( I've been inside an old people's home in Oslo, which is funded from general taxation. It wanted for nothing.). I cannot think of a single aspect of public policy where Britain has had better outcomes than Norway since the oil bonanza. It's also worth saying that if you go back to 1960 you learn that Norway was then way behind Britain on virtually every measure. A lot of people will groan but it is true; the roots of many of our current problems - especially housing - can be traced back to Thatcher.
I always enjoy listening to Conservative voters decrying Labour for bribing voters. Back in the eighties, the conservative dogma was privatise everything possible, use the money raised plus the left overs from north sea oil to offer lower taxes to the electorate, thus guaranteeing another four years in power. The lower taxes may have stimulated some growth, but there were recessions, and NHS funding plus education and welfare spending have been under seige ever since. But sadly, it's only when people need their hospitals that the waiting lists become personal.
That's a very good point and an opportunity to remind ourselves about the North Sea Oil bonanza. The Norwegians benefitted too because the fields partly fell in their territory. Instead of spunking the oil wealth away, as we did, they have parked large amounts of it in their Sovereign Wealth Fund. Today you can see the results. I know a bit about Norway ( I've been inside an old people's home in Oslo, which is funded from general taxation. It wanted for nothing.). I cannot think of a single aspect of public policy where Britain has had better outcomes than Norway since the oil bonanza. It's also worth saying that if you go back to 1960 you learn that Norway was then way behind Britain on virtually every measure. A lot of people will groan but it is true; the roots of many of our current problems - especially housing - can be traced back to Thatcher.
I always enjoy listening to Conservative voters decrying Labour for bribing voters. Back in the eighties, the conservative dogma was privatise everything possible, use the money raised plus the left overs from north sea oil to offer lower taxes to the electorate, thus guaranteeing another four years in power. The lower taxes may have stimulated some growth, but there were recessions, and NHS funding plus education and welfare spending have been under seige ever since. But sadly, it's only when people need their hospitals that the waiting lists become personal.
That's a very good point and an opportunity to remind ourselves about the North Sea Oil bonanza. The Norwegians benefitted too because the fields partly fell in their territory. Instead of spunking the oil wealth away, as we did, they have parked large amounts of it in their Sovereign Wealth Fund. Today you can see the results. I know a bit about Norway ( I've been inside an old people's home in Oslo, which is funded from general taxation. It wanted for nothing.). I cannot think of a single aspect of public policy where Britain has had better outcomes than Norway since the oil bonanza. It's also worth saying that if you go back to 1960 you learn that Norway was then way behind Britain on virtually every measure. A lot of people will groan but it is true; the roots of many of our current problems - especially housing - can be traced back to Thatcher.
Did it really take 295 pages for everything to be blamed on Thatcher?
I always enjoy listening to Conservative voters decrying Labour for bribing voters. Back in the eighties, the conservative dogma was privatise everything possible, use the money raised plus the left overs from north sea oil to offer lower taxes to the electorate, thus guaranteeing another four years in power. The lower taxes may have stimulated some growth, but there were recessions, and NHS funding plus education and welfare spending have been under seige ever since. But sadly, it's only when people need their hospitals that the waiting lists become personal.
That's a very good point and an opportunity to remind ourselves about the North Sea Oil bonanza. The Norwegians benefitted too because the fields partly fell in their territory. Instead of spunking the oil wealth away, as we did, they have parked large amounts of it in their Sovereign Wealth Fund. Today you can see the results. I know a bit about Norway ( I've been inside an old people's home in Oslo, which is funded from general taxation. It wanted for nothing.). I cannot think of a single aspect of public policy where Britain has had better outcomes than Norway since the oil bonanza. It's also worth saying that if you go back to 1960 you learn that Norway was then way behind Britain on virtually every measure. A lot of people will groan but it is true; the roots of many of our current problems - especially housing - can be traced back to Thatcher.
Did it really take 295 pages for everything to be blamed on Thatcher?
I always enjoy listening to Conservative voters decrying Labour for bribing voters. Back in the eighties, the conservative dogma was privatise everything possible, use the money raised plus the left overs from north sea oil to offer lower taxes to the electorate, thus guaranteeing another four years in power. The lower taxes may have stimulated some growth, but there were recessions, and NHS funding plus education and welfare spending have been under seige ever since. But sadly, it's only when people need their hospitals that the waiting lists become personal.
That's a very good point and an opportunity to remind ourselves about the North Sea Oil bonanza. The Norwegians benefitted too because the fields partly fell in their territory. Instead of spunking the oil wealth away, as we did, they have parked large amounts of it in their Sovereign Wealth Fund. Today you can see the results. I know a bit about Norway ( I've been inside an old people's home in Oslo, which is funded from general taxation. It wanted for nothing.). I cannot think of a single aspect of public policy where Britain has had better outcomes than Norway since the oil bonanza. It's also worth saying that if you go back to 1960 you learn that Norway was then way behind Britain on virtually every measure. A lot of people will groan but it is true; the roots of many all of our current problems - especially housing - can be traced back to Thatcher.
Norway is lovely, it is also one of the most heavily taxed nations in the world. Roughly 45% of GDP, twice that of the USA (think we are about 32%?). It's also asset rich in more than just oil.
Statoil are huge, I reinsure some of their platforms etc, the numbers are mind boggling. They have a rule to save each year some of the profits for the future, very sensible. All parties have long agreed to live within their means as a country.
Norway are in the top 5 exporting countries in the world on more than just gas.
We can clearly learn a lot from them but it's not all rosey. Entrepreneurs find it difficult to start companies as the tax is punishing.
They have been run as a country like a well managed company, ultimately that's why they have been successful, instead we have been run like CAFC for many years!
I used to know a lot of Norwegians, as there was a large presence in Edinburgh. They throw the most boring parties imaginable, and there food somehow manages to be worse than Germany's (and equally as overrated by the inhabitants). That said, their attitude to equality is something I'd like to see more of here. Ahhh, casual xenophobia. that's put me in the mood for my work...
I had a norwegian pen pal - now his family and my family are friends - had a great time breaking into football grounds - well some - most were just open and less fun - nicking a bit of grass from each. Two of the hardest were Millwall and Arsenal. We had to brave a beware guard dogs sign to get a bit of grass at the Den, and I recall hiding behind pillars at Highbury! Charlton was good as got Paul Walsh and Derek Hales taking shots at us (with footballs) trying to hit us. They did get us a few times.
He still has the photo album of each ground with the grass we visited - although he reports it is now straw!
Norway is lovely, it is also one of the most heavily taxed nations in the world. Roughly 45% of GDP, twice that of the USA (think we are about 32%?). It's also asset rich in more than just oil.
Sounds OK. Looks as if people will pay the tax to have a progressive society. If businesses are put off then you might ask if they're the kind of businesses you would want anyway. If businesses pay 45% out of profits, the clue is in the word profits.
I had a norwegian pen pal - now his family and my family are friends - had a great time breaking into football grounds - well some - most were just open and less fun - nicking a bit of grass from each. Two of the hardest were Millwall and Arsenal. We had to brave a beware guard dogs sign to get a bit of grass at the Den, and I recall hiding behind pillars at Highbury! Charlton was good as got Paul Walsh and Derek Hales taking shots at us (with footballs) trying to hit us. They did get us a few times.
He still has the photo album of each ground with the grass we visited - although he reports it is now straw!
I used to know a lot of Norwegians, as there was a large presence in Edinburgh. They throw the most boring parties imaginable, and there food somehow manages to be worse than Germany's (and equally as overrated by the inhabitants). That said, their attitude to equality is something I'd like to see more of here. Ahhh, casual xenophobia. that's put me in the mood for my work...
Now I've read some things on here and I've kept quiet, but I'm going to have to speak up here. German food is amazing!
I had a norwegian pen pal - now his family and my family are friends - had a great time breaking into football grounds - well some - most were just open and less fun - nicking a bit of grass from each. Two of the hardest were Millwall and Arsenal. We had to brave a beware guard dogs sign to get a bit of grass at the Den, and I recall hiding behind pillars at Highbury! Charlton was good as got Paul Walsh and Derek Hales taking shots at us (with footballs) trying to hit us. They did get us a few times.
He still has the photo album of each ground with the grass we visited - although he reports it is now straw!
Comments
If I was going to feel any shame at all it would be that in my day a very small percentage of eighteen year olds were afforded a University education, that in most cases led to a better standard of living, yet it was funded from those that didn't go.
I would have had no problem with paying back the cost of my fees as I don't see why those that didn't get to go should have paid for it. Having 95% of the population pay for the 5% that go is unfair enough but how about 60% of the population (two thirds as many) paying for the 40% that go now (eight times as many).
Instead of having nineteen paying for one to go (which I still think is unfair) we would now have six paying for four to go.
Still don't have a problem for those with debts voting for the party that will wipe them off but I also don't have a problem with those struggling not wanting to add a load of students debts onto their tax bill.
I am single so do not have the advantage of a lazy wife sitting at home and transferring her tax breaks to her husband. I have no kids but pay my taves to educate other parents children. I am happy to pay university fees to keep our country at the cutting edge of tech advances.
Personally I believe we all benefit from a highly educated society even if we're not highly educated ourselves.
I wouldn't grumble about having to pay water rates, even if I only drunk beer and never washed.
I was quite relieved that I have so little knowledge of the rag that I had no idea that Right-Wingdings was their usual scrawl!
"He who wields the knife never wears the crown". I think we're in stalking horse territory next. A blinking, swiverl-eyes backbencher will be put up to challenge May. She'll accept, see him off, but be mortally damaged in so doing, allowing a vacuum in which anyone who wants to challenge Boris will be encouraged to do so.
Norway are in the top 5 exporting countries in the world on more than just gas.
We can clearly learn a lot from them but it's not all rosey. Entrepreneurs find it difficult to start companies as the tax is punishing.
They have been run as a country like a well managed company, ultimately that's why they have been successful, instead we have been run like CAFC for many years!
He still has the photo album of each ground with the grass we visited - although he reports it is now straw!
Looks as if people will pay the tax to have a progressive society.
If businesses are put off then you might ask if they're the kind of businesses you would want anyway. If businesses pay 45% out of profits, the clue is in the word profits.
;0)