It isn't being narky - it is saying somebody on £100k plus can afford to pay a bit more tax. By doing so we should all be grateful for their contribution to a better society.
Why not insist people pay for all education then, including primary and secondary?
...because the split of the benefits of education up to the age of 18 are relatively well balanced between the pupil and society (not many successful countries where millions are illiterate). Moreover a large number leave full time education at 16.
Beyond 18, the benefits are much more skewed towards the pupil and last a lifetime.
Don't the benefits of education at any age last a lifetime? Interesting that you use the word 'skewed' which to me suggests there is some kind of unfairness buried away in all this.
Yes but on average graduate income** accelerates disproportionately versus school leavers hence they should pay for some of it.
I was fortunate enough to graduate in the mid 90s and it's utterly ridiculous it cost me nothing.
**Especially so for highly prized degrees from world class universities obviously - I view it as a good thing if tuition fees have encouraged mediocre talents to forego a degree from a third rate institution which would barely have benefited them net of the costs.
While we're on the personal, I have a degree but was kicked out of the care system at the age of 18, if there had been tuition fees in those days I wouldn't have stood a chance. So I was fortunate too. I don't think it was ridiculous it cost me nothing, but ridiculous that nowadays my generation has pulled up the ladder for those following on.
But how many graduated in your/my day versus today?
I can assure you average intelligence/ability is no higher today (possibly lower).
In my day I think about 12-18% of young people graduated with a degree from University. I am not sure what point you're making here.
I mean it's much higher today which tells me hundreds of thousands of students are going to university for £9k when they would be better off learning a trade etc..
However it's daft that there isn't more variability in pricing given the difference in quality.
I would question the notion that they would be 'better off learning a trade etc'. It brings into question the topic of what is education for anyway. It is a common assumption that education, especially post 18 education ought to be utilitarian or vocational, when there are arguments to say that the purpose of education is to be educated. Then there is the notion of 'better off'. Perhaps there are people who post 18 who regret going straight into the world of work and spend a lifetime regretting not pursuing their interest in, or passion for, Chemistry, or Art, or Geology, or Shakespeare, or Classics or whatever, and would not think they are better off having money, but poorer off for not having the experience of learning other stuff when they were younger. I am well aware that I had a huge lifetime boost from free education when there would have been no chance for somebody like me these days. I wonder what the 10,000 people leaving care per year, at 18, do about higher education. They have basic worries like getting a place to live, let alone racking up a huge debt in University fees. It is because I was a beneficiary of free education that I now want it for others.
Why not insist people pay for all education then, including primary and secondary?
If parents can't afford this their child gets access to a nimbus for one hour a day and 1 floppy disk per term
Nimbus...... you are showing your age young man!
I remember our pc at primary school year 6. Sat in this massive cabinet with something akin to shop window shutters that came down and were locked very securely every afternoon by ms Walsh
Ah, you are a youngster then, primary we had no computers, secondary, 1500 kids, 6 BBC computers!
Why not insist people pay for all education then, including primary and secondary?
...because the split of the benefits of education up to the age of 18 are relatively well balanced between the pupil and society (not many successful countries where millions are illiterate). Moreover a large number leave full time education at 16.
Beyond 18, the benefits are much more skewed towards the pupil and last a lifetime.
Don't the benefits of education at any age last a lifetime? Interesting that you use the word 'skewed' which to me suggests there is some kind of unfairness buried away in all this.
Yes but on average graduate income** accelerates disproportionately versus school leavers hence they should pay for some of it.
I was fortunate enough to graduate in the mid 90s and it's utterly ridiculous it cost me nothing.
**Especially so for highly prized degrees from world class universities obviously - I view it as a good thing if tuition fees have encouraged mediocre talents to forego a degree from a third rate institution which would barely have benefited them net of the costs.
I remember some arsehole at work I took during my degree saying how I was a scrounging student and that he paid for my education. It was all I could do to stop myself from decking him - my father paid for my education through his taxes (and died long before he could claim a penny in old age pension) - as I have paid for my sons through my taxes.
Yes my education was free, I even got a grant - but that education had an effect on my career that has allowed me to contribute back to society with the taxes I pay.
Why not insist people pay for all education then, including primary and secondary?
If parents can't afford this their child gets access to a nimbus for one hour a day and 1 floppy disk per term
Nimbus...... you are showing your age young man!
I remember our pc at primary school year 6. Sat in this massive cabinet with something akin to shop window shutters that came down and were locked very securely every afternoon by ms Walsh
Had to skip a few pages but an alert from my good friend @Dippenhall has dragged me back in.
On privatization. I think it is really important to revisit the nature and effectiveness of privatized utilities. I think it is right for Labour to target railways and water in this respect.
There was a bloke in Thatcher's earliest cabinet ( John Moore?) who said that the success test would be if privatization created competition, which in turn delivered better service.
Right then. Has anyone recently tried the competitive alternative to South Eastern Trains? Or how much better does the competitive water to that supplied by Thames Water taste? Epic fail there, I submit.
In the case of railways it is the ludicrous type of privatization that is the main problem. @Dippenhall cites the German model. He presumably thinks Deutsche Bahn is a private company. Well it is , but who is the largest shareholder? the German State, with 93%. DB retains both the infrastructure and the core intercity network. Why? because Germany understands that a smooth, super fast intercity network is essential to keep that country moving and doing business. There are private operators on the edges of the network, sometimes with quite large chunks, and they keep DB on their toes, but if you want to get from Frankfurt to Jever, as I did a while back, you don't have to worry about multiple ticket prices of different operators. The ticketing system is national and transparent.
I have no idea how the Germans do their water, but it surely is a key natural asset too. How can you possibly introduce competition into water? And if you can't, where is the benefit? It surely is a key strategic resource which should be in our hands. i was going to say in State hands. But of course water, like most of our energy, is now in State hands. The French State.
I am glad Labour have put this on the agenda. Nobody is happy with all aspects of any party's manifesto ( except the Ukippers pre 23 June, I suppose) , but these proposals on re-nationalization give me renewed resolve to vote for the excellent Clive Efford on June 8th.
Hi Prague,
re the 'south eastern trains competition' - is it not the competition for when the franchises are renewed that he was referring to rather than have more than one choice of train to take ?
Hi Mr One Lung.
The bloke I am talking about left the political scene long before the railways were privatized. It's also worth remembering that Thatcher hated the railways but nevertheless refused to privatize them, we might presume because it failed his simple test. We used to talk with much pride about the National Grid. Not so much now that it is run by the French, but anyway, the Germans think of their railways, and their road system as national grids. The British idea of dividing the rail system up into regional franchises is the opposite of a national grid approach. It is why London to Leeds is kind of Ok ( although nothing compared to Paris to Lyon) whereas London to Cardiff is shite, using the same trains that would have taken someone my age down there to see Killer snatch a late winner. Sure they might not have their franchise renewed. But suppose they don't give a toss? Do it for a few years,milk it, then out. They can do it. Several have. A franchise system is fine for McDonalds, but absolutely not for a strategic asset which has an impact on how the entire country works, and which cannot, unlike a McDonalds, be knocked up, or sold off, in a few weeks.
Disagree in parts: Most people that I have seen or know on benefits have more expensive clothes than I, more expensive TV's, Cars etc generally more and get benefits whilst working cash in hand or not at all. They go on multiple holidays a year and get a ridiculously cheap house... All they tend to do is go to the odd GP appointment to say they're not ready to get back out there or go to the odd job interview...
I earn a bit below 40k and have an average car, average motorbike, average clothes (next etc) and I have to save up for months for a weekend away. I even have to save to buy for any additional expenses each month. Bills and mortgage = 80% of our monthly income. Food and a savings account for our daughter take up the remainder!
So yeah I'll say flip the benefits we get - £10 per week whilst some lazy chav gets hundreds maybe a thousand a month for doing flip all.
I see what you are saying. I could count up to ten people I know abusing the system
The people that will have the biggest change in take home as a percentage would surely be those earning between £120k and £150k who will be paying the additional 10%.
I know its a good salary and all that but its still a fair chunk of change.
My heart truly bleeds at such injustice.
Wow, you do have a real beef with high earners. Why does it bother you so much that there's people earning 100k plus a year?
It doesn't bother me that people are earning 100k plus a year. Don't know where you got that from.
What does bother me, like it should any decent human being, is that we have a society where the poverty rate, the in-work poverty rate, and the child poverty rate is rising year on year since the Tories came to power, and that the only way this is going to improve is if money is spent to help these people, yet those who would miss the money the least (the highest earners) whinge the loudest when asked to help stop this injustice. For the cost of a few high-earners having to save up for a few months more to buy a brand new BMW, the lives of many more families could be immensely improved.
Poverty ruins lives. Poverty kills. Poverty destroys life chances. Poverty damages neighbourhoods and society. Poverty leads to crime and injustice. Solve poverty and you will make far more savings when it comes to the rise in happiness and spending and the fall of crime, health spending and eventually welfare as life chances improve.
But no. Everyone I have seen condemning the tax rises have this 'me me me' approach and are so blinded by their petty greed that they do not have the sense to realise there is no price too great for destroying poverty that won't be paid back several times over in the improvement we need to see in national happiness and productivity.
There are two approaches to the problem: we can either solve poverty now, and then when we see the benefits the rich will be able to keep more of their money...or we keep throwing away lives, life chances and productivity due to an easily solvable problem because some people are too greedy and dense to realise that a small cost now will reap huge rewards in the future.
This is an absolute serious question. You stated "we have a society where the poverty rate, the in-work poverty rate, and the child poverty rate is rising year on year since the Tories came to power".
So I assume you mean since the 2010 coalition, why do you think this is? What action have they taken to cause this, Is it the benefit cuts?
What exactly are labour planning to do to eradicate this Poverty?
What did the Tories do to worsen our country's poverty?
- cuts to PIP and mental health programs by the Tories negatively impact disabled people and those with mental health issues. - Theresa May claims that work is the best route out of poverty but ignores the reality that two thirds of those in poverty are workers and this number is rising, indicating that simply being in work is not a route out of poverty, demonstrating that this government is clueless about the causes and reality of poverty. - Sure Start centre cuts mean that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to be at the same level as those from privileged backgrounds when they start school, reducing their life chances and route out of poverty. - schools in disadvantaged areas impacted by cuts, meaning large class sizes and not enough resources to give full and holistic education to poorer children and those with special educational needs and disabilities, reducing their life chances. - NHS cuts means many people have reduced access to a GP, meaning chronic medical conditions are less likely to be given full and necessary treatment for worker to achieve their potential, reducing life chances. Such cuts disproportionately impact poorer and disabled people who are less likely to have private medical cover. - Tories have failed to recognise exploitative wages being paid to Britain's poorest that are well below the living wage. This means families are likely to be thousands of pounds worse off than if we had a government willing to put a stop to exploitation of poor workers. - as a follow-on from the above point, Tories have introduced program of sanctions meaning jobseekers are forced to take jobs that are well below the living wage or else they receive benefits sanctions. - cuts to local authority budgets have disproportionately hit the poorest areas who have had to cut back on their own programs to assist the lives and wellbeing of those in poverty in their own areas - bedroom tax makes many poorer who are unable to move out due to lack of council housing stock for them to downsize - not enough investment into developing new social housing or increase stocks means too many poor people forced either to pay extortionate private landlord rates or flee to a shelter or even go homeless, reducing life chances - VAT hike to 20%, a regressive tax that hits poor people harder than those with more disposable income - social care funding cut, reducing life chances of those in care and plunging thousands of vulnerable people into poverty - Remploy axed forcing hundreds of disabled workers out of a job - EMA axed - cuts in police and safety means criminals preying on disadvantaged areas
What are Labour going to do?
- investment into schools to reduce class sizes and help disadvantaged/SEND - increase provision of mental health support - restore EMA - safeguard workers' rights against exploitative contracts and conditions - tax freeze for all those earning under £80k - crackdown on rogue landlords - eradicate rough sleeping - end public sector pay freeze - end scandal of unpaid carers - energy price cap - halt cuts to women's refuges - investment into schemes to improve children's health - increase council house stocks - free childcare for 2-4 year olds - abolish tuition fees - free school meals - increase minimum wage to £10/h - invest in the NHS - 10,000 new police - private rent rise caps - scrap bedroom tax - halt Sure Start closures - improve benefit payments so those on welfare do not need to resort to begging or food banks, even when they are employed
That isn't even a comprehensive list of either point.
Why not insist people pay for all education then, including primary and secondary?
If parents can't afford this their child gets access to a nimbus for one hour a day and 1 floppy disk per term
Nimbus...... you are showing your age young man!
I remember our pc at primary school year 6. Sat in this massive cabinet with something akin to shop window shutters that came down and were locked very securely every afternoon by ms Walsh
Ah, you are a youngster then, primary we had no computers, secondary, 1500 kids, 6 BBC computers!
Sounds like my first telesales job. 30 sales people, 6 computers to lead source from
Can't believe some of the callous responses re: kids.
In amongst the callous responses, the fairest one of the lot simply said that anyone can have 3, 4 or 5 kids. Nobody is setting those rules. Just don't expect other people to have to finance them.
It's your choice. If you want 3 kids then that's fine.
That's a huge oversimplification of a usually very complex situation.
Sadiq Kahn's endorsement of the manifesto without endorsing individual policies and then wriggling out of the contradiction by claiming he hadn't actually read the thing was cringeworthy.
Disagree in parts: Most people that I have seen or know on benefits have more expensive clothes than I, more expensive TV's, Cars etc generally more and get benefits whilst working cash in hand or not at all. They go on multiple holidays a year and get a ridiculously cheap house... All they tend to do is go to the odd GP appointment to say they're not ready to get back out there or go to the odd job interview...
I earn a bit below 40k and have an average car, average motorbike, average clothes (next etc) and I have to save up for months for a weekend away. I even have to save to buy for any additional expenses each month. Bills and mortgage = 80% of our monthly income. Food and a savings account for our daughter take up the remainder!
So yeah I'll say flip the benefits we get - £10 per week whilst some lazy chav gets hundreds maybe a thousand a month for doing flip all.
I see what you are saying. I could count up to ten people I know abusing the system
The people that will have the biggest change in take home as a percentage would surely be those earning between £120k and £150k who will be paying the additional 10%.
I know its a good salary and all that but its still a fair chunk of change.
My heart truly bleeds at such injustice.
Wow, you do have a real beef with high earners. Why does it bother you so much that there's people earning 100k plus a year?
It doesn't bother me that people are earning 100k plus a year. Don't know where you got that from.
What does bother me, like it should any decent human being, is that we have a society where the poverty rate, the in-work poverty rate, and the child poverty rate is rising year on year since the Tories came to power, and that the only way this is going to improve is if money is spent to help these people, yet those who would miss the money the least (the highest earners) whinge the loudest when asked to help stop this injustice. For the cost of a few high-earners having to save up for a few months more to buy a brand new BMW, the lives of many more families could be immensely improved.
Poverty ruins lives. Poverty kills. Poverty destroys life chances. Poverty damages neighbourhoods and society. Poverty leads to crime and injustice. Solve poverty and you will make far more savings when it comes to the rise in happiness and spending and the fall of crime, health spending and eventually welfare as life chances improve.
But no. Everyone I have seen condemning the tax rises have this 'me me me' approach and are so blinded by their petty greed that they do not have the sense to realise there is no price too great for destroying poverty that won't be paid back several times over in the improvement we need to see in national happiness and productivity.
There are two approaches to the problem: we can either solve poverty now, and then when we see the benefits the rich will be able to keep more of their money...or we keep throwing away lives, life chances and productivity due to an easily solvable problem because some people are too greedy and dense to realise that a small cost now will reap huge rewards in the future.
This is an absolute serious question. You stated "we have a society where the poverty rate, the in-work poverty rate, and the child poverty rate is rising year on year since the Tories came to power".
So I assume you mean since the 2010 coalition, why do you think this is? What action have they taken to cause this, Is it the benefit cuts?
What exactly are labour planning to do to eradicate this Poverty?
What did the Tories do to worsen our country's poverty?
- cuts to PIP and mental health programs by the Tories negatively impact disabled people and those with mental health issues. - Theresa May claims that work is the best route out of poverty but ignores the reality that two thirds of those in poverty are workers and this number is rising, indicating that simply being in work is not a route out of poverty, demonstrating that this government is clueless about the causes and reality of poverty. - Sure Start centre cuts mean that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to be at the same level as those from privileged backgrounds when they start school, reducing their life chances and route out of poverty. - schools in disadvantaged areas impacted by cuts, meaning large class sizes and not enough resources to give full and holistic education to poorer children and those with special educational needs and disabilities, reducing their life chances. - NHS cuts means many people have reduced access to a GP, meaning chronic medical conditions are less likely to be given full and necessary treatment for worker to achieve their potential, reducing life chances. Such cuts disproportionately impact poorer and disabled people who are less likely to have private medical cover. - Tories have failed to recognise exploitative wages being paid to Britain's poorest that are well below the living wage. This means families are likely to be thousands of pounds worse off than if we had a government willing to put a stop to exploitation of poor workers. - as a follow-on from the above point, Tories have introduced program of sanctions meaning jobseekers are forced to take jobs that are well below the living wage or else they receive benefits sanctions. - cuts to local authority budgets have disproportionately hit the poorest areas who have had to cut back on their own programs to assist the lives and wellbeing of those in poverty in their own areas - bedroom tax makes many poorer who are unable to move out due to lack of council housing stock for them to downsize - not enough investment into developing new social housing or increase stocks means too many poor people forced either to pay extortionate private landlord rates or flee to a shelter or even go homeless, reducing life chances - VAT hike to 20%, a regressive tax that hits poor people harder than those with more disposable income - social care funding cut, reducing life chances of those in care and plunging thousands of vulnerable people into poverty - Remploy axed forcing hundreds of disabled workers out of a job - EMA axed - cuts in police and safety means criminals preying on disadvantaged areas
What are Labour going to do?
- investment into schools to reduce class sizes and help disadvantaged/SEND - increase provision of mental health support - restore EMA - safeguard workers' rights against exploitative contracts and conditions - tax freeze for all those earning under £80k - crackdown on rogue landlords - eradicate rough sleeping - end public sector pay freeze - end scandal of unpaid carers - energy price cap - halt cuts to women's refuges - investment into schemes to improve children's health - increase council house stocks - free childcare for 2-4 year olds - abolish tuition fees - free school meals - increase minimum wage to £10/h - invest in the NHS - 10,000 new police - private rent rise caps - scrap bedroom tax - halt Sure Start closures - improve benefit payments so those on welfare do not need to resort to begging or food banks, even when they are employed
That isn't even a comprehensive list of either point.
And all this is going to be funded by higher taxing the top 5%? Genuine question
Can't believe some of the callous responses re: kids.
In amongst the callous responses, the fairest one of the lot simply said that anyone can have 3, 4 or 5 kids. Nobody is setting those rules. Just don't expect other people to have to finance them.
It's your choice. If you want 3 kids then that's fine.
That's a huge oversimplification of a usually very complex situation.
Can't believe some of the callous responses re: kids.
In amongst the callous responses, the fairest one of the lot simply said that anyone can have 3, 4 or 5 kids. Nobody is setting those rules. Just don't expect other people to have to finance them.
It's your choice. If you want 3 kids then that's fine.
That's a huge oversimplification of a usually very complex situation.
Really isn't
It is more complicated than that, because as much as most people would agree people shouldn't have kids that they can't afford to raise, people do have kids they can't afford to raise. That is, however, not the kids' fault so, if you are a child born to irresponsible parents, it is morally okay, let alone fair, for you to be to be condemned to a life in poverty because of actions entirely beyond your control?
Re tuition fees. Can someone from higher/further education tell me if it would be possible to start making students do degrees full time. By that I mean when I was at Uni, 2001-04, my contact hours for lectures and seminars were never more than 10 a week. On top of that my study was maybe 25-30 hours max.
Is it feasible to up the workload and get students doing more 9-5 type 40 hour weeks, reducing degrees from say 3 years like mine, to 2, maybe 1 and a half, thereby reducing the cost of tuition fees
Granted some degrees are a lot harder than others.
I'm sure there are practical implications as well re the amount of students coming onto the jobs market
@PragueAddick totally agree the rail network - should be a jewel in our crown in my opinion and probably is the one thing would like renationalised even if to get away from the ridiculous situation whereby you have a separate company who are responsible for the tracks the trains use.
Re tuition fees. Can someone from higher/further education tell me if it would be possible to start making students do degrees full time. By that I mean when I was at Uni, 2001-04, my contact hours for lectures and seminars were never more than 10 a week. On top of that my study was maybe 25-30 hours max.
Is it feasible to up the workload and get students doing more 9-5 type 40 hour weeks, reducing degrees from say 3 years like mine, to 2, maybe 1 and a half, thereby reducing the cost of tuition fees
Granted some degrees are a lot harder than others.
I'm sure there are practical implications as well re the amount of students coming onto the jobs market
A full-time degree is 3 years, in most senses.
Contact hours are never going to be 40 hours a week. This is never going to be beneficial for the student or the professor, mainly because:
- professors need to deal with different classes at different times in different sizes. A professor that does a single 1 hour lecture per week in a module to 200 students may then need to deliver seminars, tutorials or practicals to group of 20. Granted they do not do tutorials every week but they will need them often enough to cement learning. - there probably are not enough skilled professionals able to fill in to accommodate such a demand, particularly in disciplines where being a professor is a less lucrative role than other areas Not only that, such professionals must also become skilled in the art of pedagogy. - professors are not full time teachers. They need time to plan the modules and prospectus, as well as form part of the university's research staff - you cannot simply learn by being in contact for 40 hours a week, no one's brain could cope with that. You need time to develop independent study as well as research what areas of your discipline you would like to develop and pursue. There is only so much information the average human brain will usefully process in a certain timeframe. - even if university was free, many students do not have the luxury of attending full time without a job in order to survive whilst studying, unless we propose to fully fund all students' living costs and accommodation?
I do not think reducing the time it takes to do a degree will make it cheaper as it stills requires the same amount of contact time/study hours to pass a course.
What did the Tories do to worsen our country's poverty?
- cuts to PIP and mental health programs by the Tories negatively impact disabled people and those with mental health issues. - Theresa May claims that work is the best route out of poverty but ignores the reality that two thirds of those in poverty are workers and this number is rising, indicating that simply being in work is not a route out of poverty, demonstrating that this government is clueless about the causes and reality of poverty. - Sure Start centre cuts mean that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to be at the same level as those from privileged backgrounds when they start school, reducing their life chances and route out of poverty. - schools in disadvantaged areas impacted by cuts, meaning large class sizes and not enough resources to give full and holistic education to poorer children and those with special educational needs and disabilities, reducing their life chances. - NHS cuts means many people have reduced access to a GP, meaning chronic medical conditions are less likely to be given full and necessary treatment for worker to achieve their potential, reducing life chances. Such cuts disproportionately impact poorer and disabled people who are less likely to have private medical cover. - Tories have failed to recognise exploitative wages being paid to Britain's poorest that are well below the living wage. This means families are likely to be thousands of pounds worse off than if we had a government willing to put a stop to exploitation of poor workers. - as a follow-on from the above point, Tories have introduced program of sanctions meaning jobseekers are forced to take jobs that are well below the living wage or else they receive benefits sanctions. - cuts to local authority budgets have disproportionately hit the poorest areas who have had to cut back on their own programs to assist the lives and wellbeing of those in poverty in their own areas - bedroom tax makes many poorer who are unable to move out due to lack of council housing stock for them to downsize - not enough investment into developing new social housing or increase stocks means too many poor people forced either to pay extortionate private landlord rates or flee to a shelter or even go homeless, reducing life chances - VAT hike to 20%, a regressive tax that hits poor people harder than those with more disposable income - social care funding cut, reducing life chances of those in care and plunging thousands of vulnerable people into poverty - Remploy axed forcing hundreds of disabled workers out of a job - EMA axed - cuts in police and safety means criminals preying on disadvantaged areas
What are Labour going to do?
- investment into schools to reduce class sizes and help disadvantaged/SEND - increase provision of mental health support - restore EMA - safeguard workers' rights against exploitative contracts and conditions - tax freeze for all those earning under £80k - crackdown on rogue landlords - eradicate rough sleeping - end public sector pay freeze - end scandal of unpaid carers - energy price cap - halt cuts to women's refuges - investment into schemes to improve children's health - increase council house stocks - free childcare for 2-4 year olds - abolish tuition fees - free school meals - increase minimum wage to £10/h - invest in the NHS - 10,000 new police - private rent rise caps - scrap bedroom tax - halt Sure Start closures - improve benefit payments so those on welfare do not need to resort to begging or food banks, even when they are employed
That isn't even a comprehensive list of either point.
Fiish, thanks for this;
My problem is the Poverty solving part which was my question. We hear most famously that Nurses have to use food banks which I agree is disgusting. But I don't see much in the 'what are labour going to do' nor their manifesto that will help those like nurses on circa £21.5k per annum (or less) to get out of the poverty that leads them to the food banks.
The bedroom tax if it effects them, energy price cap if they are paying in excess of £1k (i'd have thought that unlikely in 99% of cases), the only other one I can see is the scrap the pay freeze for public sector workers, but that doesn't help those not in the pubic sector.
So what help is there for those in poverty who aren't in the bedroom tax trap or don't spend £1k+ on energy?
Other than those on the minimum wage I am surprised today that very little, if anything, has been done for the low earners directly to improve their standard of living and to cease the poverty? Increasing the minimum wage to £10 (by 2020?) still is substantially lower than £21.5k at which point people are still attending food banks?
I've seen nothing from labour on reducing the tax burden on those low earners or bar the minimum wage helping increase peoples income?
What did the Tories do to worsen our country's poverty?
- cuts to PIP and mental health programs by the Tories negatively impact disabled people and those with mental health issues. - Theresa May claims that work is the best route out of poverty but ignores the reality that two thirds of those in poverty are workers and this number is rising, indicating that simply being in work is not a route out of poverty, demonstrating that this government is clueless about the causes and reality of poverty. - Sure Start centre cuts mean that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to be at the same level as those from privileged backgrounds when they start school, reducing their life chances and route out of poverty. - schools in disadvantaged areas impacted by cuts, meaning large class sizes and not enough resources to give full and holistic education to poorer children and those with special educational needs and disabilities, reducing their life chances. - NHS cuts means many people have reduced access to a GP, meaning chronic medical conditions are less likely to be given full and necessary treatment for worker to achieve their potential, reducing life chances. Such cuts disproportionately impact poorer and disabled people who are less likely to have private medical cover. - Tories have failed to recognise exploitative wages being paid to Britain's poorest that are well below the living wage. This means families are likely to be thousands of pounds worse off than if we had a government willing to put a stop to exploitation of poor workers. - as a follow-on from the above point, Tories have introduced program of sanctions meaning jobseekers are forced to take jobs that are well below the living wage or else they receive benefits sanctions. - cuts to local authority budgets have disproportionately hit the poorest areas who have had to cut back on their own programs to assist the lives and wellbeing of those in poverty in their own areas - bedroom tax makes many poorer who are unable to move out due to lack of council housing stock for them to downsize - not enough investment into developing new social housing or increase stocks means too many poor people forced either to pay extortionate private landlord rates or flee to a shelter or even go homeless, reducing life chances - VAT hike to 20%, a regressive tax that hits poor people harder than those with more disposable income - social care funding cut, reducing life chances of those in care and plunging thousands of vulnerable people into poverty - Remploy axed forcing hundreds of disabled workers out of a job - EMA axed - cuts in police and safety means criminals preying on disadvantaged areas
What are Labour going to do?
- investment into schools to reduce class sizes and help disadvantaged/SEND - increase provision of mental health support - restore EMA - safeguard workers' rights against exploitative contracts and conditions - tax freeze for all those earning under £80k - crackdown on rogue landlords - eradicate rough sleeping - end public sector pay freeze - end scandal of unpaid carers - energy price cap - halt cuts to women's refuges - investment into schemes to improve children's health - increase council house stocks - free childcare for 2-4 year olds - abolish tuition fees - free school meals - increase minimum wage to £10/h - invest in the NHS - 10,000 new police - private rent rise caps - scrap bedroom tax - halt Sure Start closures - improve benefit payments so those on welfare do not need to resort to begging or food banks, even when they are employed
That isn't even a comprehensive list of either point.
Fiish, thanks for this;
My problem is the Poverty solving part which was my question. We hear most famously that Nurses have to use food banks which I agree is disgusting. But I don't see much in the 'what are labour going to do' nor their manifesto that will help those like nurses on circa £21.5k per annum (or less) to get out of the poverty that leads them to the food banks.
The bedroom tax if it effects them, energy price cap if they are paying in excess of £1k (i'd have thought that unlikely in 99% of cases), the only other one I can see is the scrap the pay freeze for public sector workers, but that doesn't help those not in the pubic sector.
So what help is there for those in poverty who aren't in the bedroom tax trap or don't spend £1k+ on energy?
Other than those on the minimum wage I am surprised today that very little, if anything, has been done for the low earners directly to improve their standard of living and to cease the poverty? Increasing the minimum wage to £10 (by 2020?) still is substantially lower than £21.5k at which point people are still attending food banks?
I've seen nothing from labour on reducing the tax burden on those low earners or bar the minimum wage helping increase peoples income?
The causes of poverty are complex, differ from case to case and cannot be easily defeated in one policy.
But all poverty has the same roots: that someone is trapped whereby they simply cannot, on their own, keep up with the costs of living where they live.
The UK has a high cost of living. Just to afford the basics in life: shelter, food, heat, these costs are well out of reach of a lot of people without the help of the government. Furthermore, if you lack these basics or struggle to afford them, your chances of getting to a point where you are able to improve your lot enough to stand on your own two feet are reduced dramatically. This is what I mean by life chances - the probability that a person will be able to stand on their own two feet based on the factors that surround their existence. It is why children from disadvantaged backgrounds, despite not being less intelligent than their peers, are far less likely to earn a better salary than their peers. The same goes for the disabled, or those with mental health problems, or those trapped by debt or in a disadvantaged neighbourhood rife with criminals; there are factors out of their control that are working against them to help them break out of poverty. The tax burden will matter little to these people because the amount of tax they are paying is tiny anyway.
Eradicating poverty isn't about simply throwing money at the poor. It is about making sure that their disadvantages do not hold them back and to provide a supportive environment where they can achieve their potential. That is why there is no single Labour policy aimed at eradicating poverty; instead there are dozens of policies each aimed at eliminating the impact each possible disadvantage to those in poverty face at getting themselves out of poverty. That's why I listed all those policies and if I had time I would have listed two dozen more; each policy will, at some level, has some impact at reducing the impact disadvantages have on people's life chances.
The only way we are going to reduce the welfare and benefits bill in this country is by investing in schemes and services that promote life chances. Anyone who thinks reducing the welfare state to a skeleton state and that increasing the number of children growing up in poverty and kicking down ladders aimed at helping disadvantaged people really has not got the first clue in this regard.
Interest rates are ridiculously low - a basic economics lesson wil tell you that is a good time to borrow. Corbyn doesn't have to pay the deficit off overnight - nobody does. The rule just has to be, pay it off when you can - when the economy is booming - which it will do at some point! It always does!
Basic economics?. What do you think happens when the loans have to be rolled over as the original loans fall due for repayment and interests rates are five times higher? Our current debt repayments are equal to our whole defence spending budget. Your booming economy would be essential just to cover the new interest with luck, forget about repaying the debt. On the other hand your economy might have bombed and interest rates are even higher and we would look remarkably like Greece. Basic economics? More like playing poker but using the next generations poker chips.
Agree...
Rates are low in part because there is a credible plan in place to reduce the deficit, thus increasing our long-term credit worthiness.
Clearly there is sufficient demand for Gilts to fund the current deficit (and possibly more) but the bond market is a cruel mistress should we take it for granted.
Would that be the plan where we keep kicking the end date for paying off the deficit into the long grass whilst at the same time cutting essential services?
Why not insist people pay for all education then, including primary and secondary?
I wouldn't put it past the Tory party to do a deal with Apple whereby parents need to lease MacBooks at 19.99% Apr if they want their kids to be able to use computers in schools
If parents can't afford this their child gets access to a nimbus for one hour a day and 1 floppy disk per term
Oh god Nimbuses, don't remind me. Bane of my bloody life they were. First 15 minutes of every lesson just getting the damn things booted up.
They are not a solution to our economic problems - rather, they will be prevented from ripping us off. Well, a better rail service will have economic benefits I suppose. You can nationalise and set principles that guard against waste quite easily.
If the objective is simply to prevent rip off then better regulation and contract management would surely be the answer, thus avoiding a grotesquely expensive nationalisation programme. This manifesto policy is written for the benefit of ASLEF and other unions who want a return to the days when a compromised government sat across the negotiating table for annual pay rounds and the many other disputes that would no doubt arise
Can't believe some of the callous responses re: kids.
In amongst the callous responses, the fairest one of the lot simply said that anyone can have 3, 4 or 5 kids. Nobody is setting those rules. Just don't expect other people to have to finance them.
It's your choice. If you want 3 kids then that's fine.
That's a huge oversimplification of a usually very complex situation.
Really isn't
It is more complicated than that, because as much as most people would agree people shouldn't have kids that they can't afford to raise, people do have kids they can't afford to raise. That is, however, not the kids' fault so, if you are a child born to irresponsible parents, it is morally okay, let alone fair, for you to be to be condemned to a life in poverty because of actions entirely beyond your control?
And would those irresponsible parents (being as they are) utilise these increased benefits you want them to get in a responsible way?
Herein lies one of the differences in voters views I guess. IMO there is a certain level that you have to say isn't the taxpayers responsibility any more.
Can't believe some of the callous responses re: kids.
In amongst the callous responses, the fairest one of the lot simply said that anyone can have 3, 4 or 5 kids. Nobody is setting those rules. Just don't expect other people to have to finance them.
It's your choice. If you want 3 kids then that's fine.
That's a huge oversimplification of a usually very complex situation.
Really isn't
It is more complicated than that, because as much as most people would agree people shouldn't have kids that they can't afford to raise, people do have kids they can't afford to raise. That is, however, not the kids' fault so, if you are a child born to irresponsible parents, it is morally okay, let alone fair, for you to be to be condemned to a life in poverty because of actions entirely beyond your control?
Nobody wants kids to suffer in poverty no matter how many people on here think the tory party do. That's why there are child benefits in place based on the annual income of the parents. Some will argue it's not enough but as harsh as it sounds it's not there to be lived on its there to help out.
What did the Tories do to worsen our country's poverty?
- cuts to PIP and mental health programs by the Tories negatively impact disabled people and those with mental health issues. - Theresa May claims that work is the best route out of poverty but ignores the reality that two thirds of those in poverty are workers and this number is rising, indicating that simply being in work is not a route out of poverty, demonstrating that this government is clueless about the causes and reality of poverty. - Sure Start centre cuts mean that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to be at the same level as those from privileged backgrounds when they start school, reducing their life chances and route out of poverty. - schools in disadvantaged areas impacted by cuts, meaning large class sizes and not enough resources to give full and holistic education to poorer children and those with special educational needs and disabilities, reducing their life chances. - NHS cuts means many people have reduced access to a GP, meaning chronic medical conditions are less likely to be given full and necessary treatment for worker to achieve their potential, reducing life chances. Such cuts disproportionately impact poorer and disabled people who are less likely to have private medical cover. - Tories have failed to recognise exploitative wages being paid to Britain's poorest that are well below the living wage. This means families are likely to be thousands of pounds worse off than if we had a government willing to put a stop to exploitation of poor workers. - as a follow-on from the above point, Tories have introduced program of sanctions meaning jobseekers are forced to take jobs that are well below the living wage or else they receive benefits sanctions. - cuts to local authority budgets have disproportionately hit the poorest areas who have had to cut back on their own programs to assist the lives and wellbeing of those in poverty in their own areas - bedroom tax makes many poorer who are unable to move out due to lack of council housing stock for them to downsize - not enough investment into developing new social housing or increase stocks means too many poor people forced either to pay extortionate private landlord rates or flee to a shelter or even go homeless, reducing life chances - VAT hike to 20%, a regressive tax that hits poor people harder than those with more disposable income - social care funding cut, reducing life chances of those in care and plunging thousands of vulnerable people into poverty - Remploy axed forcing hundreds of disabled workers out of a job - EMA axed - cuts in police and safety means criminals preying on disadvantaged areas
What are Labour going to do?
- investment into schools to reduce class sizes and help disadvantaged/SEND - increase provision of mental health support - restore EMA - safeguard workers' rights against exploitative contracts and conditions - tax freeze for all those earning under £80k - crackdown on rogue landlords - eradicate rough sleeping - end public sector pay freeze - end scandal of unpaid carers - energy price cap - halt cuts to women's refuges - investment into schemes to improve children's health - increase council house stocks - free childcare for 2-4 year olds - abolish tuition fees - free school meals - increase minimum wage to £10/h - invest in the NHS - 10,000 new police - private rent rise caps - scrap bedroom tax - halt Sure Start closures - improve benefit payments so those on welfare do not need to resort to begging or food banks, even when they are employed
That isn't even a comprehensive list of either point.
Fiish, thanks for this;
My problem is the Poverty solving part which was my question. We hear most famously that Nurses have to use food banks which I agree is disgusting. But I don't see much in the 'what are labour going to do' nor their manifesto that will help those like nurses on circa £21.5k per annum (or less) to get out of the poverty that leads them to the food banks.
The bedroom tax if it effects them, energy price cap if they are paying in excess of £1k (i'd have thought that unlikely in 99% of cases), the only other one I can see is the scrap the pay freeze for public sector workers, but that doesn't help those not in the pubic sector.
So what help is there for those in poverty who aren't in the bedroom tax trap or don't spend £1k+ on energy?
Other than those on the minimum wage I am surprised today that very little, if anything, has been done for the low earners directly to improve their standard of living and to cease the poverty? Increasing the minimum wage to £10 (by 2020?) still is substantially lower than £21.5k at which point people are still attending food banks?
I've seen nothing from labour on reducing the tax burden on those low earners or bar the minimum wage helping increase peoples income?
The causes of poverty are complex, differ from case to case and cannot be easily defeated in one policy.
But all poverty has the same roots: that someone is trapped whereby they simply cannot, on their own, keep up with the costs of living where they live.
The UK has a high cost of living. Just to afford the basics in life: shelter, food, heat, these costs are well out of reach of a lot of people without the help of the government. Furthermore, if you lack these basics or struggle to afford them, your chances of getting to a point where you are able to improve your lot enough to stand on your own two feet are reduced dramatically. This is what I mean by life chances - the probability that a person will be able to stand on their own two feet based on the factors that surround their existence. It is why children from disadvantaged backgrounds, despite not being less intelligent than their peers, are far less likely to earn a better salary than their peers. The same goes for the disabled, or those with mental health problems, or those trapped by debt or in a disadvantaged neighbourhood rife with criminals; there are factors out of their control that are working against them to help them break out of poverty. The tax burden will matter little to these people because the amount of tax they are paying is tiny anyway.
Eradicating poverty isn't about simply throwing money at the poor. It is about making sure that their disadvantages do not hold them back and to provide a supportive environment where they can achieve their potential. That is why there is no single Labour policy aimed at eradicating poverty; instead there are dozens of policies each aimed at eliminating the impact each possible disadvantage to those in poverty face at getting themselves out of poverty. That's why I listed all those policies and if I had time I would have listed two dozen more; each policy will, at some level, has some impact at reducing the impact disadvantages have on people's life chances.
The only way we are going to reduce the welfare and benefits bill in this country is by investing in schemes and services that promote life chances. Anyone who thinks reducing the welfare state to a skeleton state and that increasing the number of children growing up in poverty and kicking down ladders aimed at helping disadvantaged people really has not got the first clue in this regard.
This all makes sense (costs notwithstanding) but there would still be a large number who are unable/unwilling to recognise those opportunities and to grasp them so then what? (if the goal is to eliminate poverty)
So 2.5% surcharge (paid by companies) on excessive pay over £330,000. That will include pretty much all football players in the top two divisions. (And Tex) Then, of course, the players will demand more wages to offset their new tax bills. So, ticket prices and/or Sky subscriptions will have to go up. That's an impact on ordinary hard working football fans straight away.
Absurd. Players don't demand better wages and get them, clubs are in a bidding war for them. If the highest clubs will go for X player is £50k a week before the tax changes, that isn't going to change after the tax changes.
You think? No, actually, of course, you don't much do you? Have you ever seen a footballer's contract? Do you know what clauses they contain and how loaded they are in the player's favour?
How many top tier players are from overseas? How many will already be thinking of bailing out because their contracts (in GBP) are now worth less than they could get playing in Europe and getting paid in Euros? And that's merely by virtue of the post-brexit vote devaluation. In Europe (look at the extreme example of Ibrahimovic at PSG). Players salaries are often referred to as "net". That is the players don't care what there tax liability is because the clubs pick up the tab on their behalf. Players' agents would, indeed, be demanding more money to offset the losses, regain parity (plus a bit) with European counterparts and in many cases getting it would not be a problem.
Yet again, it's you who is being absurd. Why am I not surprised?
...of course nowhere on that front page does it point out that the income tax rises will kick in at £80k. Which according to them makes you middle class too.
So 2.5% surcharge (paid by companies) on excessive pay over £330,000. That will include pretty much all football players in the top two divisions. (And Tex) Then, of course, the players will demand more wages to offset their new tax bills. So, ticket prices and/or Sky subscriptions will have to go up. That's an impact on ordinary hard working football fans straight away.
Absurd. Players don't demand better wages and get them, clubs are in a bidding war for them. If the highest clubs will go for X player is £50k a week before the tax changes, that isn't going to change after the tax changes.
You think? No, actually, of course, you don't much do you? Have you ever seen a footballer's contract? Do you know what clauses they contain and how loaded they are in the player's favour?
How many top tier players are from overseas? How many will already be thinking of bailing out because their contracts (in GBP) are now worth less than they could get playing in Europe and getting paid in Euros? And that's merely by virtue of the post-brexit vote devaluation. In Europe (look at the extreme example of Ibrahimovic at PSG). Players salaries are often referred to as "net". That is the players don't care what there tax liability is because the clubs pick up the tab on their behalf. Players' agents would, indeed, be demanding more money to offset the losses, regain parity (plus a bit) with European counterparts and in many cases getting it would not be a problem.
Yet again, it's you who is being absurd. Why am I not surprised?
As usual, your post is completely inaccurate and ignores reality. A club won't set its projected desired wage bill by what players are demanding but based on what they can afford. Ticket prices will already be what they perceive to be the best level in terms of generating maximum profit.
It's pretty obvious your underlying motive; you take a policy and try to twist the facts based on the fact this is a football fans forum in order to try and appeal that way. The problem is I don't think anyone on here is stupid enough to believe your false predictions that are not grounded in reality whatsoever.
Besides, you talk of ordinary football fans, the vast majority of whom have been promised a tax freeze under Labour. Meanwhile the Tories are refusing to commit to not raising taxes on Britain's poor and middle income earners. Even if your fictitious scenario played out regarding ticket prices, most football fans stand to lose far more under the Tories than under Labour. Those are the facts.
They are not a solution to our economic problems - rather, they will be prevented from ripping us off. Well, a better rail service will have economic benefits I suppose. You can nationalise and set principles that guard against waste quite easily.
If the objective is simply to prevent rip off then better regulation and contract management would surely be the answer, thus avoiding a grotesquely expensive nationalisation programme. This manifesto policy is written for the benefit of ASLEF and other unions who want a return to the days when a compromised government sat across the negotiating table for annual pay rounds and the many other disputes that would no doubt arise
Your response ignores the inbuilt absurdity of the British rail privatization, designed in a hurry by the kind of civil servant for whom getting from A to B fast and reliably was never a big pressure in his career. I am thinking of one of my best friends, who was lead project manager at the DoT on the plan.
While I am not at all sure Labour have a real grip on how to fix the railways, what is the basis on which you claim their plan to be grotesquely expensive? For a start, Network Rail is already back in public ownership after the life threatening regime of Railtrack was ended. The East Coast line was also reclaimed after the problem with the franchise holder - and it went on to become the franchise with the highest levels of satisfaction in the network. my understanding is that Labour plan to do it that way, take back the franchises as they come up for renewal, not in one massive overnight upheaval. Taking back the East Coast hasn't been expensive at all, so where is the huge bill you speak of for the rest? Is it something you read while skimming the front page of the Daily Fail?
92 pages so far and, aside from some debate about the highly dubious policy of trickle down economics through letting high earners keep more of their earnings, not one Tory supporter has made the remotest sensible attempt to set out in what other ways our current administration has improved the UK.
After 7 years.
Shouldn't that tell you everything you need to know about the performance of our current government?
This is the best post, and something everyone seems to be overlooking
What did the Tories do to worsen our country's poverty?
- cuts to PIP and mental health programs by the Tories negatively impact disabled people and those with mental health issues. - Theresa May claims that work is the best route out of poverty but ignores the reality that two thirds of those in poverty are workers and this number is rising, indicating that simply being in work is not a route out of poverty, demonstrating that this government is clueless about the causes and reality of poverty. - Sure Start centre cuts mean that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to be at the same level as those from privileged backgrounds when they start school, reducing their life chances and route out of poverty. - schools in disadvantaged areas impacted by cuts, meaning large class sizes and not enough resources to give full and holistic education to poorer children and those with special educational needs and disabilities, reducing their life chances. - NHS cuts means many people have reduced access to a GP, meaning chronic medical conditions are less likely to be given full and necessary treatment for worker to achieve their potential, reducing life chances. Such cuts disproportionately impact poorer and disabled people who are less likely to have private medical cover. - Tories have failed to recognise exploitative wages being paid to Britain's poorest that are well below the living wage. This means families are likely to be thousands of pounds worse off than if we had a government willing to put a stop to exploitation of poor workers. - as a follow-on from the above point, Tories have introduced program of sanctions meaning jobseekers are forced to take jobs that are well below the living wage or else they receive benefits sanctions. - cuts to local authority budgets have disproportionately hit the poorest areas who have had to cut back on their own programs to assist the lives and wellbeing of those in poverty in their own areas - bedroom tax makes many poorer who are unable to move out due to lack of council housing stock for them to downsize - not enough investment into developing new social housing or increase stocks means too many poor people forced either to pay extortionate private landlord rates or flee to a shelter or even go homeless, reducing life chances - VAT hike to 20%, a regressive tax that hits poor people harder than those with more disposable income - social care funding cut, reducing life chances of those in care and plunging thousands of vulnerable people into poverty - Remploy axed forcing hundreds of disabled workers out of a job - EMA axed - cuts in police and safety means criminals preying on disadvantaged areas
What are Labour going to do?
- investment into schools to reduce class sizes and help disadvantaged/SEND - increase provision of mental health support - restore EMA - safeguard workers' rights against exploitative contracts and conditions - tax freeze for all those earning under £80k - crackdown on rogue landlords - eradicate rough sleeping - end public sector pay freeze - end scandal of unpaid carers - energy price cap - halt cuts to women's refuges - investment into schemes to improve children's health - increase council house stocks - free childcare for 2-4 year olds - abolish tuition fees - free school meals - increase minimum wage to £10/h - invest in the NHS - 10,000 new police - private rent rise caps - scrap bedroom tax - halt Sure Start closures - improve benefit payments so those on welfare do not need to resort to begging or food banks, even when they are employed
That isn't even a comprehensive list of either point.
Fiish, thanks for this;
My problem is the Poverty solving part which was my question. We hear most famously that Nurses have to use food banks which I agree is disgusting. But I don't see much in the 'what are labour going to do' nor their manifesto that will help those like nurses on circa £21.5k per annum (or less) to get out of the poverty that leads them to the food banks.
The bedroom tax if it effects them, energy price cap if they are paying in excess of £1k (i'd have thought that unlikely in 99% of cases), the only other one I can see is the scrap the pay freeze for public sector workers, but that doesn't help those not in the pubic sector.
So what help is there for those in poverty who aren't in the bedroom tax trap or don't spend £1k+ on energy?
Other than those on the minimum wage I am surprised today that very little, if anything, has been done for the low earners directly to improve their standard of living and to cease the poverty? Increasing the minimum wage to £10 (by 2020?) still is substantially lower than £21.5k at which point people are still attending food banks?
I've seen nothing from labour on reducing the tax burden on those low earners or bar the minimum wage helping increase peoples income?
Specific to nurses Labour also plan to reintroduce the bursaries scrapped by the government, which will help.
But once again, you're focused on what Labour will or won't do. Why not set out what positive steps you want to see from the Tory manifesto to solve a problem that's of their making?
Comments
Then there is the notion of 'better off'. Perhaps there are people who post 18 who regret going straight into the world of work and spend a lifetime regretting not pursuing their interest in, or passion for, Chemistry, or Art, or Geology, or Shakespeare, or Classics or whatever, and would not think they are better off having money, but poorer off for not having the experience of learning other stuff when they were younger.
I am well aware that I had a huge lifetime boost from free education when there would have been no chance for somebody like me these days. I wonder what the 10,000 people leaving care per year, at 18, do about higher education. They have basic worries like getting a place to live, let alone racking up a huge debt in University fees.
It is because I was a beneficiary of free education that I now want it for others.
Yes my education was free, I even got a grant - but that education had an effect on my career that has allowed me to contribute back to society with the taxes I pay.
The bloke I am talking about left the political scene long before the railways were privatized. It's also worth remembering that Thatcher hated the railways but nevertheless refused to privatize them, we might presume because it failed his simple test.
We used to talk with much pride about the National Grid. Not so much now that it is run by the French, but anyway, the Germans think of their railways, and their road system as national grids. The British idea of dividing the rail system up into regional franchises is the opposite of a national grid approach. It is why London to Leeds is kind of Ok ( although nothing compared to Paris to Lyon) whereas London to Cardiff is shite, using the same trains that would have taken someone my age down there to see Killer snatch a late winner. Sure they might not have their franchise renewed. But suppose they don't give a toss? Do it for a few years,milk it, then out. They can do it. Several have. A franchise system is fine for McDonalds, but absolutely not for a strategic asset which has an impact on how the entire country works, and which cannot, unlike a McDonalds, be knocked up, or sold off, in a few weeks.
- cuts to PIP and mental health programs by the Tories negatively impact disabled people and those with mental health issues.
- Theresa May claims that work is the best route out of poverty but ignores the reality that two thirds of those in poverty are workers and this number is rising, indicating that simply being in work is not a route out of poverty, demonstrating that this government is clueless about the causes and reality of poverty.
- Sure Start centre cuts mean that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to be at the same level as those from privileged backgrounds when they start school, reducing their life chances and route out of poverty.
- schools in disadvantaged areas impacted by cuts, meaning large class sizes and not enough resources to give full and holistic education to poorer children and those with special educational needs and disabilities, reducing their life chances.
- NHS cuts means many people have reduced access to a GP, meaning chronic medical conditions are less likely to be given full and necessary treatment for worker to achieve their potential, reducing life chances. Such cuts disproportionately impact poorer and disabled people who are less likely to have private medical cover.
- Tories have failed to recognise exploitative wages being paid to Britain's poorest that are well below the living wage. This means families are likely to be thousands of pounds worse off than if we had a government willing to put a stop to exploitation of poor workers.
- as a follow-on from the above point, Tories have introduced program of sanctions meaning jobseekers are forced to take jobs that are well below the living wage or else they receive benefits sanctions.
- cuts to local authority budgets have disproportionately hit the poorest areas who have had to cut back on their own programs to assist the lives and wellbeing of those in poverty in their own areas
- bedroom tax makes many poorer who are unable to move out due to lack of council housing stock for them to downsize
- not enough investment into developing new social housing or increase stocks means too many poor people forced either to pay extortionate private landlord rates or flee to a shelter or even go homeless, reducing life chances
- VAT hike to 20%, a regressive tax that hits poor people harder than those with more disposable income
- social care funding cut, reducing life chances of those in care and plunging thousands of vulnerable people into poverty
- Remploy axed forcing hundreds of disabled workers out of a job
- EMA axed
- cuts in police and safety means criminals preying on disadvantaged areas
What are Labour going to do?
- investment into schools to reduce class sizes and help disadvantaged/SEND
- increase provision of mental health support
- restore EMA
- safeguard workers' rights against exploitative contracts and conditions
- tax freeze for all those earning under £80k
- crackdown on rogue landlords
- eradicate rough sleeping
- end public sector pay freeze
- end scandal of unpaid carers
- energy price cap
- halt cuts to women's refuges
- investment into schemes to improve children's health
- increase council house stocks
- free childcare for 2-4 year olds
- abolish tuition fees
- free school meals
- increase minimum wage to £10/h
- invest in the NHS
- 10,000 new police
- private rent rise caps
- scrap bedroom tax
- halt Sure Start closures
- improve benefit payments so those on welfare do not need to resort to begging or food banks, even when they are employed
That isn't even a comprehensive list of either point.
Genuine question
Is it feasible to up the workload and get students doing more 9-5 type 40 hour weeks, reducing degrees from say 3 years like mine, to 2, maybe 1 and a half, thereby reducing the cost of tuition fees
Granted some degrees are a lot harder than others.
I'm sure there are practical implications as well re the amount of students coming onto the jobs market
Contact hours are never going to be 40 hours a week. This is never going to be beneficial for the student or the professor, mainly because:
- professors need to deal with different classes at different times in different sizes. A professor that does a single 1 hour lecture per week in a module to 200 students may then need to deliver seminars, tutorials or practicals to group of 20. Granted they do not do tutorials every week but they will need them often enough to cement learning.
- there probably are not enough skilled professionals able to fill in to accommodate such a demand, particularly in disciplines where being a professor is a less lucrative role than other areas Not only that, such professionals must also become skilled in the art of pedagogy.
- professors are not full time teachers. They need time to plan the modules and prospectus, as well as form part of the university's research staff
- you cannot simply learn by being in contact for 40 hours a week, no one's brain could cope with that. You need time to develop independent study as well as research what areas of your discipline you would like to develop and pursue. There is only so much information the average human brain will usefully process in a certain timeframe.
- even if university was free, many students do not have the luxury of attending full time without a job in order to survive whilst studying, unless we propose to fully fund all students' living costs and accommodation?
I do not think reducing the time it takes to do a degree will make it cheaper as it stills requires the same amount of contact time/study hours to pass a course.
My problem is the Poverty solving part which was my question. We hear most famously that Nurses have to use food banks which I agree is disgusting. But I don't see much in the 'what are labour going to do' nor their manifesto that will help those like nurses on circa £21.5k per annum (or less) to get out of the poverty that leads them to the food banks.
The bedroom tax if it effects them, energy price cap if they are paying in excess of £1k (i'd have thought that unlikely in 99% of cases), the only other one I can see is the scrap the pay freeze for public sector workers, but that doesn't help those not in the pubic sector.
So what help is there for those in poverty who aren't in the bedroom tax trap or don't spend £1k+ on energy?
Other than those on the minimum wage I am surprised today that very little, if anything, has been done for the low earners directly to improve their standard of living and to cease the poverty? Increasing the minimum wage to £10 (by 2020?) still is substantially lower than £21.5k at which point people are still attending food banks?
I've seen nothing from labour on reducing the tax burden on those low earners or bar the minimum wage helping increase peoples income?
But all poverty has the same roots: that someone is trapped whereby they simply cannot, on their own, keep up with the costs of living where they live.
The UK has a high cost of living. Just to afford the basics in life: shelter, food, heat, these costs are well out of reach of a lot of people without the help of the government. Furthermore, if you lack these basics or struggle to afford them, your chances of getting to a point where you are able to improve your lot enough to stand on your own two feet are reduced dramatically. This is what I mean by life chances - the probability that a person will be able to stand on their own two feet based on the factors that surround their existence. It is why children from disadvantaged backgrounds, despite not being less intelligent than their peers, are far less likely to earn a better salary than their peers. The same goes for the disabled, or those with mental health problems, or those trapped by debt or in a disadvantaged neighbourhood rife with criminals; there are factors out of their control that are working against them to help them break out of poverty. The tax burden will matter little to these people because the amount of tax they are paying is tiny anyway.
Eradicating poverty isn't about simply throwing money at the poor. It is about making sure that their disadvantages do not hold them back and to provide a supportive environment where they can achieve their potential. That is why there is no single Labour policy aimed at eradicating poverty; instead there are dozens of policies each aimed at eliminating the impact each possible disadvantage to those in poverty face at getting themselves out of poverty. That's why I listed all those policies and if I had time I would have listed two dozen more; each policy will, at some level, has some impact at reducing the impact disadvantages have on people's life chances.
The only way we are going to reduce the welfare and benefits bill in this country is by investing in schemes and services that promote life chances. Anyone who thinks reducing the welfare state to a skeleton state and that increasing the number of children growing up in poverty and kicking down ladders aimed at helping disadvantaged people really has not got the first clue in this regard.
Would that be the plan where we keep kicking the end date for paying off the deficit into the long grass whilst at the same time cutting essential services?
Herein lies one of the differences in voters views I guess. IMO there is a certain level that you have to say isn't the taxpayers responsibility any more.
That's why there are child benefits in place based on the annual income of the parents. Some will argue it's not enough but as harsh as it sounds it's not there to be lived on its there to help out.
How many top tier players are from overseas? How many will already be thinking of bailing out because their contracts (in GBP) are now worth less than they could get playing in Europe and getting paid in Euros? And that's merely by virtue of the post-brexit vote devaluation. In Europe (look at the extreme example of Ibrahimovic at PSG). Players salaries are often referred to as "net". That is the players don't care what there tax liability is because the clubs pick up the tab on their behalf. Players' agents would, indeed, be demanding more money to offset the losses, regain parity (plus a bit) with European counterparts and in many cases getting it would not be a problem.
Yet again, it's you who is being absurd. Why am I not surprised?
...of course nowhere on that front page does it point out that the income tax rises will kick in at £80k. Which according to them makes you middle class too.
It's pretty obvious your underlying motive; you take a policy and try to twist the facts based on the fact this is a football fans forum in order to try and appeal that way. The problem is I don't think anyone on here is stupid enough to believe your false predictions that are not grounded in reality whatsoever.
Besides, you talk of ordinary football fans, the vast majority of whom have been promised a tax freeze under Labour. Meanwhile the Tories are refusing to commit to not raising taxes on Britain's poor and middle income earners. Even if your fictitious scenario played out regarding ticket prices, most football fans stand to lose far more under the Tories than under Labour. Those are the facts.
While I am not at all sure Labour have a real grip on how to fix the railways, what is the basis on which you claim their plan to be grotesquely expensive? For a start, Network Rail is already back in public ownership after the life threatening regime of Railtrack was ended. The East Coast line was also reclaimed after the problem with the franchise holder - and it went on to become the franchise with the highest levels of satisfaction in the network. my understanding is that Labour plan to do it that way, take back the franchises as they come up for renewal, not in one massive overnight upheaval. Taking back the East Coast hasn't been expensive at all, so where is the huge bill you speak of for the rest? Is it something you read while skimming the front page of the Daily Fail?
But once again, you're focused on what Labour will or won't do. Why not set out what positive steps you want to see from the Tory manifesto to solve a problem that's of their making?