All things Labour Party

So how do you explain almost all the financial savings introduced by this government in the name of austerity seemingly being targeted at those with the least whilst, on the fact of it, those with the most appear to be getting tax breaks?

That's a matter of perception. The tax breaks to which you refer are very limited and have the result of increasing the overall tax taken.

Britain has 1% of the world's population and pays 7% of the world's benefits, or so I hear. Surely that should be more than enough for you?

Should that happen then your point will be proven..... All conjecture (even if based on reason) for now though.

If you say so. If you doubt me though I suggest talking to the people involved with this stuff.

If you say so. If you doubt me though I suggest talking to the people involved with this stuff.

I don't doubt you and I swing in varied circles, I know people in the industry. It's simply a question now of whether the government will let this policy fail or not.

Oh, I've read what you've posted....sweetheart.

 

But as Aintforver says, I find that greed is essentially at the heart of all right-wing thinking and policy so I just find it completely abhorrent and the fact they try to hide this truth with nonsense, out of of touch thinking, damning people before they even get a chance (like the title of this thread) and just general insults makes it a bit well, just 1980's

Why do you keep lecturing me about right wing thinking, then?

Out of interest, what pay protection is there going to be for under 25s?

The minimum wage will still be in effect however the cuts to benefits and for young people will dramatically reduce the 'real world' value of this minimum wage.

There seems to be a random assertion that people aged 18-24 can somehow pay less for food, bills, housing, etc etc..!

Not to mention the apprentice system, or London living for tens of thousands of people. And so on...

...hey, it's complicated, which is why I called out GM for just shouting out the headline figures. In essence a legal baseline to a living wage is good, but it, unfortunately, comes at a cost in other areas - GM is clearly aware of this (I believe him to be an intelligent individual, based on his posts over the years), but chooses to ignore it to support his own view point on this occasion.

A minor lesson in practical economics. If the minimum wage was raised to £9 for 21-24 year olds, youth unemployment would rocket. Still, when you're on Planet Corbyn where economics is based on beliefs, not financial reality, then you'd put up with high youth unemployment. Socialism always thrives on discontent and an opposition Labour party and their whore masters, Unite, would love that.

When stating that you are about to give a 'lesson', it always helps to follow it up with some content! (As opposed to the repetition of an indoctrinated ideology devoid of substantiation).

What you have done is state an opinion, alas lessons don't work that way my friend...

...But then you are clearly not a teacher or else you you wouldn't be so anti-union, so I'll forgive you!

When stating that you are about to give a 'lesson', it always helps to follow it up with some content! (As opposed to the repetition of an indoctrinated ideology devoid of substantiation).

God knows why you think that lessons are only learnt by either indoctrination or reading is beyond me. What a strange thought. Experience is a wonderful thing and what new technological discoveries are based on.

My lesson was based on 30 years of running a business and I can tell you that any business, when faced with paying £18,000 a year for a 21 year old or the same for a 25 year old, all things being equal, would chose the 25 year old, all day long, leaving the 21 year old out of work. 25 year olds are more likely to need the minimum wage, as well, given the drop in teenage pregnancies the benefit cap will cause.

 

God knows why you think that lessons are only learnt by either indoctrination or reading is beyond me. What a strange thought. Experience is a wonderful thing and what new technological discoveries are based on.

Cool, thank you for expanding.

One would question if it does not work the other way also? Many companies (perhaps not relevant to yours, where £18k suggests a higher skill level) would rather pay 6.20 an hour for staff (perhaps also on zero hours contracts) and then let them go the moment they are faced with paying more. It might not pertain to your business but it is likely to affect many tens of thousands in their mid twenties. However I fully accept your point and agree with it.

Shame you went all weird with the teenage pregnancy bit at the end!

Also, please reread what I wrote! I certainty do NOT think that is how lessons are learnt or taught. I am sorry if I was unclear - I was probably a bit fancy with my terminology but I was actually having a naughty dig at your failure to give a lesson after saying that's what you were about to do!

To clarify; you announced you were going to give a lesson and then stated a belief - admittedly I rather cheekily implied that belief was indoctrinated, rather than learnt through hard graft over thirty years; my bad, I won't do it again.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

Tony Blair’s was arguably to the left of where Ed Miliband was, as follows:

 

1. Blair didn’t want to cut benefits for unemployed young people.

2. Blair supported a higher rate of tax on corporate profits than Miliband.

3. Blair supported renationalising the railways while in opposition.

4. Blair was more positive about immigration.

5. Blair imposed a windfall tax on privatised energy companies.

6. Blair pledged to scrap the market system imposed on the NHS.

7. Blair wanted regional government to be democratically elected.

8. Blair advocated lower university tuition fees than Miliband.

9. Blair flirted with putting ordinary workers into company boardrooms.

10. Blair didn’t support a freeze on public sector pay.

11. Blair left Labour with a stronger link to the trade unions.

 

Oh, and I forgot to add, he was an even greater hypocritical, champagne swigging, expenses addicted, wealthy, ex-public schoolboy than Milliband, who, like all Marxist ideologues will also be grabbing money as soon as he can. Neither of them can compare to the ultimate leftie of the Labour party, that old ginger windbag, Kinnock, who, with his wife have hoovered up more public money than any other failed politician I can remember and trained his son in the same caper.

 

At least Tories aren't dishonest about wanting to accumulate money. It's just that they generally do it by building something of value, like a business that employs people, not sponging off the taxpayer...and don't get me started on that ex-waiter and now Lord John Prescott or the awful John Bercow. Slime bags and apparently not ashamed of it...

 

Socialism in action? They are mugging you all off, as is the case in Scotland. Still the morons that vote these sh !ts in will get the MP's they deserve. The rest of us just lucky they are not allowed to spend our money any more...

See you keep on using Tony Blair as an example of socialism....You really are not getting it are you? The points you make might be good if he actually followed through with any of them in government.

In which case, can I use Stalin as an example of conservatism? because what you've just written up there is frankly ******** and it's because of Tony Blair that this whole thread is up so please stop using him as an example of the left because he really wasn't.

See you keep on using Tony Blair as an example of socialism....You really are not getting it are you? The points you make might be good if he actually followed through with any of them in government.

 

In which case, can I use Stalin as an example of conservatism? because what you've just written up there is frankly ******** and it's because of Tony Blair that this whole thread is up so please stop using him as an example of the left because he really wasn't.

I would write a response, but in a battle of wits, I hate to fight an unarmed opponent. Stalin an example of conservatism? Priceless....

I would write a response, but in a battle of wits, I hate to fight an unarmed opponent. Stalin an example of conservatism? Priceless....

Blair an example of socialism.....also priceless.

(by the way, in case you didn't get it, Stalin was used as an example to show how bleedin stupid the example above was....however, even whilst parading as a communist, he was probably more a right-wing totalitarian mentalist).

Blair an example of socialism.....also priceless.

Yeah, he was, like, such a fatcherite and stuff.

He won't win, Lord T - don't trouble your ukippy little head with that thought.

So in just one sentence, Verbal D, you render the entire thread pointless, because the demise of the Labour Party is connected to the possibility of Jeremy Corbyn being elected leader, is it not? It is a shame that you didn't just post "It isn't going to happen" after every other post.

And by the way, although I did consider voting UKIP as I did in the European Parliamentary elections, I voted Conservative in the General Election as I always do. Just because I support us leaving the EU and would like to see tougher controls over immigration, does not make me a UKIPer.

Blair an example of socialism.....also priceless.

Just for my own enjoyment, I hope you don't mind if I copy your gem. I have never posted a turd yet, so I just want to know what it feels like.

Here we go. Straining. Ooooh, push hard. Gasp. Go on, GM

If Tony Blair is an example of a Socialist politician, then Stalin is an example of a Conservative politician.

That is quite possibly the biggest turd of a post I have ever seen. Well done Hockey_saint! Please don't stop providing inspiration, because you're well on your way to becoming a forum legend.

Hopefully a mod will flush this down the forum toilet, because it smells just reading it....

All policies I agree with, yet if Labour had done that Tory nobheads like you would be crying like a bunch of babies saying it's not funded.

 

"I have to pay some tax" wahhhh wahhhh wahhhh

Stalin was used as an example to show how bleedin stupid the example above was....however, even whilst parading as a communist, he was probably more a right-wing totalitarian mentalist).

More comedy gold. I guess what you are saying is that Stalin declared war on Hitler, in which over 20 million Soviets were killed, because they were both "right-wing totalitarian mentalists". Waits for Hockey_saint to reply with a post stating that Hitler, whilst parading as a right-wing totalitarian mentalist was probably more of a communist).

More comedy gold. I guess what you are saying is that Stalin declared war on Hitler, in which over 20 million Soviets were killed, because they were both "right-wing totalitarian mentalists". Waits for Hockey_saint to reply with a post stating that Hitler, whilst parading as a right-wing totalitarian mentalist was probably more of a communist).

You don't know much about history do you? Do some reading. Whilst it is convenient to say that Stalin was a communist, in truth nothing could be further from the truth. Like most mentalist, despotic leaders parading as communist, what they really are is insane, cult-leader right wing nutjobs.

But do carry on because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about GM.

It got votes because it's damned useful. A policy that rewards those who want to work and help themselves. If it requires a subsidy to the childcare system to make it work, fine. About time something useful was given a leg-up.

I couldn't disagree more . What's a free market party doing interfering with the free market . Child care costs won't come down whilst government is subsidising them , so they keep going up attracting more and more tax payer money . What's the incentive for a nursery to be competitive ? Nothing . Smaller government would mean less tax , the market would bring down child care costs rather than artificially keeping them high . It's not up to the government to look after people's brats until they go to school .

not all torys are nob heads..there are alot who realise there is a thing has society . gm just spouts some bo llocks like class war is like a snob sounds , reminds me of a throwback from the 1970s language.

Not all Conservatives heads..there Nob many who know what society . General Motors has just spray a few waves as a class struggle sound like a snob , let me think of a return to the language of the 1970s

Slightly better but still makes no sense. Like they say, you need a license to own a dog, but anyone can have internet access.

You don't know much about history do you? Do some reading. Whilst it is convenient to say that Stalin was a communist, in truth nothing could be further from the truth. Like most mentalist, despotic leaders parading as communist, what they really are is insane, cult-leader right wing nutjobs.

 

But do carry on because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about GM.

I think we can all see who the person who "doesn't know much about history" is here.

As I hinted at before, you're a decent attempt at a troll character on here but it's all a bit over-done. Stop trying so hard.

I couldn't disagree more . What's a free market party doing interfering with the free market . Child care costs won't come down whilst government is subsidising them , so they keep going up attracting more and more tax payer money . What's the incentive for a nursery to be competitive ? Nothing . Smaller government would mean less tax , the market would bring down child care costs rather than artificially keeping them high . It's not up to the government to look after people's brats until they go to school .

Childcare costs won't come down regardless. Anyone is the business, Hypo for one, can explain why.

You clearly also fail to understand why the government want to subsidise childcare.

Just used Google translate to convert this into Chinese then back into English. This is what I got:

Not all Conservatives heads..there Nob many who know what society . General Motors has just spray a few waves as a class struggle sound like a snob , let me think of a return to the language of the 1970s

Slightly better but still makes no sense. Like they say, you need a license to own a dog, but anyone can have internet access.

Dog licences were abolished in 1987. I suspect from your spelling of licence that you are referring to an American source.

Apart from that, keep up the good work

You don't know much about history do you? Do some reading. Whilst it is convenient to say that Stalin was a communist, in truth nothing could be further from the truth. Like most mentalist, despotic leaders parading as communist, what they really are is insane, cult-leader right wing nutjobs.

 

But do carry on because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about GM.

Funnily enough that's how I view Gordon Brown

Childcare costs won't come down regardless. Anyone is the business, Hypo for one, can explain why.

 

You clearly also fail to understand why the government want to subsidise childcare.

It wants to subsidise child care because it thinks it needs to run our lives . It tries to drive behaviours it approves of. . On the whole the unintended consequences of government interference ****s things up . I personally don't believe government should subsidise child care and I have 4 kids myself . It seems very strange that this so called Tory government tell the poor that they need to consider the financial implications of having more children , and try and re-enforce that message by limiting their welfare to the first 2 , but then subsidise child care. Surely the two are inconsistent . I respect your views but mine is that if the government got the hell out of our lives , things would be cheaper including child care .

You don't know much about history do you? Do some reading. Whilst it is convenient to say that Stalin was a communist, in truth nothing could be further from the truth. Like most mentalist, despotic leaders parading as communist, what they really are is insane, cult-leader right wing nutjobs.

 

But do carry on because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about GM.

Do some reading yourself on why the left love to label the likes of Hitler and Stalin as right-wing, when they were from the left-wing.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100260720/whenever-you-mention-fascisms-socialist-roots-left-wingers-become-incandescent-why/

GM clearly has much more of an idea than you do.

Childcare costs won't come down regardless. Anyone is the business, Hypo for one, can explain why.

 

You clearly also fail to understand why the government want to subsidise childcare.

Is it so that they can get more women (sorry, female economic work units) into tax-generating positions? I remember Harriet Harman saying that women who stayed at home to look after the kids and didn't go out to work were 'a problem'.

More comedy gold. I guess what you are saying is that Stalin declared war on Hitler, in which over 20 million Soviets were killed, because they were both "right-wing totalitarian mentalists". Waits for Hockey_saint to reply with a post stating that Hitler, whilst parading as a right-wing totalitarian mentalist was probably more of a communist).

Just to clarify an historical point - Germany declared war on Russia, when Operation Barbarossa was launched. Whether Russia formally declared war reciprocally is open to question.

Is it so that they can get more women (sorry, female economic work units) into tax-generating positions? I remember Harriet Harman saying that women who stayed at home to look after the kids and didn't go out to work were 'a problem'.

We subsidise their child care so they can go to work, pay tax and that tax can be used to subsidise child card .

We subsidise their child care so they can go to work, pay tax and that tax can be used to subsidise child card .

Many, many women, probably as many women as men, go out to work in order to contribute to the nation's wealth and well-being and to suggest that women only go to work to pay tax is disingenuous to say the least. Many (mainly women) simply can't afford to go out to work at the moment because of the high cost of childcare.

Do you go to work solely to pay tax?

Do you go to work solely to pay tax?

It sometimes seems that way.

I couldn't disagree more . What's a free market party doing interfering with the free market . Child care costs won't come down whilst government is subsidising them , so they keep going up attracting more and more tax payer money . What's the incentive for a nursery to be competitive ? Nothing . Smaller government would mean less tax , the market would bring down child care costs rather than artificially keeping them high . It's not up to the government to look after people's brats until they go to school .

In a word, spillovers. The bread and butter of all policy justifications in this country. The benefits of childcare/nursery education not only benefit any given family but the wider community and economy. For example, children who attend an early education program may be better prepared for primary school. This may affect the speed of classroom learning and improve teachers motivation, so that the rest of the class benefits. If you're a parent deciding whether and how much to invest in childcare/nursery education, you are unlikely to factor in these other benefits, creating a wedge between what's good for you individually and what's socially optimal. Government intervention makes good that difference. This is not a matter of left or right but but sound, pragmatic policy. HTH

 

Do you go to work solely to pay tax?

No , I go to get away from the snap dragon and her nagging .

We subsidise their child care so they can go to work, pay tax and that tax can be used to subsidise child card .

That's right. The sum total of the national economic benefit of subsidised childcare is that it will cover the cost of subsidised childcare. Not a penny more.

This thinking is nearly as feeble as your EUSSR routine. Keep it up.

That's right. The sum total of the national economic benefit of subsidised childcare is that it will cover the cost of subsidised childcare. Not a penny more.

 

This thinking is nearly as feeble as your EUSSR routine. Keep it up.

...

That's right. The sum total of the national economic benefit of subsidised childcare is that it will cover the cost of subsidised childcare. Not a penny more.

 

This thinking is nearly as feeble as your EUSSR routine. Keep it up.

Lol

And your evidence for this sweeping statement is?......

Lol lol

It wants to subsidise child care because it thinks it needs to run our lives . It tries to drive behaviours it approves of. . On the whole the unintended consequences of government interference ****s things up . I personally don't believe government should subsidise child care and I have 4 kids myself . It seems very strange that this so called Tory government tell the poor that they need to consider the financial implications of having more children , and try and re-enforce that message by limiting their welfare to the first 2 , but then subsidise child care. Surely the two are inconsistent . I respect your views but mine is that if the government got the hell out of our lives , things would be cheaper including child care .

No, it wouldn't, for a myriad of reasons.

Is it so that they can get more women (sorry, female economic work units) into tax-generating positions? I remember Harriet Harman saying that women who stayed at home to look after the kids and didn't go out to work were 'a problem'.

Partly. It's also to do with child development. I don't necessarily agree with it but I can see the why's and the wherefore's.

No, it wouldn't, for a myriad of reasons.

I think that potentially the costs for childcare may be slightly lower but what it would mean is that the children who need childcare most would be denied it. Funded two year olds are funded for a reason and it does make a genuine difference to their lives.

Partly. It's also to do with child development. I don't necessarily agree with it but I can see the why's and the wherefore's.

The thinking is that the earlier they can get children into a school environment the better. It's flawed thinking but that's the logic from the government.

I think that potentially the costs for childcare may be slightly lower but what it would mean is that the children who need childcare most would be denied it. Funded two year olds are funded for a reason and it does make a genuine difference to their lives.

And there in lies the nub. Save a few quid on childcare for the few or help those who need it. I'm no tory but even I think it's a sound policy for both economic, social and educational reasons.

The thinking is that the earlier they can get children into a school environment the better. It's flawed thinking but that's the logic from the government.

It should be geared towards learning through play but I know, as you do, that's not really how it's going to develop. That said, for a large number of kids, it will give them a learning environment that they will lack as home.

Funded two year olds are funded for a reason and it does make a genuine difference to their lives.

I presume you mean that vunerable 2 year olds with half bakes as parent or parents have their lives enhanced by the environment . Would you say that normal , everyday kids need this at 2 . Personally I kept all my 4 at home till they started school . Two are at grammar school and the older 2 have decent jobs . It obviously helped that they had siblings , but staying at home did them no harm . IF , and it's obviously a big if , everybody was " normal" would it make that much difference ?

I presume you mean that vunerable 2 year olds with half bakes as parent or parents have their lives enhanced by the environment . Would you say that normal , everyday kids need this at 2 . Personally I kept all my 4 at home till they started school . Two are at grammar school and the older 2 have decent jobs . It obviously helped that they had siblings , but staying at home did them no harm . IF , and it's obviously a big if , everybody was " normal" would it make that much difference ?

I would say that it's an individual choice for each parent. In my professional experience a couple of sessions at a preschool a week combined with proper parenting the rest of the time can have noticeable benefits to a child. Most notably, they are given more freedom and independence at nursery and the opportunity to socialise with children from a variety of social backgrounds. I don't agree with parents who use it for their own benefit where they send them there five days a week so they can go shopping but I do realise that everyone is different.

It should be geared towards learning through play but I know, as you do, that's not really how it's going to develop. That said, for a large number of kids, it will give them a learning environment that they will lack as home.

That's very true but in reality everyone who has ever worked in a nursery knows that this is the best way and will continue to do this whilst covering themselves for ofsted with the teaching side of things. Love, laughter and play trump "teaching" every day if the week

I presume you mean that vunerable 2 year olds with half bakes as parent or parents have their lives enhanced by the environment . Would you say that normal , everyday kids need this at 2 . Personally I kept all my 4 at home till they started school . Two are at grammar school and the older 2 have decent jobs . It obviously helped that they had siblings , but staying at home did them no harm . IF , and it's obviously a big if , everybody was " normal" would it make that much difference ?

Even if what you say were true, what would you propose we do instead, bearing in mind that all those parents aren't suddenly going to become competent overnight?

I presume you mean that vunerable 2 year olds with half bakes as parent or parents have their lives enhanced by the environment . Would you say that normal , everyday kids need this at 2 . Personally I kept all my 4 at home till they started school . Two are at grammar school and the older 2 have decent jobs . It obviously helped that they had siblings , but staying at home did them no harm . IF , and it's obviously a big if , everybody was " normal" would it make that much difference ?

Most children will have their lives enhanced by a nursery environment. The vulnerable ones don't just come from 'half-baked' parents - cases of physical, mental and sexual abuse are just as likely in your comfortable, two parent Kellogg's families you know, and nurseries are good at spotting this.

My grandchildren have all benefited enormously from going to nursery school. They have (and two still are) learning valuable social skills and the transition into infant school has been seamless. Dragging my poor SiL into it again, he will tell of 5 year olds unable to wipe their backsides or to use cutlery. Dealing with this takes up valuable teaching time. He will tell you he can always tell which children have had the benefit of nursery education.

Most children will have their lives enhanced by a nursery environment. The vulnerable ones don't just come from 'half-baked' parents - cases of physical, mental and sexual abuse are just as likely in your comfortable, two parent Kellogg's families you know, and nurseries are good at spotting this.

 

My grandchildren have all benefited enormously from going to nursery school. They have (and two still are) learning valuable social skills and the transition into infant school has been seamless. Dragging my poor SiL into it again, he will tell of 5 year olds unable to wipe their backsides or to use cutlery. Dealing with this takes up valuable teaching time. He will tell you he can always tell which children have had the benefit of nursery education.

Agree with all of this! Nurseries are so much more than just changing nappies and playing nowadays. All of our practitioners have to be working towards their level three childcare qualification and the majority already have it. We have an early years teacher in each setting and this undoubtedly has an impact on what we can offer.

I think we can all see who the person who "doesn't know much about history" is here.

 

As I hinted at before, you're a decent attempt at a troll character on here but it's all a bit over-done. Stop trying so hard.

Whatever. I'm not trying anything, I've just never encountered such a backward bunch of oddballs.

Did Stalin live as a member of the public or did he live a lavish lifestyle, whilst making sure that the tiers of government were firmly under his dictatorship?

I would say that it's an individual choice for each parent. In my professional experience a couple of sessions at a preschool a week combined with proper parenting the rest of the time can have noticeable benefits to a child. Most notably, they are given more freedom and independence at nursery and the opportunity to socialise with children from a variety of social backgrounds. I don't agree with parents who use it for their own benefit where they send them there five days a week so they can go shopping but I do realise that everyone is different.

A very sensible view. I believe that the developing bond between a mother and child are vitally important but there is also a benefit from a morning of two mixing with other children under a properly structured learning environment. The problems arise when the child is just dumped in the corner and left to itself, whether that be at home or in a crèche.

A very sensible view. I believe that the developing bond between a mother and child are vitally important but there is also a benefit from a morning of two mixing with other children under a properly structured learning environment. The problems arise when the child is just dumped in the corner and left to itself, whether that be at home or in a crèche.

Whitey the type of dumping in a corner at a crèche doesn't really exist anymore. The vast majority of childcare is now rated good or outstanding and the standards have improved a lot over the last decade. Of course the inspections by tribal are wildly inaccurate but I've been to enough nurseries around the country to know that things are getting better all the time.