Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th

[Dolph]

No you did not specifically mention that phase this time but it your usual stance repeated ad nauseam. The faux indignation is priceless given your history on this forum.

Given your history of being unable to create a valid argument and having to constantly resort to logical fallacies instead, your indignation is rather more amusing.

Care to engage with the actual argument and propose how you increase state income without a strong private sector economy?

 

[Tunney]

We haven't actually cut spending in the UK, we slowed the planned rate on increase, which is not the same thing.

My local primary school is having its budget cut by over £100,000 this year. That's a real terms cut.

 

[Rroff]

My local primary school is having its budget cut by over £100,000 this year. That's a real terms cut.

My old junior school had millions spent on rebranding it as an academy and now they've just dumped it - has less money to run with than before it was an academy but now supposed to be operating at a higher standard (I think likewise they are being cut 100,000 but not 100% on the figures can only go on the moaning on facebook).

 

[Slam62]

You get a strong economy from investing in it, especially in the public sector. Not cutting it.

Yep, trouble is they should have done this in 2010 rather than waste it all on housing benefit. Now we're too much in debt to pay for anything.

 

[Dolph]

My local primary school is having its budget cut by over £100,000 this year. That's a real terms cut.

Isn't that because, as a school in London, it was getting massively more per pupil than other schools, and that historic imbalance is now being fixed?

 

[do_ron_ron]

Given your history of being unable to create a valid argument and having to constantly resort to logical fallacies instead, your indignation is rather more amusing.

You obviously have not bothered to read some of my posts. Your history though has been a far right wing ideological stance and pathological hatred of anything owned by the State and any labour organisations such as the political party or unions.

[/quote]Care to engage with the actual argument and propose how you increase state income without a strong private sector economy?[/QUOTE]

Close the tax loopholes(Non doms, inter trust dealings etc, etc) and prosecute those people who have been identified by whistleblowers(as has been done by other countries but not the UK).
Stop fragmenting the NHS and thinking it should therefore be cheaper to run when all business sense tells the exact opposite. On this note in Scotland they have brought health and care closer together and seen a 9% reduction in bed blocking in areas.
Reform the charity laws so that they resemble what people think as charities as opposed to the vehicle for tax dodging and in the case of private schools to maintain a privileged elite.
Stop trying to pretend the UK is still a world power militarily and accept where they really are in the world and adjust defence spending accordingly.
Stop trying to maintain the illusion that you can continually cut taxes while still giving services which is the right wing agenda while actually decimating them.
Adjust the economy to a high value added economy rather than the sweatshop assembly one that both shades of Govt follow. It might actually use some of those surplus graduates we keep on producing.
Increase the minimum wage and enforce it. What we have is effectively a subsidy for companies. If a business cannot exist without paying proper wages then they do not have an effective business plan and should not be propped up(Thatcherite views on businesses not followed by present day Thatcherites)
Higher taxation on huge salaries to try to stop this ever accelerating wealth gap which if unchecked will lead to riots(what do the have nots got to lose)
Etc, etc, etc
There is more than the simple strong private sector argument. It involves how you collect tax and spend those receipts. The 'light touch' to tax policy has increased instability in this country.

 

[Dolph]

That's not what i've been doing at all, you miss the point = FAIL

This whole argument has been about the atos assessments and people dying from them. The fact that if you have a disability you are entitled to dla/pip regardless of income and the fact these assessments are extremely unfair and discrimitory against mental health issues. Also that it's run by a point scoring system and that atos have incentives to save money by rejecting claims but it's said that something like 60-80% of appeals for rejected claims are awarded.

Also the fact that atos were given the contract to save money but have in fact cost more than the previous system. And that the tory government have cut dla/pip.

Dolph with his out of touch views on society with little compassion.

Perhaps it's your English at fault then, because that absolutely is what you have been doing. If it was not your intention, then you need to be much clearer in your posts.

You are still presenting your case as one where people with disabilities are a homogenous group dependent on the government, and it isn't true. My wife doesn't want money from the state, she wants the state to take less of our earnings, and as such is not better off under labour.

Furthermore, you appear to fail to understand that the contract with atos originated with the labour government.

Having a disability doesn't define you, which is what you do when you say all disabled people must vote labour because the Tories hate them, it's nonsense. There is the potential for a whole thread around disability and so on, but the problem is people wanting to use the subject as a vehicle for their own agenda rather than actually looking at the matter objectively.

 

[Dolph]

You get a strong economy from investing in it, especially in the public sector. Not cutting it.

Investment is not the same as spending, as I have already mentioned.

The problem is, we have so much sacred cow spending that investing is harder.

 

[Mr Jack]

You get a strong economy from investing in it, especially in the public sector. Not cutting it.

Exactly.

The private sector thrives when you provide a strong public sector providing the infrastructure - education, roads, public transport, housing, etc. - that allow people to thrive and companies to do well. While a strong welfare sector supports entrepreneurialism. The idea that the public and the private are somehow opposed is nonsense; they're not.

 

[Caged]

My old junior school had millions spent on rebranding it as an academy and now they've just dumped it - has less money to run with than before it was an academy but now supposed to be operating at a higher standard (I think likewise they are being cut 100,000 but not 100% on the figures can only go on the moaning on facebook).

Follow the money - what academy trust pocketed all the cash for licensing their curriculum? This is the sort of stuff that local newspapers used to handle, but there's none of them left now.

 

[n111ck]

From the same source

No one has said the SNP wont win - its about torpedoing Sturgeons supposed 2nd ref mandate.

 

[Gabbatek]

Perhaps it's your English at fault then, because that absolutely is what you have been doing. If it was not your intention, then you need to be much clearer in your posts.

You are still presenting your case as one where people with disabilities are a homogenous group dependent on the government, and it isn't true. My wife doesn't want money from the state, she wants the state to take less of our earnings, and as such is not better off under labour.

Furthermore, you appear to fail to understand that the contract with atos originated with the labour government.

Having a disability doesn't define you, which is what you do when you say all disabled people must vote labour because the Tories hate them, it's nonsense. There is the potential for a whole thread around disability and so on, but the problem is people wanting to use the subject as a vehicle for their own agenda rather than actually looking at the matter objectively.

No i am not presenting my case like that, at one point i never gave the impression or said 'people with disabilities are a homogenous group dependent on the government' that is just you making assumptions and completely missing my point.

Yes labour started the contract but it was renewed with the tories. Also may i add that the labour government back then was tory-lite who were also corrupt, sucking upto the powerful with money and infuence just like the coalition and the conservatives have.

And this is why i like Jeremy Corbyn. He can't be bought, paid for or corrupted and this is why the media are extremely bias against him.

 

[datalol-jack]

I don't see 'Surrender Control' on any of the national or local Tory literature, so that whole argument with Dolph's OCD libertarianism, which nonetheless is cautious not to dump the rule of law and security - amongst other state-backed property and rights protections - is moot. May is many things, but she isn't Dolph.

Neither Gary Johnson in the US nor Dougie here are about to take power; Trump's an idiot, playing from whatever playbook resonates with his ratings; Iraq's a basket case (it was meant to be an ideal market with a very small state post invasion); both Russia and China are state-backed cartels; the WTO is clogged up and bogged down by history; trade blocs are hybrids of free trade and external buffers; the EU has democratic and political elements; Singapore has always had state intervention to compensate; etc. Few informed citizens crave yet another tax haven backed by hot air and shoddy regs. Lastly, the few remaining academic economists on that side of the fence, who've ignored everything from complex systems to advances in other sciences, have been losing the argument since before the crash; since some of their most ideal assumptions about a) the human condition, b) competition and c) redistribution through private means did not bear the expected fruit. And if you can't deliver the goods, you won't hold ideological dominance in perpetuity.

On schools, I'm more concerned than theoretical navel-gazing: if there's no money then by Jove, where on Earth are we digging up the pots for academisation AND new grammars? If we want to stratify education through redistribution towards the middle classes, more so than now, then where's the industry - or strategy for one - to support the rest? We cannot continue with our endemic low productivity levels. Just like we cannot avoid the future of increased automation, disparate modes of work and people living longer. Shredding comprehensive education by draining it of resources, staff and ability is not the answer.

 

[chroniclard]

Losing all our benefits and lucrative trade deals is probably not the greatest way to get a strong economy.

 

[Gabbatek]

Investment is not the same as spending, as I have already mentioned.

The problem is, we have so much sacred cow spending that investing is harder.

so lets vote for more austerity and fund the gap by nhs sell offs. Then we can scrap the triple lock and give the pensioners less.

 

[V F]

Losing all our benefits and lucrative trade deals is probably not the greatest way to get a strong economy.

Its unreal how decades pass and it shows nobody can run the country correctly.

 

[datalol-jack]

so lets vote for more austerity and fund the gap by nhs sell offs. Then we can scrap the triple lock and give the pensioners less.

Looking at what the forecast for inflation is, I wouldn't hold on to that triple lock too tightly. McD is playing a very short-term political game on it.

 

[Tunney]

Isn't that because, as a school in London, it was getting massively more per pupil than other schools, and that historic imbalance is now being fixed?

These cuts disproportionally target boroughs with high levels of deprivation - both inside and outside of London. Inner London boroughs have some of the highest levels of deprivation areas in the country. Add that to the general cost of doing business in London and isn't it sensible that these schools have larger budgets? No private organisation would budget the same for its London office as its Leeds office.

 

[Caged]

We cannot continue with our endemic low productivity levels. Just like we cannot avoid the future of increased automation, disparate modes of work and people living longer. Shredding comprehensive education by draining it of resources, staff and ability is not the answer.

We can dodge it long enough for the current crop of elected representatives to shuffle off into prestigious private sector positions, and the various parties get an opportunity to pour cash into the pockets of market research and advertising agencies to be able to deflect blame as effectively as possible. The notion of MPs caring more about themselves/the party over the people they were chosen to represent is probably the most blatant that I have ever noticed it being.

 

[Dolph]

These cuts disproportionally target boroughs with high levels of deprivation - both inside and outside of London. Inner London boroughs have some of the highest levels of deprivation areas in the country. Add that to the general cost of doing business in London and isn't it sensible that these schools have larger budgets? No private organisation would budget the same for its London office as its Leeds office.

The proposed new formula doesn't use the same budget per pupil regardless of area. It closes the gap from being several thousand pounds per pupil. I live in the south west remember, guess which end of the stick we had?