Conservatives.

[The God Emperor]

Sounds a touch like Cameron's "land of opportunity" speech. If there's equality of opportunity I'd let markets run fairly free too as there'd be little excuse for failure, unfortunately there isn't. Children from poor backgrounds have significant barriers to success in their way and a bit of redistribution makes up for that.

 

Parenting needs to get better though. I attribute most of my academic success to my Mother and Father who instilled the right attitude in me from an early age and encouraged me every step of the way.

doesnt help that things designed to help those from poorer backgrounds keep them trapped in that position. If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd say this was deliberate. 

[ADK]

Sounds a touch like Cameron's "land of opportunity" speech. If there's equality of opportunity I'd let markets run fairly free too as there'd be little excuse for failure, unfortunately there isn't. Children from poor backgrounds have significant barriers to success in their way and a bit of redistribution makes up for that.

 

Parenting needs to get better though. I attribute most of my academic success to my Mother and Father who instilled the right attitude in me from an early age and encouraged me every step of the way.

 

I don't agree with this. Treat the cause and not the symptom.

[Harry - LCFC]

doesnt help that things designed to help those from poorer backgrounds keep them trapped in that position. If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd say this was deliberate. 

 

Go on, give me a few examples of where you think that happens. Not really come across that idea before.

 

 

I don't agree with this. Treat the cause and not the symptom.

 

Oh yes that's what I want to do too! I'd prefer us to give children an equal chance to succeed rather than make up for this disparity with progressive taxes. It's just that creating equality of opportunity is difficult (or at least it seems that way) so I'm happy enough to go for a more progressive tax system in the meantime.

[Father Ted]

OP is bang on. Nurture the best, no matter what your background. I don't see how anything other than a Conservative government could continue to drive this country forward.

[Webbo]

 

 

 

 

Oh yes that's what I want to do too! I'd prefer us to give children an equal chance to succeed rather than make up for this disparity with progressive taxes. It's just that creating equality of opportunity is difficult (or at least it seems that way) so I'm happy enough to go for a more progressive tax system in the meantime.

 

Progressive taxes don't help the poor at all they just hold back the successful, which in turn holds back investment and reduces opportunity.

[Finnegan]

OP is bang on. Nurture the best, no matter what your background. I don't see how anything other than a Conservative government could continue to drive this country forward.

 

Sounds like social mobility to me, Labour stylee.

[Guest MattP]

Sounds like social mobility to me, Labour stylee.

 

The background of the Labour frontbench is far more upper/middle class than the Tories these days.

 

There are no Michael Gove style adopted state school persons in Millionaire Ed's crew and not even the Bullingdon Club lot could hold a candle to to some of the Ladys and Countesses Harriet Harperson has as close family.

[The God Emperor]

 

Go on, give me a few examples of where you think that happens. Not really come across that idea before.

 

 

 

 

 

alot of people fall into the trap of thinking that if a policy is well intended then the results will be good, this is often not the case. one is the minimum wage, this denies most people who didnt achieve in school or dont have many practical skills or experience the chance to get on the first rung of the employment ladder because their labours do not justify the minimum wage for alot of employers. to employ them would be an act of charity, which isnt something alot of employers are in a position to do apart from big companies. Its alot easier to move up the ladder once your on that bottom rung, so the minimum wage contributes to reducing social mobility.

another is the current welfare state, for alot of people (especially those with children) with low skills and qualifications the only jobs they can get are less profitable for them than staying on benefits, which keeps them trapped. 

I'd be in favour of exchanging it for a negative income tax, as then it becomes profitable for people to work.

[Harry - LCFC]

Progressive taxes don't help the poor at all they just hold back the successful, which in turn holds back investment and reduces opportunity.

 

I really don't subscribe to this trickle down economics idea. I hate this worship of the very rich or "job creators" as if they're some kind of untouchable pillar of society. They're important but their comes a point when giving them more money doesn't do much good.

 

The wealthiest find ways of keeping their money at the top - outsourcing and mechanisation (e.g. scanners in supermarkets) allowing them to employ fewer and pay less, paying for private education and giving their children greater opportunity than the poor, or perhaps they'll just choose to save it rather than invest as they don't really need any more money.

 

The poor on the other will spend everything they've got, I'd have thought they'd provide a greater boost to the economy than giving it to those who won't spend it.

 

 

alot of people fall into the trap of thinking that if a policy is well intended then the results will be good, this is often not the case. one is the minimum wage, this denies most people who didnt achieve in school or dont have many practical skills or experience the chance to get on the first rung of the employment ladder because their labours do not justify the minimum wage for alot of employers. to employ them would be an act of charity, which isnt something alot of employers are in a position to do apart from big companies. Its alot easier to move up the ladder once your on that bottom rung, so the minimum wage contributes to reducing social mobility.

another is the current welfare state, for alot of people (especially those with children) with low skills and qualifications the only jobs they can get are less profitable for them than staying on benefits, which keeps them trapped. 

I'd be in favour of exchanging it for a negative income tax, as then it becomes profitable for people to work.

 

I've considered that too.

 

I support the principle of the minimum wage in that I want people at the bottom to be paid more but yes it can be a barrier to them too. This negative income tax sounds a reasonable way of achieving greater pay for the poor while allowing firms to pay what they view to be the market rate for labour. Might be an expensive policy though.

[MooseBreath]

I don't know how anyone can vote anything other than conservative after this last round of conferences.

Labour for me have dropped below the lib dems in terms of credibility and the lib dems are well below UKIP who themselves have barely an ounce of credibility.

Labour need poor people. That's all anyone should need to know. Sometimes to their credit they do bring good ideas to the table, but lately they seem well out of their depth and resorting to playing opposites. Ironically for all the anti-tory "u-turn" jokes, if you go back a couple of years to when labour were relentlessly criticising everything the conservatives did, you'll find that Labour now agree with the Tories on almost all of those issues. And the same thing is happening now. All they offer is constant criticism. Oh, and a freeze on gas prices. A little gift for the poor which will do absolutely nothing to help them in the medium term.

[The God Emperor]

I really don't subscribe to this trickle down economics idea. I hate this worship of the very rich or "job creators" as if they're some kind of untouchable pillar of society. They're important but their comes a point when giving them more money doesn't do much good.

 

The wealthiest find ways of keeping their money at the top - outsourcing and mechanisation (e.g. scanners in supermarkets) allowing them to employ fewer and pay less, paying for private education and giving their children greater opportunity than the poor, or perhaps they'll just choose to save it rather than invest as they don't really need any more money.

 

The poor on the other will spend everything they've got, I'd have thought they'd provide a greater boost to the economy than giving it to those who won't spend it.

 

the rich do spend and invest though. unless they hide their money under a mattress it is still moving around the economy. if they keep their money in a bank, then the bank is using it the give out loans so that others can start their own businesses. the rich are the job creators be it by running a successful business or having an extension on their house built etc. the trickle down is real, The patch I work in at work consists of all the council estates in Leicester, what I see in those homes is a fridge full of food and luxuries like TVs (sometimes better stuff than what I've got in my house!) this is due to wealthy capitalists, clever business people know that you make more money selling stuff cheap than over charging people so that less people can afford it.

 

 

I've considered that too.

 

I support the principle of the minimum wage in that I want people at the bottom to be paid more but yes it can be a barrier to them too. This negative income tax sounds a reasonable way of achieving greater pay for the poor while allowing firms to pay what they view to be the market rate for labour. Might be an expensive policy though.

 

I've read up a fair bit on the idea of the negative income tax and the estimate (which is just an estimate and I believe an optimistic one)  is that the policy would reduce the welfare budget by 80% due to the reduction in bureaucrats needed to organise the system. there would only need to be one department rather than having a specific on for child benefit, another for disability etc

less government is always good   

[Webbo]

I really don't subscribe to this trickle down economics idea. I hate this worship of the very rich or "job creators" as if they're some kind of untouchable pillar of society. They're important but their comes a point when giving them more money doesn't do much good.

 

The wealthiest find ways of keeping their money at the top - outsourcing and mechanisation (e.g. scanners in supermarkets) allowing them to employ fewer and pay less, paying for private education and giving their children greater opportunity than the poor, or perhaps they'll just choose to save it rather than invest as they don't really need any more money.

 

The poor on the other will spend everything they've got, I'd have thought they'd provide a greater boost to the economy than giving it to those who won't spend it.

 

 

But making the rich poorer doesn't make the poor richer so what's the point other than spite?You can't make a thriving economy by punishing success.

[leicsmac]

I don't know how anyone can vote anything other than conservative after this last round of conferences.

Labour for me have dropped below the lib dems in terms of credibility and the lib dems are well below UKIP who themselves have barely an ounce of credibility.

Labour need poor people. That's all anyone should need to know. Sometimes to their credit they do bring good ideas to the table, but lately they seem well out of their depth and resorting to playing opposites. Ironically for all the anti-tory "u-turn" jokes, if you go back a couple of years to when labour were relentlessly criticising everything the conservatives did, you'll find that Labour now agree with the Tories on almost all of those issues. And the same thing is happening now. All they offer is constant criticism. Oh, and a freeze on gas prices. A little gift for the poor which will do absolutely nothing to help them in the medium term.

 

Will Cameron pick up enough of the floating voters to come out with a majority, do you think?

 

I have always maintained it'll be a hung Parliament with no resolution with electoral reform to follow, and I stand by that.

 

As an aside, isn't it the job of the Opposition to criticise?

[leicsmac]

But making the rich poorer doesn't make the poor richer so what's the point other than spite?You can't make a thriving economy by punishing success.

 

Then how do we encourage more opportunity when the money is being concentrated at or near the top?

 

Agree with you saying punitive taxes probably don't work to make poor people richer, so what's the solution?

[Guest MattP]

Will Cameron pick up enough of the floating voters to come out with a majority, do you think?

 

I have always maintained it'll be a hung Parliament with no resolution with electoral reform to follow, and I stand by that.

 

As an aside, isn't it the job of the Opposition to criticise?

 

No chance, if Cameron can't get an OM when Gordon Brown is in he never will. I can see a lot of Hung parliaments and changes to governments every 5 years for a long time now.

 

We live in times where cuts and drops in living standards are going to be the norms and people don't have the patience of older generations.

[Harry - LCFC]

 

the rich do spend and invest though. unless they hide their money under a mattress it is still moving around the economy. if they keep their money in a bank, then the bank is using it the give out loans so that others can start their own businesses. the rich are the job creators be it by running a successful business or having an extension on their house built etc. the trickle down is real, The patch I work in at work consists of all the council estates in Leicester, what I see in those homes is a fridge full of food and luxuries like TVs (sometimes better stuff than what I've got in my house!) this is due to wealthy capitalists, clever business people know that you make more money selling stuff cheap than over charging people so that less people can afford it.

 

 

Not denying that the businessman isn't an important part of society, capitalism has indeed produced a great variety of consumer products for us to enjoy. I do however question if having the super rich become even wealthier really benefits society that much.

 

The poor spend a greater proportion of their income than the rich. Are they not the greater job creator as they create the demand for the products?

 

 

I've read up a fair bit on the idea of the negative income tax and the estimate (which is just an estimate and I believe an optimistic one)  is that the policy would reduce the welfare budget by 80% due to the reduction in bureaucrats needed to organise the system. there would only need to be one department rather than having a specific on for child benefit, another for disability etc

less government is always good    

 

Yeah that does seem rather optimistic, especially since half of welfare spending is on pensions. Still, would be interested to know more about it, might look into it later.

 

 

But making the rich poorer doesn't make the poor richer so what's the point other than spite?You can't make a thriving economy by punishing success.

 

Not sure I'm following you there. Taxing the rich and giving it to the poor through subsidised healthcare, state education etc. makes the poor richer does it not?

 

I don't see it as punishing success either, rewarding the work of those at the bottom is how I'd describe it.

[The God Emperor]

Then how do we encourage more opportunity when the money is being concentrated at or near the top?

 

Agree with you saying punitive taxes probably don't work to make poor people richer, so what's the solution?

A Free market is the best way to do this. money is concentrated at the top no matter what system, in the soviet union the politburo lived liked the bourbon kings of France while everyone else ate bread and turnips for dinner every night.

A free market gives everyone the best opportunity to try and achieve their goals, there is no guarantee that they will always succeed but equality of opportunity is more easily achieved and is generally better for society than artificially creating equality of outcome.

the poor becoming rich wont always happen over night, even in the other memory of the richest people in britain there is someone shoveling dirt for no pay, but a free market grants the best opportunity to improve quality of life over time.

like a wise man once said "a society that places equality over freedom will achieve neither equality or freedom. a society that places freedom above equality will achieve a great deal of both".

[The God Emperor]

Not denying that the businessman isn't an important part of society, capitalism has indeed produced a great variety of consumer products for us to enjoy. I do however question if having the super rich become even wealthier really benefits society that much.

The poor spend a greater proportion of their income than the rich. Are they not the greater job creator as they create the demand for the products?

 

they spend a greater portion of their income but they wont spend more in terms of actual spending. a healthy economy needs people lower down the ladder as well as those at the top, they both work together by going out to achieve their own personal goals, one could not function without the other. both parties create opportunities for the other. 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

No chance, if Cameron can't get an OM when Gordon Brown is in he never will. I can see a lot of Hung parliaments and changes to governments every 5 years for a long time now.

 

We live in times where cuts and drops in living standards are going to be the norms and people don't have the patience of older generations.

 

Agree with all of that apart from the cuts...hopefully they won't last forever.

 

As I said, one good thing that might come out of a really messy hung Parliament is electoral reform. Think people might get annoyed with FPTP after months of political deadlock/minority Government.

[The God Emperor]

Agree with all of that apart from the cuts...hopefully they won't last forever.

 

As I said, one good thing that might come out of a really messy hung Parliament is electoral reform. Think people might get annoyed with FPTP after months of political deadlock/minority Government.

cuts are going to have to happen if we want true economic recovery and not just a debt fueled bubble in time for an election.

the welfare state we have enjoyed for these past decades was never sustainable. its not been a case of taxing the rich to help the poor, it has been funded through a Ponzi scheme that will eventually collapse and future generations will suffer for people's good times before and now.   

[Webbo]

 

Not sure I'm following you there. Taxing the rich and giving it to the poor through subsidised healthcare, state education etc. makes the poor richer does it not?

 

Not done a great job so far.

 

 

 

 

I don't see it as punishing success either, rewarding the work of those at the bottom is how I'd describe it.

 

How is taking more money off people not punishing? And what are rewarding the people at the bottom for?

[lcfc81]

Some very interesting points in here,

I was thinking the other day (after reading a political blog on opinion polls) what people think about the nationalisation of energy? Like the nhs, education etc. it is (imo) something that had such a core effect on people's lives that it should be sheltered from the free market.

I must point out I am not as well informed on politics as some in this thread so be gentle with me.

[Captain...]

I'm hoping a well hung parliament will result in all elected politicians realising their job is to serve the people and not play political point scoring to the detriment of the country. I know I'm an idealist and a dreamer, but if we don't stop this opposition at all costs mentality we will end up like the states who have plunged themselves into financial meltdown because of political point scoring.

[Webbo]

Some very interesting points in here,

I was thinking the other day (after reading a political blog on opinion polls) what people think about the nationalisation of energy? Like the nhs, education etc. it is (imo) something that had such a core effect on people's lives that it should be sheltered from the free market.

I must point out I am not as well informed on politics as some in this thread so be gentle with me.

Some people seem to be rewriting history to claim that the pre-privatised industries were cheap, popular and well run . They weren't.

[purpleronnie]

I doubt most tories woulld be for nationalising anything, its the immediate reaction...nationalise?  oh no were tories we dont like it.  Probably the same can be said about labour voters and privatising anything.