[Closed] This "we're all in this together " did i miss something ?

stoner - glass half empty 🙄

😉

That's Hagues Yorkshire optimism that is! 🙂

This "we're all in this together " did i miss something ?

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/will-we-ever-have-bananas-again%2c-daddy?-200910072116/ ]From the Mash[/url]

[b][i]The shadow chancellor told the party conference in Manchester: "I want to make this absolutely clear - you're all in this together.

"Me? I'm err... Well, I'm fine actually. I've got a safe seat, a really super pension, two large houses and considerable personal wealth. You, on the other hand, are deeply, horribly, terrifyingly not fine."[/i][/b]

.... £800bn of national debt

It's called investment. The public debt is perfectly sustainable, and is lower as a proportion of national income than countries like France, Italy, Japan and the US. I'm guessing from your posts that you'd prefer us to still have the money in the bank and crumbling schools and hospitals and people waiting 18 months for a routine operation?

Stoner plenty of those examples are cherry picked and wouldn't stand up to much scrutiny.

for example,

100,000 million pounds drained from British pension funds

Well the tories started doing that back in the 80s

- Gun crime up by 57%

- Violent crime up 70%

Meaningless statistics unless background is supplied. What is the rise being measured against? Is the comparison fair?

- Our gold reserves sold for a quarter of their worth

I'm pretty sure they were sold at the market value at the time. Analysing decisions, especially econimic ones, in hindsight is a rediculous thing to do.

I'm not saything that he doesn't have some valid points or that the everything the Labour party have done has been great but this is just political grandstanding.

I like the way Hague mentions scrapping the 10p tax band - shameful I agree but as if the Tories would ever have introduced it in the first place.

but this is just political grandstanding.

I know. I didnt put it up there for reference material
🙄

Stoner - It must have been a tough 12 years for you

Bizarrely - I can't think of anyone I know that's worse off now than they were in 1997

there shouldnt be a 10p tax band.

There should be a sizeable personal allowance (c.£10k from £6,500), get rid of tax credits (expensive to administer and over complicated) and a higher rate of tax on the basic rate from 22p to 25p. leave the higher rate band at £35k and tax at 45p.

Stoner your list is spurious, one sided and misleading.

Almost Mailesqe!

Few could bear close scrutiny however I dont have the time unfortunately. I need to continue paying back the national debt however content in the knowledge that is it "a price worth paying" for reasonable earners like myself if it reduces unemployment in the short term.
I recall a Tory said a similar thing? oh no that was "unemployment is a price worth paying for low interest rates" before they crept up to around 15% IIRC?

Stoner - It must have been a tough 12 years for you

eh? and your point is?

EDIT. Surfer, for yours [u]and uplink's (because he's being deliberately obtuse) [/u], and other's benefit who havent got it...I posted that list as an example of Hague's style being attractive and showing some political skill not because I particularly hold it as entirely truthful - we were talking about him and Clarke in the previous posts, remember?

eh? and your point is?

If the country is that bad we all must have suffered terribly eh?

This was the Tories economic miracle at work

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/16/newsid_2519000/2519013.stm

there shouldnt be a 10p tax band.

There should be a sizeable personal allowance (c.£10k from £6,500), get rid of tax credits (expensive to administer and over complicated) and a higher rate of tax on the basic rate from 22p to 25p. leave the higher rate band at £35k and tax at 45p.

Well that would be possibly a better way of doing it - think the Tories are likely to do any of that?

Bizarrely - I can't think of anyone I know that's worse off now than they were in 1997

This is the funny thing, despite the fact that supposedly the country is screwed, the majority of people seem to be doing ok - I certainly don't see any of the misery we have seen in previous 'busts'

I posted in a previous thread about an interview with a researcher on the Moneybox programme on R4 a few weeks ago where she provided analysis which suggested that during a downturn, rather paradoxically, more people see their personal cicumstances improve than fall than during a growth period. However, there are those that see there personal cicumstances fall subtantially.

its a version of the Minimax theory (minimised effect for the maximum number of people or vice versa).

Remember the media report at the margins which usually misses out the bigger picture that effects the majority.

We will see the screwing over a period of years, will we not? Because government intervention in the banking sector was so massive, normal activity was largely sustained and there appears to have been a fairly short recession, which we are coming to the end of (although the economy may easily relapse in the near term). However, that level of interevention produced the very substantial debts which at current level affect the government's ability to borrow in the bond markets and are not sustainable in the long term. We will therefore inevitably see a large future effort to pay down that debt, and that will result in less government spending within the economy. As such spending is extremely substantial, evidence of screwing will become increasingly widespread.

we were talking about him and Clarke in the previous posts, remember?

Stoner then I apologise! 😳

The tax system as a whole needs a thorough overhaul, especially the income tax rate bands.

The recent commentary about the quality of life in Norway (and other Scandinavian countries) had many folks on here moaning that they pay 50% tax...

Well, with the UK higher rate cut off remaining fairly static throughout my working life (circa 20 yrs) a huge number of "middle income" salaries are now taxed as "high earners".

I would have thought something like 15-20p for the first 20k, then step it up to 25-30p to maybe 50-60k or more. What represents a high earner in the 21st Century?? I would have thought 60k+ or so.

A lot of folks that I know "struggle" (and I know that is relative compared to lower earners) on nice sounding 35-40k salaries, but are totally stuffed by paying 51% tax and NI (>50% hence my comparison to Norway).

Be much fairer to have a genuinely benign tax rate for the low earners and a new middle bracket so that those in middle incomes contribute as they should, but proportionally, and the real high eraners also contribute proportionately...

Stoner - Member

Just a pity that Clarke wont get No. 11 because of that cretin Osborne being such chums with Dave.

That's bollox Stoner, and well you know it. Clarke wont get No. 11 because he is a Europhile, full stop.

And btw, I can't believe that you've actually posted this : [i]"So your school defines your place in society does it?"[/i] you don't appear to have said it tongue in cheek 😯

.

And for all those who think that Cameron's privileged upbringing/background should be conveniently ignored by the ordinary electorate, how many Eton educated merchant bankers would you expect to vote for a Jaguar Land Rover assembly worker as their MP ? Eh, how many ?

What schools they went to reflects that

About 6% of Children are privately educated every year, but roughly 53% of the top jobs in the uk go to this 6%.

I'm not surprised that a number of Labour ministers were privately educated, they are the tories in all but name after all.

Stoner always the cost never the value, typical accountant. 😉

Eton educated merchant bankers would you expect to vote for a Jaguar Land Rover assembly worker as their MP ? Eh, how many

Fortunately for any prospective Jaguar Land Rover assembly worker MPs there sufficiently few Eton educated merchant bankers in the electorate to worry about having to go campaigning in a suit.

EDIT Surfer: my apologies too: nuance and timing can get lost too easily in a fast thread.

typical accountant.

You! Outside, now! 👿

So your answer then Stoner is : [u]none[/u]

It may be none, it may be all.

Or do you advocate the electorate vote on the basis of a candidate's schooling rather than polcies? How very un-democratic of you.

And btw, I can't believe that you've actually posted this : "So your school defines your place in society does it?" you don't appear to have said it tongue in cheek

I rather thought that it was the quality of one's education that would have a greater contribution to meritocracy in the wider country than the name of your school. Are you implying that comprehensives provide a lower quality education GG?

Are you implying that comprehensives provide a lower quality education GG?

The statistics would infer that. Are they correct or are their other forces at work? Call me paranoid but I think the latter rather than it being a reflection of the quality of our comprehensive system.

 

Tam Dalyell went to Eton Stoner - there was nothing wrong with him in that respect.

What I'm "advocating" is that you cut out the hypocrisy. You know damn well that those who are wealthy and privileged would look at the background of someone whom they were considering voting for.

And yet you seem to expect "ordinary" voters not to do the same.

beyond all your petty squabling, I don't agree at all with the notion of a pay cut for MPs. All the expenses row was caused by MPs being underpaid for the job they do! The money will still get to them some other way anyway...

And to be honest, how much money are they going to save by cutting the salary of 646 people!

Are you implying that comprehensives provide a lower quality education GG?

Eton College provides a higher quality of education.

What sort of daft question is that ?

The statistics would infer that.

No you would infer that from the statistics. The statistics might [i]imply[/i] it. 😉

Are they correct or are their other forces at work?

Bit of both. Funnily enough having lived with a few public schoolboys I think a big part of the advantage it gives you is confidence that you will succeed/get a decent job etc - it is to an extent a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In response to myself, I reckon they'll save less that £2.5m a year, which is a pittance compared to the rest of the money wasted by the government.

You know damn well that those who are wealthy and privileged would look at the background of someone whom they were considering voting for.

I certainly dont think that at all.

By your reasoning then, if Tam (Eton) and Hague (Wath-upon-Dearne Comprehensive in Rotherham) were up for election in the same constituency, a toff would vote for Tam because of his schooling, not Hague because of his policies and party?

I think you're in a bit of a muddle there GG.

Are you implying that comprehensives provide a lower quality education GG?

Eton College provides a higher quality of education

available only to those who can afford it and have the contacts to get in - in exchange, a better education than the masses, and critically, access to networks and contacts to be set up for life??

I think you're in a bit of a muddle there GG.

No I'm not.

But that's because I don't take to your absurd extreme. And despite your attempt to suggest otherwise, I see it as a consideration. Not the deciding factor.

You daft public school educated toff.

see it as a consideration. Not the deciding factor.

back-pedalling trot.

Well Hague is a bit of an exception (Clarke too to a lesser extent), as he is a tory you wouldn't immediately pour salt on 😉

@grumm, I get that to an extent, but I suspect there is also a bit of the networking and "people like us" effect that helps as well. (And the schools like Eton, Harrow Charterhouse etc do provide a very very good education, as they ought to given how much they cost*)

*Pretty similar to the US health system vs the NHS, the US system is fantastic, for the people that can afford it, the NHS isn't quite as good, but I know where I'd rather be.

No back peddling Stoner, I had already said : "Tam Dalyell went to Eton Stoner - there was nothing wrong with him in that respect."

I went to public school*. Does that make me a STW pariah and ripe for a future career in politics? If it helps, I've lost touch with everyone I sent to school with.

🙂

*Not a good one like Eton et al. Just one where rich farmers sent their thick offspring before training them to articfially inseminate cattle. I was the exception, of course, being neither rich nor thick (nor a farmer, come to that). And I'm pretty sure I've never [i]artificially[/i] inseminated anything....

Eton College provides a higher quality of education.

Is that actually true? Private schools provide an education that is very much targeted towards getting people into a particular set of 'top universities'.

I know at Cambridge in the late 90s (I'm sure there's more recent research about this, but I don't know), private school educated people did significantly worse in their degrees on average than state school educated pupils, these statistics were used to justify the suggestion that perhaps they try and attract more state pupils. It kind of suggests that there isn't a massive load of evidence for private schools making people cleverer, they are just good at making people look cleverer in university application and pushing them hard / spoon feeding them to pass A levels.

Joe

It seems to me there's an awful lot of people out of work at the moment. Until ministers emulate this situation I fail to see how they're in the same boat as the rest of us.

Is that actually true? ............private school educated people did significantly worse in their degrees on average than state school educated pupils

Yes, that's a well known fact. And it proves the point that public schools such a Eton, provide a higher quality of education.

Because whilst their pupils are perhaps not as bright, they have a clear advantage over state pupils when it comes a A levels etc results. Once they are on a level playing field with everyone else, they do no better - in fact worst.

Private universities might be the solution for them.

Cameron has already committed to reducing the number of Ministers and MP's after the election - not to mention stopping the use of unelected Lords that sit in Cabinet e.g. Mandelson, but can't be held to account by Parliament's oversight arrangements or the electorate.

the use of unelected Lords that sit in Cabinet e.g. Mandelson, but can't be held to account by Parliament's oversight arrangements or the electorate.

Unfortunately it's often only the unelected Lords that block some of the more loony and anti-democratic legislation proposed by the government.

but can't be held to account by Parliament's oversight arrangements or the electorate.

You mean the Government who use unelected lords in the cabinet can't be voted out of power by the electorate?