Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrJAKEE)
    I hope I’m not arguing with another Corbynite poll denier.Identifying Christians or Jews as voting groups is still very legitimate, as are other characteristic groups such as age, social group or gender. Reports like the House of Commons General Election Report (something which any Labour member should read if they want to win elections) show who parties need to appeal to.I would completely agree that the Labour party were at the forefront of many of the things you mentioned, however under Corbyn, particularly with Jews,Labour’s support has decreased substantially. If you read the article, 87% feel that there is ‘antisemitism among Labour's members and elected representatives.’ A report on Anti Semitism in the Labour party has just led to a Labour MP being abused for ‘collusion’ with the right-wing press by Momentum. The image of Labour is not one of credibility over this issue, and so they will lose key constituencies if it doesn’t sort out its anti-Semitic image problem.



    Economic policy as you should know is differentiated by fiscal (taxation) policy and monetary (money supply) policy. The chancellor can act on fiscal policy only, whilst the Bank of England is completely independent and has control of monetary policy, something which your good chum TONY BLAIR did. We can argue whether it was a good idea to do this but I tend to agree with Brown that it was a good idea in that it effectively made monetary policy more long-term (rather than pandering to the short-term needs politicians often desire).



    You can’t seriously be comparing the current state of the country now to that during WW2. The state in WW2 was directly under threat by the Nazis and so heavy borrowing was necessary for defence spending. Please tell me how this country is now in such a threat which would facilitate rapid spending increases, which would only add to our ever-present budget deficit? I bet you can’t. The lack of fiscal-prudence is shocking now in the Labour party and widely in the public they are (to some degree rightly) blamed for the Recession. They will lose support for this.


    Firstly it didn’t create all the welfare state as we know it. Lloyd George’s People’s Budget initiated the start of the Welfare State. The furthering of the nation state under Labour in 1945 had many reasons – all a far cry of that today. It was seen as a way of rebuilding and uniting the nation after a bruising war.That incentive is not there anymore. Of course, not many want to see the complete abolition of the welfare state, but I think it is fair to say that many want it restricted. It is all well and good that we have public institutions and it is better that we do in the sense that overall costs might be reduced (economies of scale) as opposed to a more competitive NHS, but it isn’t if we can’t afford it and its future generations that have to pay up for our short-termist self-indulging policies. I am also of the opinion (as are many) that people have taken these institutions for granted. Why should I bother working if I can ‘earn’ just as much on welfare? Healthy living – I don’t have to bother with that, the NHS will sort any problems I have! It has created a sense of dependency beyond belief in some communities and I think you would agree all taxpayers have a right to be angry when taxpayer money is allocated to people who don’t need it. In many ways it has become a hindrance on the economy, rather than helped it. I don’t see how any of these institutions are intrinsically at threat by having a different Labour party leader than Corbyn though.

    This is getting quite ideological, but I am guessing this is with reference to the Blairites in the Labour Party?It is complete rubbish to suggest that right-wing politicians don’t have the ‘political will’ to deal with the problems of the bulk of the country. You seem to be simplifying this solely into a social problem – when the problems faced by the many are far larger than that (for instance political, economic and foreign problems). There have been times in history when Conservatives have done this magnificently, for instance Benjamin Disraeli’s Reform Act which enfranchised the working class for the first time in history, Churchill’s leadership during WW2 when members of the Labour Party were calling for pacifism or perhaps Margaret Thatcher’s rejuvenation of the British economy from the disastrous times under Labour during the 1970s which led to calamities unspeakable today – such as the Winter of Discontent and inflation running at 25% per year.The whole point of ‘austerity’ is living within our means, something the country hasn’t done in a very long time. It’s a very simple concept. Cut the spending, reduce the deficit and reduce the amount of debt repayments future generations will have to pay. All you have to do is have a look at countries like Greece which had a ballooning national debt to GDP due to mostly wasteful spending. Do you want to end up in a position like Greece for short-term fulfilment? Blairites at least accept the notion that the country needs to live within its means, and most of the public accept that notion too. You tell me what you think is less ‘caring’. The lack of housing/schools is mostly due to the government I would agree, but it was wasteful spending by previous governments (particularly Labour) that also contributed to this mess. Let’s also be clear, tax evasion = illegal, tax avoidance = not illegal. Tax evasion is where I deliberately avoid paying tax when I should be, tax avoidance is where I avoid paying tax via loopholes (e.g a parent giving their house to their children 8 years before they die to ‘avoid’ inheritance tax). The Tories have done far more in dealing with evasion than New Labour did, although of course more could be done. Unemployment is low now – but I would agree that there is a skills crisis and the Tories haven’t done enough on the issue. Perhaps the only thing I agree on Corbyn with is the need for a NES (National Education Service), provided that it focuses on the sciences/maths/business/economics. Something similar to this was tried under Blair but failed quite badly.



    You are conflating right wing in this case with solely the right-wing of UKIP. Indeed, to call UKIP a completely right-wing party is false because it has become abundantly clear from the EU result it is Labour’s core vote that has concerns over immigration. Most people on the right are for limited immigration (including myself) – not an abolition to immigration nor free movement (or do you support this?). If anything you’ve dramatised the narrative
    over immigration when if you actually listen, most politicians are saying it aids the problem, but it is not the sole reason for the problem.You’ve also again limited it into an economic issue when it is not, it is a broader social one too. High-skilled immigration is beneficial to the country but low-skilled immigration has harmed those in the ‘lowest 20th percentile’ (that is a good blog post at saying why labour should not be supporting free movement of people). Constant denial by Corbynites over this issue only demonises the people the Labour party are supposedly meant to serve- the less well off.The social issue should also be addressed. A key part of being part of a country is that there are common customs and we are unified by it. Labour’s promotion of a multicultural agenda (also rejected in the EU referendum) has significantly strained this. I personally know people who were in low-skilled jobs who tell me that they were effectively socially ostracized by the fact that they couldn’t talk to many of their colleagues as their foreign colleagues grouped together and spoke another language. There are some communities which have had significant increases in immigration which has exacerbated the tensions as mentioned above. It is high time for Labour to realise that working class communities do not want integration, they want assimilation.



    And there are many of the Right that would say the same. This issue of ‘hatred of the foreign’ has been inflated beyond belief by many in Labour (nearly as much as the lies over Food Banks they espoused during the election) when they actually initiated the problem by allowing free movement of people. They wanted to permanently change the social fabric of the country without consulting the people. For this they should be ashamed, and if they don’t want to lose many seats in the upcoming election the leadership should accept that this is (at the very least) a concern that needs dealing with.
    The left in Britain had been fighting fascism at home and abroad when the right were not. Many died in Spain fighting the rebels lead by Franco. They opposed Mosley. They were in the forefront of the struggle against aparteid in South Africa, they helped the refugees from fascist Chile - compare the Conservatives -Mrs Thatcher's views on Mandela = a terrorist. Pinochet = a friend

    The Labour Party has many MPs and members of Jewish origin, of Afro Carribean origin, etc. because it was and is a party which will not tolerate racism. ( Think in contrast of Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood'.) It has been the Labour Party which has brought in equality legislation, the Sex Discrimination Act etc. caracterised as coming from the ' looney left' at the time.

    It is a difference of outlook. The right thinks everyone should take responsibility for themselves. The left that we should all look after each other.

    The right thinks people are poor because they are feckless, irresponsible and 'are always with us.'. The left because that is how society is set up. It relies on a pool of desperate people who have to work for poverty wages, on zero hours contracts etc. or the unemployed as a ready pool of cheap labourwhen the economy needs them. The right think the rich are rich because they are more worthy than the poor. The left do not believe that there is necessarily a correlation between hard work and earnings - and so long as a job needs doing it should be paid at a rate which allows the person doing it to take a full part in society.

    Austerity is not staying within our means . it is attacking the most vulnerable, cutting benefits to the disabled, keeping families in poverty, cutting services to people who desperately need them - cutting libraries cuts the education level of the country, making people wait 6 weeks with no money because they are changing benefits is immoral. Remember the Conservatives mantra - it is a price worth paying? The left categorically disagree. We need to borrow to invest. Investment is what creates wealth.

    63% of Labour Voters voted Remain - compare 62% of SNP. The right claims that immigrants are a threat. It is not only wrong but counter productive. Immigrants are the solution for an ageing country. The left challenges the right wing suspicion of foreigners, etc. In most areas with large immigrants populations the Labour Party has done sterling work unifying populations, bringing them together and in the main it has been very successful. Most people enjoy being stimulated by new ideas, eating different foods, having a wider choice of girl friend / boy friend. We have the biggest percentage of mixed marriages in Europe. - proof of the adaptability, intelligence and toleration of the UK.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry for the late reply – I have been busy as of late. What on earth are you arguing for? Are you trying to defend Labour’s current position? The title of the thread is about Labour’s shadow cabinet, and you are going deeply off-topic. You didn’t respond to my questions as to what national emergency would facilitate such spending increases.
    I don’t mind talking about ideology. I am not one of these people who believe that Labour has done nothing good for the country. Often it has acted as a counter-balance against hardline Toryism. However they are far from perfect.

    (Original post by pickup)
    The left in Britain had been fighting fascism at home and abroad when the right were not. Many died in Spain fighting the rebels lead by Franco. They opposed Mosley. They were in the forefront of the struggle against aparteid in South Africa, they helped the refugees from fascist Chile - compare the Conservatives -Mrs Thatcher's views on Mandela = a terrorist. Pinochet = a friend
    You mean the Left in Continental Europe. Labour members in the UK did little to aid the Republicans in the Civil War. Whilst the Labour party supported to notion to aid the rebels, they were in no negotiating position to get the country to directly intervene in the conflict.What I find astounding in this is that in similar circumstances the Corbynistas have slammed intervention in Iraq. You can’t praise the actions of the Labour Party then – especially after WW1, and reject Iraq. You must actually praise the Conservative opposition at the time which was stern neutrality if you do.Mosley was promoted under the Labour party further and faster under the Tories. Even after he left there were Labour MP’s that wanted him back in the Labour Party. Official Labour Party policy actually sought that members didn’t engage in opposition marches to the Blackshirts – something reserved for the Communists. The Tories were equally sceptical and the outbreak of war (and strong leadership under Churchill) scuppered most chances of a fascist government arising. Therefore Labour cannot be fully credited with removing Mosley.Your views on Thatcher are far too simplistic. Pinochet provided essential intel during the Falklands War that saved hundreds of lives, and is widely credited with bringing democracy to Chile. Would you rather hundreds of soldiers had died in that conflict instead? Rather than pander to opposition Thatcher showed resolve and took the best course of action for the country. Isn’t that the sort of action that you want from a Prime Minister?A quick look at history shows that Nelson Mandela had a very large association with terrorist groups. He was leader of the armed wing of the ANC - Umkhonto we Sizwe, which was known to bomb officials and create a climate of fear. Mandela even said that the ANC had committed human rights abuses at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the late 1990s. You decide whether that constitutes terrorism. Thatcher actually had a plan to end apartheid in SA – so it is simply inaccurate to imply that she was for apartheid and didn’t sympathise with what Mandela did.It’s funny that you don’t mention about Labour’s support for Communism – an ideology that has killed millions and supported despotic regimes that have brainwashed their populations. You can take the Labour movements supported for the establishment of the USSR in the late 1910’s and 1920’s. Or more recently you can ponder as why John McDonnell “jokingly” quoted from Mao’s Red Book – a man who killed millions through famine and established a one party police state in China.


    (Original post by pickup)
    The Labour Party has many MPs and members of Jewish origin, of Afro Carribean origin, etc. because it was and is a party which will not tolerate racism. ( Think in contrast of Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood'.) It has been the Labour Party which has brought in equality legislation, the Sex Discrimination Act etc. caracterised as coming from the ' looney left' at the time.
    So what? I’ve already previously outlined areas of policy that the Tories have supported for social progress. Labour do not have a monopoly over social progression.
    Enoch Powell was also removed from his post as shadow defence secretary after he made the speech, and many Conservatives and Labour voters supported him in what he said.

    (Original post by pickup)
    It is a difference of outlook. The right thinks everyone should take responsibility for themselves. The left that we should all look after each other.
    The right thinks people are poor because they are feckless, irresponsible and 'are always with us.'. The left because that is how society is set up. It relies on a pool of desperate people who have to work for poverty wages, on zero hours contracts etc. or the unemployed as a ready pool of cheap labourwhen the economy needs them. The right think the rich are rich because they are more worthy than the poor. The left do not believe that there is necessarily a correlation between hard work and earnings - and so long as a job needs doing it should be paid at a rate which allows the person doing it to take a full part in society.
    Labour completely exaggerated the effects of zero hour contracts and the use of food banks during the GE. They claimed nearly a million had used a food bank in 2014 – when in fact the website said explicitly that food banks were USED 1 million times. Zero hour contracts too were lied about. The claim was that most were unhappy about the usage of them – yet when asked in BBC surveys most were happy with them and many had far more than 1 to supplement their income. It was a complete dishonesty by Labour to use the figures and was reminiscent of the immigration ‘scares’ that you oppose so much by UKIP.The idea that businesses are vastly exploiting workers is fanciful at best. Every worker has to paid minimum wage – which the Tories have planned to increase (not abolish); and there are vast amounts of workers regulations relating to breaks, holidays etc that are strictly enforced. The unemployed don’t get preyed upon by these companies in the way you imply as they still have many benefits to supplement their income. You also failed to mention that wages are not determinant on solely hard work and earnings – but also on the laws of supply and demand. This is very simple – if a person’s economic activity is not producing the same as another’s, why should they get a pay rise? I am all for a minimum wage but not one that is radically high as to impair the future creation of jobs (by deterring foreign investment) and to stop incentivising the innovators that create those jobs. What makes someone more worthy is a personal concept – that varies from person to person. It’s simply being whimsical to suggest that Conservatives believe that monetary income is determinant of that, as indeed, there are many trade unionists and workers that support the Tories. You seem to be unable to differentiate between the ‘Thatcherite’ Right and One Nation Conservatism. One Nation Conservatism about realising that society is organic and the rich have a duty be paternal towards them. They also have pragmatism at its roots, something I don’t think the radical left could comprehend. The Thatcherite ideology is about liberty – and not restraining one’s ambitions by the actions of the state. It is about achieving a meritocracy – which Labour seems to undermine with their insistence on quotas and arrogance over grammar schools.


    (Original post by pickup)
    Austerity is not staying within our means . it is attacking the most vulnerable, cutting benefits to the disabled, keeping families in poverty, cutting services to people who desperately need them - cutting libraries cuts the education level of the country, making people wait 6 weeks with no money because they are changing benefits is immoral. Remember the Conservatives mantra - it is a price worth paying? The left categorically disagree. We need to borrow to invest. Investment is what creates wealth
    Well the Left are categorically naive then.

    The fact that many on the Left don’t recognize that we have a deficit, and have had one for effectively decades, shows undeniable ignorance. It is such a simple concept. If you want to spend more money, you have to either raise taxes or borrow. You raise taxes too much, and you start to receive less revenue from that group (case and point French super tax). If you borrow, you have to pay interest on the loan, which if you continue over an extended amount of time, increases the share the budget being used to pay debt repayments. That means in the future – there would be less money for public services, especially when tax revenues dry up in recessions. I don’t agree with the nature of some of the cuts, but cuts were necessary to cut the deficit. You do not make institutions better by simply throwing money at it. Take an anecdotal example. A hospital usually saves 90% of lives with a budget of £1000 per patient (that is a cost of £900 per patient).The budget decreases down to £900 per patient, and 85% of patients live due to the new methods the hospital must invent to optimise the amount of patients saved. It costs £765 to save 1 patient’s life. If funding then gets increased back to level the hospital had before the cuts, the % of patients that now live in theory increases. A similar thing can be seen in the optimisation of other areas of state employment (e.g home working for call operators and making underused services take on more services, such as many libraries also doing registrations). Of course an element of borrowing is sustainable (which we have done for a very long time). Corbyn however supports a spending splurge that will hurt the next generation far more than ours. Similar splurges have been seen in Greece where the borrowed money went into projects that were unsustainable (i.e no one used), and similarly in Spain (such as over public transport) and in Ireland (on housing). Unless mass savings are made (a good example would be the Eurotunnel, which reduced transportation costs to Europe by a significant proportion) there would be no point.

    (Original post by pickup)
    63% of Labour Voters voted Remain - compare 62% of SNP. The right claims that immigrants are a threat. It is not only wrong but counter productive. Immigrants are the solution for an ageing country. The left challenges the right wing suspicion of foreigners, etc. In most areas with large immigrants populations the Labour Party has done sterling work unifying populations, bringing them together and in the main it has been very successful. Most people enjoy being stimulated by new ideas, eating different foods, having a wider choice of girl friend / boy friend. We have the biggest percentage of mixed marriages in Europe. - proof of the adaptability, intelligence and toleration of the UK.
    I agree with immigration too. What’s your point? The right don’t claim immigrants are a threat as I highlighted earlier. Perhaps in the future immigration is needed for an ageing population – but unskilled immigration certainly isn’t needed now in the economy, with unemployment running at 5.4%. You can talk about culture as a benefit and I would agree. But the referendum result was a rejection of globalisation and so to say we as a country desire it is perhaps false. 63% of Labour voters, mostly situated in London and other liberal urban areas, voted remain. It is evident that in Labour heartlands in the North of England, and indeed now in Wales, are under threat by UKIP. The North East voted heavily to leave (around 58%) whilst the North West also voted to leave (around 54%). These are now mostly areas where UKIP is the main challenger – and if UKIP change their image (and Labour continues as it is) the referendum result is indicative of the electoral oblivion that will occur on Labour. The Council elections were an utter failure for Labour – which any credible opposition would have gained seats due to the a) timing of the elections and b) areas that voted (which were in Labour areas). In Scotland they became the 3rd largest Party for the first time in Modern History, whilst in Wales, there was a swing from Labour to PC, with PC destroying Labour in the Rhondda seat (which was meant to be a safe seat). If Labour want to continue with this merry go round politics – so be it, but don’t say anyone didn’t warn them.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Pinochet as a defender of democracy!

    'Pinochet assumed power in Chile following a United States-backed coup d'état on 11 September 1973 that overthrew the elected socialist Unidad Popular government of President Salvador Allende and ended civilian rule. Several academics have stated that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterwards Pinochet had been promoted to Commander-in-Chief of the Army by Allende on 23 August 1973, having been its General Chief of Staff since early 1972. In December 1974, the ruling military junta appointed Pinochet President of Chile by joint decree, although without the support of one of the coup's instigators, Air Force General Gustavo Leigh.

    From the start of the new military government harsh measures were implemented. During the period of Pinochet's rule, various investigations have identified the murder of 1,200 to 3,200 people with up to 80,000 people forcibly interned and as many as 30,000 tortured. As of 2011, the official number of deaths and forced disappearances stands at 3,065. ( Wki)

    There was a British Batallion in the Spanish Civil War. It was formed to defend the elected Government of Spain against the attacks of Franco ( helped by Fascist Germany. That situation was entirely different from the situation in Irag where we invaded a foreign country to topple a Government with very little idea of what we were going to do afterwards. ( Chilcot )

    It is a completely false to think that reducing the deficit means either lowering Income tax for the already very rich or for Huge Corporations and cutting essential services to the most vulnerable . The problem we have is poor productivity, poor economic recovery, low private investment, too many jobs paying low wages / zero hours contracts so that people cannot plan their expenditure or cope with bills. 3.1 million workers are underemployed. 50% of our adult population have no investments, 40% have no long term assets - pensions or property.

    What we need is investment in physical infrastructure (housing, roads, railways etc. especially in the North) social infrastructure ( care provision, child care, health, education ) Paradoxically investing public money in this way - for child care, care for the elderly, is more effective in reducing deficits that austerity - ie cutting provision.( hence Osborne's failure to meet target after target). It boosts employment, boosts earnings and economic growth . Investing just 2% of GDP in the caring industries would generate 1.5 million jobs in UK. ( Women's Budget Group Research in 7 OECD countries ) Income tax will go up as people enter work and we can provide more vital help - 10.6 million will become carers over the next 5 years.

    Borrowing for investment is what almost every business does. When a business ( or country ) is in trouble the way forward is to invest not go around with a machete, slashing everything that enables people to go out to work and earn good money.

    The present Government's plan to devolve provision to councils is not a way of giving them more control but a way of ensuring the poorest suffer. Councils in the poorest areas cannot raise enough money but have the greatest need.

    Raising the Income Tax threshold does nothing for those on very low pay ( and very little for the next poorest as they lose benefits) - but it does help the better off. Particularly if you also raise the threshold for paying higher rate tax.

    Any education system that thinks that you can /should select pupils at age 10 -11 so that only a minority have opportunities, is madness. Telling 80% of the population they are failures, is ridiculous. There is no evidence than Grammar Schools did or do create more opportunities for children - working class or not but they did and do block opportunities for most. Comprehensive Education however gives every child access to a common 16+ 18+ examination scheme and has been a huge success despite problems of funding. Few parents want their child to go to a Secondary Modern School.

    The ludicrous ideology on which selection at the 11+ was based, that someone's IQ is a fixed entity, has been discredited. Education is what improves one's intelligence not a false idea of an intelligence that should limit one's educational opportunities. Burt the master of this ideology, has been proved to have been a charlatan, inventing his own research on twins, falsifying his papers to fit in with his views. He destroyed a whole generation's futures.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pickup)
    Pinochet as a defender of democracy!
    'Pinochet assumed power in Chile following a United States-backed coup d'état on 11 September 1973 that overthrew the elected socialist Unidad Popular government of President Salvador Allende and ended civilian rule. Several academics have stated that the support of the United States was crucial to the coup and the consolidation of power afterwards Pinochet had been promoted to Commander-in-Chief of the Army by Allende on 23 August 1973, having been its General Chief of Staff since early 1972. In December 1974, the ruling military junta appointed Pinochet President of Chile by joint decree, although without the support of one of the coup's instigators, Air Force General Gustavo Leigh.From the start of the new military government harsh measures were implemented. During the period of Pinochet's rule, various investigations have identified the murder of 1,200 to 3,200 people with up to 80,000 people forcibly interned and as many as 30,000 tortured. As of 2011, the official number of deaths and forced disappearances stands at 3,065. ( Wki)
    Thatcher didn’t meet Pinochet until 1994 – when she was well out of office. What Pinochet did that Allende didn’t was leave behind a stable democracy. You can blast the trumpet with Pinochet and while I concede he wasn’t necessarily a nice guy, he did do some admirable things for Chile : ‘Inflation down from 600 per cent to six per cent. Infant mortality rates down from 66 per thousand to 13 per thousand. Urban access to drinking water up from 67 per cent to 98 per cent. Life expectations up from 64 to 73. Living standards more than doubled.’ (telegraph). I would love to know where Thatcher said she was directly a friend of Pinochet’s by the way, as I can only find that she said he was a friend to Britain, which is fundamentally different.I will also ask a second time. Would you rather hundreds of British troops had died without Pinochet’s help?

    (Original post by pickup)
    There was a British Batallion in the Spanish Civil War. It was formed to defend the elected Government of Spain against the attacks of Franco ( helped by Fascist Germany. That situation was entirely different from the situation in Irag where we invaded a foreign country to topple a Government with very little idea of what we were going to do afterwards. ( Chilcot )
    The Battalion consisted of around 2500 men/women. That’s relatively small compared to the conflict as a whole where 500000 were killed. Left-Wing parties across mainland Europe (particularly France) did far more to aid the Civil War than the British ones. The Left in Britain cannot seriously claim that they fought tooth and claw against Fascism in Spain.Whilst an invasion is different to taking sides in a Civil War the principle of intervention is the same. What Chilcot didn’t highlight was what would have happened if Saddam, perhaps one of the most awful dictators at the time, had been allowed to stay in power, and collect WMD’s, which could have presented a very serious threat to national security from, say, chemical weapons. There was also no plan for what would happen after the Civil War. You supposedly support intervention in Spain to prevent fascism taking over. Fine. But Iraq was a very similar story.

    (Original post by pickup)
    It is a completely false to think that reducing the deficit means either lowering Income tax for the already very rich or for Huge Corporations and cutting essential services to the most vulnerable . The problem we have is poor productivity, poor economic recovery, low private investment, too many jobs paying low wages / zero hours contracts so that people cannot plan their expenditure or cope with bills. 3.1 million workers are underemployed. 50% of our adult population have no investments, 40% have no long term assets - pensions or property.
    There are many ways of cutting the deficit. The simplest is to raise taxes, and cut spending. You can borrow money to pay for infrastructure (etc ) which would increase the deficit, until you gradually cut down on that spending over time. If the later approach was taken, I don’t see any Corbynistas supporting it. The Tories have been relatively successful with this regard by cutting the deficit by nearly half. The UK debt/gdp is around 90%, with a maximum being reached. I am trying to find the source but I remember reading (in magazine?) that if spending were allowed to continue like that under Brown this figure would be well over 120%. When you bloat spending on essential services and you start virtue signalling there are never good results for the country. The country couldn’t afford to keep the extent of these services and that’s why quite simply they were cut. Low Income Tax attracts the rich to come to the UK, invest, and remain. You only have to look at the London Housing Market to see this. The rich fleeing France from super tax should always be welcome in the UK, because despite all the anti-rich bashing Labour like doing the top 1% in our country pay 30% of our income tax receipts whilst the top 0.1% pay 14%. As soon as you start raising the upper end of income tax you will see falling tax receipts from that group – because they can move their money to other countries or afford to avoid tax (not evade). What Osbourne has done is actually try and make the 1% pay more tax in the country, and shows from the fact that he has done far better than under New Labour. I have already disproven the fallacy behind the zero hour contracts myth/ bad paid jobs myth. Unemployment is falling and the vast majority of the new jobs created are not the low pay ones that Labour purport them to be – they are full time ones. A quick look at the government reports on low pay / employment show this.

    (Original post by pickup)
    What we need is investment in physical infrastructure (housing, roads, railways etc. especially in the North) social infrastructure ( care provision, child care, health, education ) Paradoxically investing public money in this way - for child care, care for the elderly, is more effective in reducing deficits that austerity - ie cutting provision.( hence Osborne's failure to meet target after target). It boosts employment, boosts earnings and economic growth . Investing just 2% of GDP in the caring industries would generate 1.5 million jobs in UK. ( Women's Budget Group Research in 7 OECD countries ) Income tax will go up as people enter work and we can provide more vital help - 10.6 million will become carers over the next 5 years.
    Some of this is quite simply codswallop. For investment to be viable in these areas there has to be a long-term economic plan for them. There has to be business potential in these areas – a demand from the public so that they are self-sustainable. Whilst with housing I am sympathetic with railways and roads I am simply not. I have been on many trains up North where very little have been on the rides. Our roads are also coping well, as shown by the latest reports claiming that only 3% of our motorways and 5% of our A roads need to be checked for repairs, maintenance etc, which is fairly consistent (if not better) than that under Labour. There is no need for investment in these areas and all that will happen is short-term jobs will be created and more will be lost in the long term, because the country cannot afford to keep them. Increasing the amount in jobs doesn’t decrease the deficit. You don’t pay for someone to work (with supply costs) around £30000 per year to get £7000 back in tax’s and perhaps another £8000 from the multiplier effect. You lose money. Rate of growth is important but quality of growth is even more so – and mass state spending is just that. Poor growth. I have told you in a previous answer why reckless spending like this hurts future generations – so I am truly surprised you are still purporting delusional economics. I will ask for a third time, what national crisis do we face to justify going on a spending splurge when at other times in our history it has been devoted to war and recession?

    (Original post by pickup)
    Borrowing for investment is what almost every business does. When a business ( or country ) is in trouble the way forward is to invest not go around with a machete, slashing everything that enables people to go out to work and earn good money.
    Firstly a country isn’t a business. A country is an open system whilst a business is a closed system. But let’s assume you’re correct. Businesses usually divert their profits into investment. The only time where they invest a lot is in the start-up stages, perhaps when they are starting a new venture, and very rarely in cases of economic depression. What they usually do to keep themselves afloat is to cut costs – reduce the number of inefficient labourers, innovate, mechanize. Exactly what the country is doing now.

    (Original post by pickup)
    The present Government's plan to devolve provision to councils is not a way of giving them more control but a way of ensuring the poorest suffer. Councils in the poorest areas cannot raise enough money but have the greatest need.
    Evidence for this?
    (Original post by pickup)
    Raising the Income Tax threshold does nothing for those on very low pay ( and very little for the next poorest as they lose benefits) - but it does help the better off. Particularly if you also raise the threshold for paying higher rate tax.
    I’ve addressed this earlier & in previous responses. Raising the threshold on low pay (and the raising of the min wage) does do great things. Benefits are not there to create a nice comfortable life you can live on – they are meant to provide the minimum essentials that one requires (which has been shown by many reports to still hold true). You seem to be insinuating that an equal society comes above economic growth. By that logic a recession where everyone loses money (the rich more than the poor) would be good thing.

    (Original post by pickup)
    Any education system that thinks that you can /should select pupils at age 10 -11 so that only a minority have opportunities, is madness. Telling 80% of the population they are failures, is ridiculous. There is no evidence than Grammar Schools did or do create more opportunities for children - working class or not but they did and do block opportunities for most. Comprehensive Education however gives every child access to a common 16+ 18+ examination scheme and has been a huge success despite problems of funding. Few parents want their child to go to a Secondary Modern School.
    The ludicrous ideology on which selection at the 11+ was based, that someone's IQ is a fixed entity, has been discredited. Education is what improves one's intelligence not a false idea of an intelligence that should limit one's educational opportunities. Burt the master of this ideology, has been proved to have been a charlatan, inventing his own research on twins, falsifying his papers to fit in with his views. He destroyed a whole generation's futures.
    Our education system is a mess. Our education system has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator when it comes to key measures of success (numeracy, literacy etc).The curriculum is shody. I know for a fact that I personally was taught algebra in Year 5 because I had the opportunity to do so by my private school; but the local comprehensive didn’t start till Year 8. That is a 3 year gap early on in maths that is not easily bridged and the effects will reverberate up until GCSE, A level and beyond. Grade inflation (propagated by Bliar) has meant that a C in A level Maths today is equivalent to an E 40 years ago. As a society we need to accept that the key function of the education system is supply the needs of the economy. That means focusing on what the country requires. E.g new bankers, new doctors, new pharamacists, new engineers. We also need to accept that not everyone is academic, yet they perform key roles in our society and can still be more of a success than those pushed into university to study mickey mouse degrees – paying more than £9000 per year + for the privilege, for instance construction workers, hairdressers, carpenters, carers. It could also cater to specialised groups (such as the creation of the best actors, artists, and musicians). Contrary to limiting their opportunities it would be strengthening them. I would love to see your evidence for where it hasn’t benefitted the working class, seeing as they provided some of the best educational gateways into bastions like Oxbridge. It therefore makes sense that there should be a form of ‘grammar school’ – one for the academia who will go onto university to study (preferably) STEM subjects and those who will focus more on technical subjects, and both should have equal merit. Germany has a very similar system to this, why can’t we?IQ is determined from nature (genetics) and nurture (education) which is a scientific fact. The 11+ is a good indicator as to how a student will perform in the future as the student hasn’t necessarily gone through masses of education and so the natural intelligence should be shown. Any decent school can optimise the nurture side of the equation but you cannot change natural intelligence. I support a 13+ however as the best test method as it can be more easily prepared for. Support for grammar schools is consistently 60%+ by the general public. Comprehensive Schools have failed. The worst performing students are disengaged from the curriculum because they want to do something vocational. The best performing become less intelligent with respect to the population as there is less attention on them to succeed from teachers and little motivation to work due to distractions. The curriculum is tailored to get students by school, rather than making them excel at school. As a country we must change this. The brightest in our society have nowhere to turn but to private schools to provide excellent education. History has shown that it only requires a few people to make outstanding contributions to the world. In Britain we need to care and culture these people as soon as possible to optimise our potential.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.