I cannot understand just how those preaching against austerity think the country's going to run if they were to have their way. We cannot go on piling up yet more debt without incurring yet more interest payments - money that might otherwise be used for the NHS, schools or what have you.
Nicola Sturgeon is still in full cry but I seriously doubt that an independent Scotland would be nearly as economically viable as it is now. And she and Salmond are still making noises about a further referendum - do they want one every week in the hope that the 55% of Scots who voted to stay as part of the UK might suddenly change their minds? They are utterly self-centred and highly disruptive.
Finally, re-reading this thread, I am concerned that there are some here who seem to imagine that the new government is going to single out the young or the disadvantaged for some sort of especially crippling treatment. I don't believe this for a moment. But the government is somehow going to have to balance the books and no doubt some of the measures they'll take will be painful. Can anyone tell me how else we're going to start to even live within our means? Or whether it's really right to say "to hell with austerity, we'll live for now and future generations can pick up the bill"?
Tony.
The debt has dramatically increased under the tories. So we can't really say that they'll help the debt. Any at the end of the day, we need certain things; schools, hospitals, police. We can make cuts and make cuts, but austerity will also affect those who are most vulnerable. I, for one, would be happy to pay more tax if it meant people suffered less.
The Scottish seem to be gambling on a lot of 'ifs'. There are too many 'ifs' to be viable.
And regarding austerity - there's a reason people are worried and it's because people will suffer. Schools suffer, Hospitals suffer. I've worked in a free school - one of the supposedly golden examples of free schools that's often in the papers - and it was an appalling shambles and I genuinely believe Ofsted should close it, as they have done with other free schools. Many of our members are disabled, or under 25 - two of the categories who have already been singled out as facing benefit cuts. There's no ifs or maybes or worrying about the evil tories. They're facts. Under 25s will face massive cuts to benefits. Benefits generally are facing massive cuts. It's not scaremongering when it's true.
The books do have to be balanced - but there is a limit and these cuts will cost lives. They already have done. Where we draw the line is a nightmare for Cameron to decide, but where I am, almost everything seems to be being cut or shut and it's terrible.
It doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you go.
No-one gets remembered for the things they didn't do.
We won't all be here this time next year,
so while you can take a picture of us.
We're definitely going to hell,
but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
Re: the next generation. The first 1000 days are show to critically determine a childs future prospects. By the age of 3 a child's educational prospects are broadly fixed. The cuts that occur now will mean that this generation will face a massive lack of sure start centres, and pre-school places and funding. This means they will be massively disadvantaged when the start school and evidence suggests that by the age of three, those children who are behind will remain behind for the rest of their lives. This creates a generation of children not fit for work, and relient on benefits.Invariably these children come from working class families, were statistically by the age of three a working class child will know just a tenth of the words of a middle class child. They start school behind and they stay behind for the rest of their lives. All for the sake of saving a little money now.
It doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you go.
No-one gets remembered for the things they didn't do.
We won't all be here this time next year,
so while you can take a picture of us.
We're definitely going to hell,
but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
The Tories are pretty much singling out the young and disadvantaged. Those who don't have as strong a voice as the mega rich and powerful. So welfare gets cut, education will suffer, everyone who is working class will see the brunt of the cuts.
But because the middle and upper classes will be happy and won't really see much changes then they will assume the Tories are doing a good job.
Isn’t it funny how day by day nothing changes but when you look back, everything is different…
you once called your brain a hard drive, well say hello to the virus.
But because the middle and upper classes will be happy and won't really see much changes then they will assume the Tories are doing a good job.
It reminds me of this:
Quote:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
It doesn't matter where you come from; it matters where you go.
No-one gets remembered for the things they didn't do.
We won't all be here this time next year,
so while you can take a picture of us.
We're definitely going to hell,
but we'll have all the best stories to tell.
That quote sums it up for me. The attitude of 'if it doesn't affect me I don't care' is horrible but it looks like a lot of people have it.
A lot of young people and even women voted for Tories. Seems they don't like to admit it since Tories are stereotyped as Nazis etc (and Cameron is really quite a cupcake imo. Helping Iran get nukes is a lot closer to Chamberlain than Churchill). I can see why polls are so skewed. People don't want t say who they vote for.
Welcome to mortified Britain: Full of young Tories who secretly hate themselves
Re: the next generation. The first 1000 days are show to critically determine a childs future prospects. By the age of 3 a child's educational prospects are broadly fixed. The cuts that occur now will mean that this generation will face a massive lack of sure start centres, and pre-school places and funding. This means they will be massively disadvantaged when the start school and evidence suggests that by the age of three, those children who are behind will remain behind for the rest of their lives. This creates a generation of children not fit for work, and relient on benefits.Invariably these children come from working class families, were statistically by the age of three a working class child will know just a tenth of the words of a middle class child. They start school behind and they stay behind for the rest of their lives. All for the sake of saving a little money now.
I feel there is too much reliance on the state to provide this early education, nowadays. Yes, families are now much more likely to be working and relying on childcare, but my first educational experience was in Primary 1 at aged 4. My parents were expected to teach me the basics and get me geared up for school.
A lot of "working class" (although how that is defined in modern times is arguable) kids fail at school because there is little or no incentive for them to do well. There is peer pressure from local children who feel that to be educated is a bad thing, and some families don't place any importance on education and the child ends up becoming disenfranchised with the idea of education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sherlock holmes
The Tories are pretty much singling out the young and disadvantaged. Those who don't have as strong a voice as the mega rich and powerful. So welfare gets cut, education will suffer, everyone who is working class will see the brunt of the cuts.
But because the middle and upper classes will be happy and won't really see much changes then they will assume the Tories are doing a good job.
The "middle classes" have arguably been the worst hit in recent years. I really dislike that this is becoming a class war, party politics aren't as easily defined as that!
The young have been missing out for years. The minimum wage, benefits, access to housing, educational policy have always been skewed against the young, it's nothing new. If you dislike it, the young have just as much voice to write to their MP and make their opinion known.
Of course our debt increased Talaiporia - the public demand for services/benefits et al has been insatiable, and remains so. And you can bet that if Labour had been in power it would have been a hell of a lot worse - it always has been under Labour!
To help get us out of the hole we're in, I too would be prepared to pay more tax, and I have previously said on the site that I would accept a reduction of perhaps 5-10% in the pension which I earned over 37 years. It might make my eyes water a bit but I'd tighten my belt, reorganise my expenditure and somehow cope. On the subject of tax, comments in this morning's Sunday Times include this: As for "the privileged few", HM Revenue and Customs reports that the top 0.1% of earners - approximately 30,000 people - take home roughly 5% of the UK's total income:"unequal, unfair and unjust" no doubt, but they also pay more than 11% of the total take of income tax: the unpalatable truth is our public services would collapse without them".
Of course if an overall cut of 10% were imposed nationwide then those struggling to cope on say £200 a week would be harder hit in real terms than those earning £1,000 a week (in that it's obviously easier to cope on £900 than on £180). But government has been genuinely trying to raise the threshold at which people even start to pay tax and will no doubt try to ease the burden for the poorest. To pretend that they'll now try to grind the poorest in society in order to prop up the rich is an appalling accusation.
I've weighed in on this thread quite a few times now, though I did not declare my party views (however obvious they may have been!) until after the election result. All I pleaded for was fiscal stability. And I was only one single vote, not even a member of the Tory party. But whatever you feel about the result, it was brought about by many millions of other people's votes, freely made in a democratic society. And I don't for a moment believe that they were somehow determined to screw the poor or screw the young - I like to think that most of them simply wanted a fair and balanced society within which we start to pay our way ...
As much as I disagree with the fact we have a Tory government, I have accepted that the majority of the country voted for this. While I myself am not happy with this, I respect that people believed the Tory party is the way forward for this country.
That said I will protest peacefully against any changes the Tories put forward that I disagree with. Unless they are policies that I can see need to be put in place. I am very much of the attitude that I accept that certain things may need to happen.
In terms of PR. We had a referendum in 2011 about changing the voting system and 67.9% of the turnout said no.
Of course, Iamcatbug, you can disagree with the government, and demonstrate (peacefully) against any measures they may take without being locked up - I think it's called democracy!
But for those still against austerity, I find the latest news from Greece sobering and possibly a lesson for us all. As I understand it (though I'm no sort of financial expert) they are struggling to obtain loans with which to pay the interest on the loans they already have. This must be the stuff of nightmares - and God forbid we should ever find ourselves in the same situation.
We've now got to balance the books and it'll no doubt hurt most of us. But what is the sensible alternative?
Tony (and, in passing, those who voted the Conservatives into power are not rabid political animals - they're simply tens of millions of ordinary people who want to see balanced and reasonable policies implemented without us all going down the same sort of plughole that Greece currently is.)
PS. And a final thought on all the electioneering which we endured for all those weeks, why this totally unjustified bias against Eton? I hasten to say that I didn't go there (shunted instead into a comprehensive) but when I gave my sons the opportunity of a decent prep school it was quickly clear that entry to Eton was by no means a pushover. Lots of their contemporaries who had hoped to go failed the Common Entrance exam and had to go elsewhere. So I suggest that an Eton education is a thoroughly good education and the press bias was based upon the doctrine of envy ...
So I suggest that an Eton education is a thoroughly good education and the press bias was based upon the doctrine of envy ...
Not necessarily envy. For most people it is the idea that most of the high flying politicians have never lived in the "real world", ie, that of the working classes who, to even think of putting their child through a private education is impossible. It is also pretty galling for some that politicians continue to meddle in the state education of millions of children, whilst not putting their own children into state school, and never having been through a state education in any case. It's not necessarily anything to do with envy.
Whoah, the One Who, are you saying in effect that politicians who are not "working class" and of the "real world" are therefore disqualified from being politicians? I think that's highly presumptuous and class-biased. Why should those who have been fortunate enough to enjoy a good education be excluded from the political world? Surely they might actually be better qualified in many respects. Here we have the doctrine of envy yet again!
As someone who suffered severe financial difficulties doing what I thought best for my own son's education (no overseas holidays, rarely a replacement for a rickety old car) I reckon I'm actually owed by the state for not having required it to educate them. But will I ever get "compensation" - nah, I must be some sort of rich bastard, who shouldn't even be qualified to stand for parliament ...
I have great sympathy for the poor but you should perhaps understand that there are very many people who don't want to get involved in the sort of extreme politics that are spouted on TV - and don't want to be blamed for every one of those who unfortunately fall off the end (as, inevitably, some always will).
Further to my last re private education, many people may not understand the sacrifices that some parents make to pay the relentlessly increasing school fees. I've known friends having to borrow from friends in order to pay the next terms fees. I laid out an elaborate plan to cope with anticipated costs year on year but of course in the end it fell well short of the requirement - hence yet further stringency on all other fronts. I'll bet that there are thousands of families struggling with the same sort of thing even now.
Which of course raises the question of why it should be necessary at all. The harsh fact is, in my view, that overall private education is superior to the state system. Otherwise why do such huge numbers of pupils from all over the world get sent here? That said, if there had been a suitable local alternative (and some state schools are surely very good) I would have seriously considered it and had some of those holidays instead of all the angst.
Final thought: boarding demands much more of a pupil than being a mere day-boy/girl. There's no skiving off in the evening, prep has to be done and is supervised, and the work ethic is unrelenting - as are the games opportunities which are part of the system. If only the state system could match it ...
Whoah, the One Who, are you saying in effect that politicians who are not "working class" and of the "real world" are therefore disqualified from being politicians? I think that's highly presumptuous and class-biased. Why should those who have been fortunate enough to enjoy a good education be excluded from the political world? Surely they might actually be better qualified in many respects. Here we have the doctrine of envy yet again!
As someone who suffered severe financial difficulties doing what I thought best for my own son's education (no overseas holidays, rarely a replacement for a rickety old car) I reckon I'm actually owed by the state for not having required it to educate them. But will I ever get "compensation" - nah, I must be some sort of rich bastard, who shouldn't even be qualified to stand for parliament ...
I have great sympathy for the poor but you should perhaps understand that there are very many people who don't want to get involved in the sort of extreme politics that are spouted on TV - and don't want to be blamed for every one of those who unfortunately fall off the end (as, inevitably, some always will).
Tony.(no harshness intended)
Seriously, Tony, you manage to infer something out of absolutely nothing. It's quite a skill, really! Please, point out when I have suggested any of the things you have said.
It gets really, really tiresome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley's Dad
Further to my last re private education, many people may not understand the sacrifices that some parents make to pay the relentlessly increasing school fees. I've known friends having to borrow from friends in order to pay the next terms fees. I laid out an elaborate plan to cope with anticipated costs year on year but of course in the end it fell well short of the requirement - hence yet further stringency on all other fronts. I'll bet that there are thousands of families struggling with the same sort of thing even now.
Which of course raises the question of why it should be necessary at all. The harsh fact is, in my view, that overall private education is superior to the state system. Otherwise why do such huge numbers of pupils from all over the world get sent here? That said, if there had been a suitable local alternative (and some state schools are surely very good) I would have seriously considered it and had some of those holidays instead of all the angst.
Final thought: boarding demands much more of a pupil than being a mere day-boy/girl. There's no skiving off in the evening, prep has to be done and is supervised, and the work ethic is unrelenting - as are the games opportunities which are part of the system. If only the state system could match it ...
Tony (still broke!)
For those who choose to put their child through a private education and struggle, I have little sympathy. That is, ultimately, their choice. It is also their choice to remove said child from the school if it is really that unbearable. There is a free option there.
In other news, after listening to the newly twenty-year old SNP MP, I do feel that there should be some sort of requirement for politicians. I don't know what exactly (as I am generally against age discrimination), but she just doesn't seem to have enough life experience to be able to relate to her constituents, or to be really in the deep end of UK politics. She comes across as quite naive to me.
Well, Epic, if your claim is correct then perhaps I owe the state for educating my sons privately - on top of all the agonising costs I was paying at the time. But, if true, then what a grossly inefficient system the state education system must be! And I'm not in any way trying to knock it ...
Tony (and, in passing, those who voted the Conservatives into power are not rabid political animals - they're simply tens of millions of ordinary people who want to see balanced and reasonable policies implemented without us all going down the same sort of plughole that Greece currently is.)
11 million is hardly tens of millions Tony. And less than 20% ofthe 63 million residents.
"In other news, after listening to the newly twenty-year old SNP MP, I do feel that there should be some sort of requirement for politicians. I don't know what exactly (as I am generally against age discrimination), but she just doesn't seem to have enough life experience to be able to relate to her constituents, or to be really in the deep end of UK politics. She comes across as quite naive to me."
Well baring in mind her constituents chose her over a labour candidate who had been in her seat for years and was older and wiser and more experienced I think they would disagree.
Whether or not she is a good MP well time will tell on that one but at least she can relate to young people in a way that a lot of other politicians cant, personally I think she's a breath of fresh air
Sorry, The One Who, if I misinterpreted your post - it did read to me as though you were saying that MPs should be from the "real world" or "working class", rather than from some sort of privileged elite. My own view is that they should come from all walks of society, provided they're genuinely dedicated to doing the best for their constituents.
As for your lack of sympathy for those struggling to educate their children privately, that is of course for you. But you should perhaps acknowledge that there are parents out there who are trying to do what they regard (rightly or wrongly) as the best for their children, even if it does involve substantial sacrifices. I for one certainly offer them my sympathy. And let's be clear that private schooling in UK has a justifiably high reputation, hence all those parents overseas who send their kids here to take advantage of it ... (many of them will no doubt also be making sacrifices).
I'm going to request that this thread is locked now that the election is over. Thanks everyone for your input! If anyone else wants to start another similar thread then go for it.
