The General Election Thread

[DaveBrigg]

Gordon had postponed the possibility of reaching this point by his reckless spending in the run up to the economic crisis.

I couldn't let this falsehood go unchallenged. Or rather, if it was 'reckless', It makes both Thatcher and Major look positively negligent. In 2008, before the world recession, UK national debt was 36.38% of GDP. This is less than it was for the first NINE years of Thatcher's term in office, and lower than that which Labour inherited from John Major. 2010 is the first year since Labour took over that the debt/GDP figure has exceeded that of Thatcher's 2nd and 3rd year. (figures here http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1980_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2010&chart=G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=UK National Debt As Percent Of GDP#copypaste)

Equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

In education, I agree entirely. How do you ensure that a child from a poor family, with no home internet access, no foreign holidays, sharing a bedroom with two siblings, who has to get themself ready for school because their mum starts work at 6 am, has the same opportunity as a pupil without these difficulties, even if they are in the same school. We have pupils who cannot play in afterschool matches or attend revision lessons because they live five miles away and the family has not got a car. Then try giving them equality of opportunity with someone at Wellington College for example.

Why was the "poll tax" not a fairer way of getting individual people to contribute to local services based on their consumption rather than the size of their house?

Because it was not based on consumption. How can you measure the consumption of services provided for by the poll tax? I have never used the fire service. Should I pay less? If Lord Yarborough's mansion up the road caught fire he would need every appliance in North Lincs to put it out. Did he pay more? Do the four adults in a terrace make double my use of the council Conservation Officer? Do these four adults make double our use of the local playground, or throw out twice the amount of rubbish as I do? The poorest have no cars. Was their poll tax lowered because they benefit least from road repairs? The poll tax was simply a way of redistributing wealth from the poorest to the richest.

 

[DaveBrigg]

Apologies for double posting. My PC struggles with long posts.

Firstly, I simply do not believe that anyone has ever been excluded from a school for a single occasion of incorrect uniform

I agree that schools need rules, which often include uniform. We have a rule about facial piercings, and a smoking ban. The rules do need to be followed by all, but there are plenty of other sanctions that can be used, such as the child being isolated for a day or more, temporary exclusions, detentions etc. Pupils with extreme hairstyles have been sent home and told to come back when they conform to the rules; they are always back within the week. Pupils with severe behavioural problems have a council funded referral unit which is staffed and equipped to manage and support them. When / if their behaviour improves, they return to us. We have not excluded a pupil for several years, and do not suffer from major behavioural problems.
As for "If you don't wish to play by the rules, then don't expect to attend school"; that policy worked well for kicking hooligans out of football grounds, but if a child is excluded, what happens to them? In Doncaster, it was the local state schools that were left to pick up the pieces, which caused overcrowding and disruption. If the schools had been allowed to refuse entry, as the academies can, there would be dozens of uneducated teenagers wandering the streets. Where would they be in 20 years time? Details of what happened in Doncaster are here, including a strange and dramatic decline in the number of pupils eligible for free school meals. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/may/30/politics.schools Sadly, this was done with the blessing of Tony Blair.

The gap has widened signficantly since 1980

The huge flaw in this statement is that it merges 16 Tory and 14 Labour years to reach an average. A more detailed examination shows that the huge increase in disparity took place on the Conservative watch, peaking in the early 1990's and has since fallen. An OECD report says that "...the poor have been getting richer more rapidly than the rich since 2000."

But the report says the UK still has one of the highest levels of income inequality in the developed world. " Details here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7681361.stm

To me, this sounds like class war, based on envy. A government waging war on the working classes, and using the politics of envy to take what little they have in order to enrich themselves and their core voters.
We struggle by on considerably less than £80 000 a year.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Gordon had postponed the possibility of reaching this point by his reckless spending in the run up to the economic crisis.

I couldn't let this falsehood go unchallenged. Or rather, if it was 'reckless', It makes both Thatcher and Major look positively negligent. In 2008, before the world recession, UK national debt was 36.38% of GDP. This is less than it was for the first NINE years of Thatcher's term in office, and lower than that which Labour inherited from John Major. 2010 is the first year since Labour took over that the debt/GDP figure has exceeded that of Thatcher's 2nd and 3rd year. (figures here http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1980_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2010&chart=G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=UK National Debt As Percent Of GDP#copypaste)

This is not the only relevant measure. Public spending as a proportion of GDP has increased as a result of vast quantities of cash being shovelled into unreformed, inefficient public services. This has made the hangover much worse than it would have been and saps the competitiveness of the UK economy.

 

[johnandrew]

Public spending as a proportion of GDP has increased as a result of vast quantities of cash being shovelled into unreformed, inefficient public services.

For a moment I thought 'banks' was coming after 'unreformed'.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Public spending as a proportion of GDP has increased as a result of vast quantities of cash being shovelled into unreformed, inefficient public services.

For a moment I thought 'banks' was coming after 'unreformed'.

Good point! That has happened too, but there is a fair chance of getting much of it back when the banks are sold off again.

I could also go on to point out that Gordon, once dubbed The Best Chancellor of the Excheqer Ever, was in charge of the regulatory regime within which the banks were operating, but I wont because I am not too confident that Cable or Osborne wouldn't have come a bit of a cropper here either. Bankers' ingenuity is always likely to outsmart government regularors I fear.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Not Nancy Mogg then - good girl for resisting the dumbing down!

 

[philpjuk100]

Ah! someone else blessed with the hyphen!

 

[Flyfisher]

Equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

In education, I agree entirely. How do you ensure that a child from a poor family, with no home internet access, no foreign holidays, sharing a bedroom with two siblings, who has to get themself ready for school because their mum starts work at 6 am, has the same opportunity as a pupil without these difficulties, even if they are in the same school. We have pupils who cannot play in afterschool matches or attend revision lessons because they live five miles away and the family has not got a car. Then try giving them equality of opportunity with someone at Wellington College for example.

Are you implying the way to make the opportunity equal is to somehow penalise families that can, for whatever reason, provide a more advantageous environment for their children? What would you do about the family who would rather spend their money on booze, cigarettes, bingo, horse-racing and any other example of frivolous expenditure than on buying books or paying for internet access for their children?

Why was the "poll tax" not a fairer way of getting individual people to contribute to local services based on their consumption rather than the size of their house?

Because it was not based on consumption.

That's a joke, right? How is the size of one's house (i.e. 'rates' or council tax) a measure of consumption?

How can you measure the consumption of services provided for by the poll tax? I have never used the fire service. Should I pay less? If Lord Yarborough's mansion up the road caught fire he would need every appliance in North Lincs to put it out. Did he pay more? Do the four adults in a terrace make double my use of the council Conservation Officer? Do these four adults make double our use of the local playground, or throw out twice the amount of rubbish as I do? The poorest have no cars. Was their poll tax lowered because they benefit least from road repairs?

That's another joke, surely? Taxation isn't based on individual consumption (if it was then I'd like all the taxes I've paid for the state education system to be refunded please), it is averaged over the population. The poll tax proposed to average these costs over each person in the local authority so, yes, on average the four adults in a terrace house would throw out twice as much rubbish as two pensioners in their detatched house. The four adults together might end up paying more than the two pensioners together, but each person would be paying exactly the same amount - why is that not fair? It might not be a perfect measure of consumption but it is certainly better than the size of a house.

The poll tax was simply a way of redistributing wealth from the poorest to the richest.

But only because the richest are already paying proportionally far more than a fair share! I presume you would also be against the LibDem's proposal of a local income tax to replace council tax? This, surely, would be the fairest system of all by being based on the ability to pay and would mean that pensioners are not forced into selling their family home (paid for out of already taxed income remember) because they cannot afford to pay their council tax. Where is the justice in that?

Next, you'll be saying that pensioners have no right to live in big four-bedroomed detached houses because young families need them. :wink:

 

[FamilyWiggs]

There is a brain drain according to OECD:

An OECD study shows that more graduates have left Britain (1.3 million) than any other developed country (even America, which has five times our population). Amongst Brits deemed to have “high skills”, 15 percent have left to live abroad – the highest ratio in the developed world save for the notoriously itinerant Irish and Kiwis. Amongst Americans, it’s just 1 percent.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5935013/britains-brain-drain.thtml

Quite why (high taxation, our fab educational system, or something else) is debatable.

 

[biffvernon]

Most Americans don't know where abroad is.

 

[Flyfisher]

George Dubya does - he had to go abroad when he became president - well out-of-state anyway, which is the same thing really. :lol:

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Most Americans don't know where abroad is.

I'm a quarter American (GI grandfather :roll: ) with relatives in Little Rock, Arkansas. They came to visit a few years ago and we offered to take them to France for a quick visit. They asked us what language they spoke in France!!!

 

[Horace]

I think it is interesting that the debate seems to categorise labour as progressive and redistributive and the tories as favouring the rich. However in truth both labour and conservatvie are redistributive in terms of tax policy. There is no real difference between the rates of tax that either party are proposing. IHT and NIC changes are peanuts in the scheme of things

They do differ fundamentally in this area - the conservatives respect where the money comes from and are therefore intrinsically more careful in how it is spent and in supporting the goose that lays the golden egg. Labour believes is has a moral right to the money it raises from taxes and has a thinly disguised contempt for those that make it and a belief that they alone have the moral authoirty to spend it where they see fit. Labour flirted briefly with big business (primarily the banks and private equity and boy did they see Gordon coming) but has no time for the smaller businesses that make up the majorty of the economy.

I have many friends who work in the public sector who are all passionate labour party supporters but I am afraid they generally have no conception of the way things work in the outside world. They see no real link between their funding and the private economy that pays for them. They have no understanding of the privilaged position they are in with regard to salary, job security and pension provision. Nice work if you can get it but the truth is that it can't be afforded in the long term whichever party is in power.

As regards all the other issues that buzz around the debate they are all froth. Meaningless figures bandied about. You have to decide whether you think we can go on as we are and hope beyond hope that another consumer led boom refills the coffers from a mountain of debt (whilst the real money goes to China) or get real, live within your means and build something lasting.

Those in the public sector can huff and puff all they like, Biff can say that art is more important (by the way, art generally paid for by rich patrons) but it is all for nought if we can't earn the money to pay for it.

 

[DaveBrigg]

Are you implying the way to make the opportunity equal is to somehow penalise families that can, for whatever reason, provide a more advantageous environment for their children?

Who mentioned penalisation? I support your idea of equality of opportunity only if it brings the standard up. I think that's why money has been spent building new schools with up to date equipment, rather than moving private pupils into portacabins with leaky roofs.

If a family would rather spend money on booze and cigarettes than education, that's a shame, and something that the government should address, so that the innocent victim, the child, does not suffer. Otherwise the cycle is likely to continue. Parents have a responsibility towards their children, but some do not believe that education is important, and may have good personal reasons for this opinion. The government then has the choice of dictating to families what they spend their money on, or trying to support the child through school so they are not disadvantaged. Of course, there are many parents on low incomes who do not spend all their money on fags and booze and still struggle.

How is the size of one's house (i.e. 'rates' or council tax) a measure of consumption?

It isn't. As I said, there is no reliable way of measuring council service consumption. Who has claimed that it is?

Taxation isn't based on individual consumption... The poll tax proposed to average these costs over each person in the local authority

Wasn't the argument made earlier that the Poll Tax was more closely linked to personal consumption? If not, we are in agreement here. I don't see how averaging the bill across everyone is any fairer though. Is charging one person 15% of his net income, and another person less than 1% of his net income fair? For most taxes, such as beer duty or VAT there is a chance not to pay by by not cosuming the goods. For a tax on being alive, the options for saving money become less attractive. Maybe a local income tax is the answer.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

We're all going to die :shock: :

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20100422_Earth_Day__40_years_of_imminent_catastrophe.html

except we're not :roll:

 

[Ian Bond]

No.

You were using an offensive stereotype, but you obviously will not recognise that.

If you can't take "insults" then don't dish them out.

And as for Pford75's comments about council house tenanted slobs, words fail me. You disgust me.

Let's refresh our memories...what did I actually say??

If I knew that whatever my efforts, whatever my results the outcome would be the same as the council-house tenanted slob, why would I have spent large chunks of my career working 70 hour weeks, slogging away when I could just do the bare minimum?

I didn't say that all slobs live in council houses, or that all council house tenants are slobs. I was using a stereotype (which I think many recognise) of the 'professional scrounger' who refuses to get a job and can would rather live off state benefits. Are you suggesting that this stereotype doesn't exist? It is easy to get a job - there, i've said it. The question is whether it is a job that someone wants to do and will generate enough income over and above benefits to persuade some to work. I know plenty of people who can work, but turned down the opportunity because it would only earn them 70-80 week more than they currently receive in benefits..."not worth my time" was the quote.

And before you ask if I would be prepared to do those jobs, I have. As a student, I worked in McDonalds, I cleaned offices, I sold double-glazing and delivered 000's leaflets in the pouring rain. Why?? Because I was brought up to believe that noone owed me a living...that I would succeed or fail based upon my own efforts - I hated all of these jobs, but I did them anyway. And having slogged my way through uni, supporting myself with multiple crappy jobs, I now have a job which I enjoy and for which I am well compensated. But as FF points out, I not only pay more tax than someone earning less....I pay proportionally more tax as well. But you seem to believe that it is "disgusting" for me to suggest that some people aren't prepared to work hard for their living, or that perhaps there are some people who are prepared to sponge off the state.

As is normal for this forum, some people seem incapable of expressing their thoughts/opinions without resorting to personal insults. Such a shame.

 

[Penners]

Well, we've now had Great Debate Number Two.

I imagine we all feel that we now know a great deal more about the party leaders and their policies...

... don't we?

And it was great to see the news media adding even more substance to the event by asking senior members of the three participating parties what they thought of their leaders' perfomances. What they got from each interviewee was, of course, a truly honest, non-partisan critique.

Macbeth, Act V, Scene V:

It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

 

[Pford75]

by Ian Bond on Fri 23rd Apr, 2010 7:15

No.

You were using an offensive stereotype, but you obviously will not recognise that.

If you can't take "insults" then don't dish them out.

Are you suggesting that the 'council house tenanted slob' does nto exist? The point I was making is that an 'underclass' has been allowed to grow and prosper in this country where it is possible to sustain a perfectly acceptable lifestyle, paid for by the state with benefits and with no pressure to find employment. I stand by that statement and if you cannot see that this feeling is growing across the country then you really have been blinded by the propaganda of this government.

I might find the 'stereotyping' of conservatives as 'posh, upper class, double-barrelled types' offensive...but I wouldn't stoop to the level of hurling personal insults around. Biff and I clearly have differing political views, but I respect his right to hold different views to my own and have the intelligence and self confidence in my own beliefs to debate with others without resorting to 'name calling'.

What exactly did you object to? The suggestion that not every member of the unemployed is desperately striving to find employment?
:wink:

 

[skier-hughes]

by Ian Bond on Fri 23rd Apr, 2010 7:15

No.

You were using an offensive stereotype, but you obviously will not recognise that.

If you can't take "insults" then don't dish them out.

Are you suggesting that the 'council house tenanted slob' does nto exist? The point I was making is that an 'underclass' has been allowed to grow and prosper in this country where it is possible to sustain a perfectly acceptable lifestyle, paid for by the state with benefits and with no pressure to find employment. I stand by that statement and if you cannot see that this feeling is growing across the country then you really have been blinded by the propaganda of this government.
:wink:

We are now moving into 3rd generation unemployed down here, were parents and grand parents have never worked.

 

[Flyfisher]

Are you implying the way to make the opportunity equal is to somehow penalise families that can, for whatever reason, provide a more advantageous environment for their children?

Who mentioned penalisation? I support your idea of equality of opportunity only if it brings the standard up. I think that's why money has been spent building new schools with up to date equipment, rather than moving private pupils into portacabins with leaky roofs.

The penalisation is inherent in the increased taxation required to pay for the state to act as surrogate parents in those cases where the biological parents are not taking their responsibilities seriously. Parents of private pupils are not taking money away from the state education system, indeed they are already actively helping the state system by paying for something they are not using themselves.

If a family would rather spend money on booze and cigarettes than education, that's a shame, and something that the government should address, so that the innocent victim, the child, does not suffer.

A shame? Is that it? Wouldn't it be more productive for such irresponsible behaviour to be demonised instead of picking on "4x4 Mum's on the school run". Such behaviour should be socially unacceptable, more like drink-driving, instead of just saying "that's a shame, but never mind we'll look after your children for you so you don't need to feel too bad about your complete lack of responsibility". Of course, it would be completely un-PC for anyone to say such things. :roll:

Of course, there are many parents on low incomes who do not spend all their money on fags and booze and still struggle.

Absolutely. And many struggle to help maximise their children's life-chances with minimal government help while the really feckless quickly learn that the government will bail them out by taking over their responsibilities.

How is the size of one's house (i.e. 'rates' or council tax) a measure of consumption?

It isn't. As I said, there is no reliable way of measuring council service consumption. Who has claimed that it is?

So you don't agree that a per-head based assessment would be a more reliable measure than the size of one's house? or is it the case that you do agree but don't like to think of the logical implications?

Taxation isn't based on individual consumption... The poll tax proposed to average these costs over each person in the local authority

Wasn't the argument made earlier that the Poll Tax was more closely linked to personal consumption? If not, we are in agreement here. I don't see how averaging the bill across everyone is any fairer though.

How can paying a fair share of services not be fairer than the current system. People don't pay different prices for a pint of beer based on the size of their house or the amount of their income - or would that be a "fairer" system "because they can afford it"? Why should someone in a large house pay more for having a single bin of rubbish disposed of than someone in a small house?