Discussion in 'Off Topic Chat' started by Liquid Gold, Apr 18, 2017.
there have been many studies linking improved education to reduction in crime as well.
What do you think of countries who encourage private education by offering parents tax breaks?
The free school meals programme will certainly miss people are worthy of receiving it, and I believe there should be a system of auto-registration as many people who are entitled to it don't apply.
The threshold I believe is £16,000, and clearly, anyone with a total household income that low with children would struggle massively; but then these people would also receive child tax credit. I have 3 children, and if my total income was say £17,000, I'd receive about £800 every month from the government in tax credits. No such system that redistributes wealth in this way exists in any other major developed economy that I am aware of. Yes, this was a labour policy which I completely agree with and which was a very progressive measure. I remember a few years ago I had some tough times, and back then was receiving £1000 a month on top of my salary and I massively relied on it.
There is already a mechanism to assist those in work who perhaps fall outside of thresholds of things like FSM is the point. And I go back to the point I have made a number of times - this is not the removal of a long-standing entitlement - it didn't exist a few years ago and there is a case for saying that this money might be better spent within the system.
To be honest I have no opinion as I don't work in the private education sector. Those that choose to use it fair play to them if they have the capacity to do so.
Reality is that the 'many' do not, and I seriously doubt that the government is ever going to give enough of a tax break for parents to be even able to consider this as an option. If you improve the quality of provisions in the state sector by investing in it properly then you can go a long way to reducing spend in other areas later on in life.
The delivery of this mechanism is poor at best if this is the case, and it's certainly not quick enough in terms of supporting the people that need it when they do. I will say the models for Primary and Secondary school in this area probably need to be different, and perhaps importantly relatively to the social demographic in each individual school or authority.
Well, good for you on that. I mean it.
At my uni there wasn't really political societies so present, it was more the lecturers themselves. The faculty was run by about 3 or 4 women, 2 of which were hardcore uber-feminists. You know, the political lesbians... They spent lecture upon lecture bashing men, even when it wasn't relevant to anything whatsoever. They organised slut walks, signed up loads of students to join in and it was a really quite hostile environment to be in at times.
I'm not the kind of person that can stay quiet when a lecturer tells the whole room that every male in the room deep down 'wants to rape'. Then of course when I did respond and provoke debate I got hounded and shouted down. The very tactic the left seems to have dirtied itself with.
In actual fact, the best lecturer I had was a Muslim chap from Birmingham who was a fantastic teacher and had even written books on honour killings and such. He knew I was from Coventry and we had constant banter about it and what a shit whole it is.
It's not unspeakable, there are just questions over the merits. If raising tax were to result in the extra revenues claimed then fine, but these calculations are largely based on fag packet calculations. It's grossly simplistic to say that raising tax will result in a guaranteed and defined amount of money for the treasury. The last time the top rate of tax was reduced (along with tax cuts for the less well off), tax revenues went up.
It is a balancing act. Many economists will say that a 5p increase in income tax on top earners will make little difference, in which case you question what the point is, especially if there is a risk it might impact on investment and jobs. The danger is that it all becomes an ideological battle (from both sides). The last time we had a high tax economy it bombed. How did that benefit the less well off?
I repeat, top earners are contributing a bigger proportion of the tax take than ever. I have no particular objection to a 50% top rate of tax, but it has to be based on sound economics rather than be ideological and punitive in motive.
Where I do disagree is corporation tax. I firmly believe that low corporation tax is a good thing because it encourages investment. I recently took a delegation of Chinese investors to a meeting in parliament. They're talking major investment and one of the things that was mentioned repeatedly is just how business friendly they see the UK in comparison to other developed economies. A good thing no?
I did science, there wasn't much scope for digressions into the inner desires of men, unless we were learning how to make Viagra. My other half studied arts, and left with similar political views to the ones she entered with.
If my views are a bit more to 'the left', it is more to do with where I was based rather than what lecturers had to say. Though I will say, I was taught to think critically and claims I made in lab reports and PhD work would have to be substantiated within an inch of their life.
This is why the vacuous claims about 'taking back control', 'strong and stable leadership' and 'a society for everyone' are ones I don't accept. I'm not a Labour partisan, but I see that if I want a progressive agenda implemented then I don't have much realistic choice of who to vote for.
In Question Time last night, there was heavy criticism of the Tory manifesto by the audience and praise of the Labour MP on the panel. Then the dialogue switched to Corbyn and 'he's a nice man but not a leader'. So the audience seemed inclined to vote for Mrs May because she will definitely implement policies they don't like. It shows you how much power you have if you control the media narrative.
Not sure it has much to do with the media narrative, more a case of that people are not a stupid as we sometimes believe.
It is perfectly reasonable that people will question Corbyn's credentials to be the leader of the world's 5th largest economy, member of the G8 and permanent member of the UN Security Council. How statesmanlike is he? Or Thornberry for that matter? How will he be received in foreign capitals? Corbyn is instinctively protectionist on trade, how will that play out when negotiating trade deals post Brexit? All legitimate questions.
On domestic policy, things like rail nationalisation are quite romantic and nostalgic and will play well to the crowd, but they are also pretty much undeliverable. Rail nationalisation would be hugely costsly and a twenty year project, he might only be around for five.
Taxing the rich? That's always a rabble-rouser, but I think people are starting to see through these populist pipe-dreams and empty promises. Empty promises come from all sides before all elections of course, but Corbyn's is the type of populist rhetoric that people are starting to be turned off by.
Bitching about the media doesn't really wash. The written press is what it is, the bias there is well established but the influence is declining anyway. I have to say though, some of the BBC coverage has been questionable - not that anyone really questions it. Their left-leaning inclinations are pretty much accepted for what they are.
Are you suggesting the BBC is biased towards the left?
I listened to QT on the radio last night and got the impression the left wing supporters were extremely enthusiastic and vocal and supporters of other views very much quieter if you did not know better you'd think the country was full on behind Jeremy. I thought the audience was supposed to be balanced, however that balance relies on a truthful response when applying to attend.
I think your last point sums up the election. Corbyn is so unpopular, even the the Tories seemingly trying to do their best to throw the election won't be enough for them actually to lose it.
As I said before, I have never been so disillusioned with politics in my life.
that fact that that train of thought is so prevalent shows just how much we've lurched to the right as a society.
There's no suggestion about it.
it's so well balanced there was a conservative Councillor plant in the audience the other week when the show was in Scotland.
There's no suggestion about it.
With respect you're talking rubbish.
Well, both your responses were quite expected.
The BBC has become left wing, not by much, but it is. Certainly in current affairs.
It is still the most balanced media source out there, but it isn't in the middle anymore.
Its anti-brexit drive was a slip of the mask.
Laura Kuenssberg, left wing crusader.
They were behind the policies but against the man, which is what national polling consistently shows.
I'd just classify her as 'c**t'.
She's become a parody of herself. How someone so biased is allowed on a station that is supposed to be impartial is beyond me. Should just go and work at the Mail.
you're confusing left wing with something that isn't as right wing as fox or sky, the two things aren't the same.
Good to see even in this thread there are people on both sides of the political divide that are convinced the bbc is biased against both of them.
I dislike the beeb; I think it's ludacrus that in this day and age we're taxed to fund it but that's not because it's biased. If anything I probably find it boring because it tries too hard to be apolitical. It can't be biased against both left and right.
Equally as ridiculous because a lot of people couldn't tell you why they don't like him.
Our country's future has descended into a X Factor vote.
This isn't a presidential election, but Mrs Beige can do no wrong in the eyes of the press. She could pledge to set everyone's house on fire and she would be praised for taking a tough stance on housing.
They don't like him because he's incompetent and a weak leader. He has zero cabinet experience and is surrounded by equally weak and ridiculous people and one extremely dangerous one.
Why is NS awful?
Stop stealing my line!
This notion that the press ultimately can influence minds that you clearly believe are inferior to yours is nonsense.
The thatcher biographer summed the whole thing up. In the end people vote for leaders and so yes they look at the individual above policy all the time as policies generally are not extremely radical.
The one thing that audience couldn't deny is that Corbyn is not up to the job. Press do not influence that. People see it and they judge him on his performance.
His front bench is a disaster area. Again this isn't a media conspiracy. Thornberry sneered at the working classes, Abbott is a fool and the press have been pretty light about laying into McDonnell and his past - he has more skeletons than the average cemetery.
Even in the early 90's when labour has a very big push from the media the public looked at Kinnock and just thought he was not suitable.
It's laughable that anyone could ever believe Corbyn is a capable leader. He can't control his party, he is indecisive over many issues, he appoints unsuitable shadow ministers. To lazily say this is a media conspiracy is just nonsense.
Corbyn isn't up to the job and the public know it.
With respect that's bollocks. BBC is majorly left wing to me. The fact you completely disagree with me and I completely disagree with you shows how the times are.
Oh and by the way the fact we have to pay a tv license in this day and age of a million different channels is a legalized crime. 150 a year for what and we don't er an option? I would quite happily not pay it ever again and BBC go down the pan. I hate the BBC personally. Move eastenders to itv though
statement of fact.
True, they do vote for the best perceived leader but in this election just like the previous two they will also remember the total shambles that the country was left in after 14 years of Labour incompetence. To many the last seven years of Conservative rule have been a breath of fresh air by comparison. They've steadied the ship and grown the economy through business-friendly initiatives. As a business owner I dread the prospect of a return to the dark days of Labour rule where enterprise is stifled and success is penalised to support a bloated welfare state.
And you're right, never in the history of British politics has there been such an abysmal collection of opposition front-benchers. They're an embarrassment and they're unelectable.
The BBC Trust found them guilty of deliberately misleading Corbyn's views on shoot-to-kill. Point me to where that has happened for a Tory politician and I will gladly take it back.
I never said they were inferior. What I have said many times though is that most of the general public aren't political junkies and don't have the time to sift through the finer details of policy substance. The narrative seen in the media has a big part to play in forming your impression of people you otherwise don't know all that well. So when we see hit pieces all over the place aimed at Jeremy Corbyn, and we see Theresa May mindlessly repeating her 'strong and stable' catchphrase, it can be little wonder that the poll numbers reflect it. The picture is mirrored in the US as well, where the polls show that most Americans want progressive policies but keep voting Republican. Critically, they identify as 'conservatives' when polling of their attitudes shows the opposite. Narrative is everything. The Tories can put forward nearly the same policies as Labour and get much better press coverage for doing so.
Yes there are some clowns in the shadow cabinet. There are equally clowns in the Tory cabinet as well, just watch Phillip Hammond's interviews and his U-turn on tax hikes for the self employed and tell me he is a man who knows what he's doing. On sneering at the working classes, did you watch that clip of David Cameron?
Policy substance should matter more. The Tory manifesto includes commitments to increase military spending 0.5% above inflation, and to building 100 new free schools and ending the ban on grammars. Why is it that the affordability of these measures is never called into question? Why is it that measures which will widen and entrench inequality are hailed as being on the side of the average Joe? Narrative.
It was business-friendly initiatives like a deregulated finance sector which was responsible for the worst global recession in living memory. Quite what the Labour party were supposed to do about it I don't know.
Separate names with a comma.