How LARGE will Cameron's failure be ?

[Simster]

well labour have done him proud havent they ?

Are there only TWO political parties standing in your constituency then?

 

[Tooting Gull]

Is there ANYONE who thinks that one of the major political parties intends to implement policies that will seriously change the proportion of children who are educated outside the state system?

.

Nope, wouldn't have thought so. But it is frustrating for the electorate when politicians don't show the courage of their convictions, instead of being hamstrung by fear, when they set out manifestos.

We could all cite issues where a proper debate was never/is never had because of fear of being too soft or too hard on it. Drugs is one off the top of my head, Northern Ireland was another. For decades we were told 'no dealing with the IRA' in public, when in reality speaking to all concerned was essential to get somewhere nearer a resolution. And it later transpired it had been happening all along.

 

[The Large One]

I assume your couple in question are first timers, young, whole lives ahead of them perhaps even a small family in the future types, if you are then your forgetting the large amount of people that are in there second relationship after say 10 years of married life who handn't planned to get married but might

I'm not forgetting anyone.

Is the Married Couple's Tax Allowance really an incentive to get married (or to stay together) - whether it's for the first or the sixth time?

 

[Chicken Run]

Gonna have to start that fan club bushy! You are only the second person I have heard having the balls to say this. I have a 'nice' home in Hove, near but not next to Hove Park. I totally object to my money being given to people living in £1 million pound homes just round the corner from me, why am I paying for their kids FFS?

My ex wife if you combine all her tax credits child benefit (three children) and then add my £500 pm maintainence plus her part time job(all the kids are at full time school) she earns more than me

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Gonna have to start that fan club bushy! You are only the second person I have heard having the balls to say this. I have a 'nice' home in Hove, near but not next to Hove Park. I totally object to my money being given to people living in £1 million pound homes just round the corner from me, why am I paying for their kids FFS?

This only bothers you because the REST of the tax system is stacked in favour of the folk who live in million pound homes.

If they were taxed PROPERLY, you wouldn't be fussed. You'd get "your" money back.

 

[Chicken Run]

I'm not forgetting anyone.

Is the Married Couple's Tax Allowance really an incentive to get married (or to stay together) - whether it's for the first or the sixth time?

Are the benefits one receives for being in a civil registered partnership realy the reason why to people of the same sex choose this route?

 

[The Large One]

Are the benefits one receives for being in a civil registered partnership realy the reason why to people of the same sex choose this route?

Doubt it.

Most people get married (or have civil partnerships) because they love each other - at least, one would like to think so.

A minimal tax break might be nice, but not a deciding factor.

 

[Chicken Run]

This only bothers you because the REST of the tax system is stacked in favour of the folk who live in million pound homes.

If they were taxed PROPERLY, you wouldn't be fussed. You'd get "your" money back.

Probably a silly question but if we were all taxed the same % regardless of what we earn't that would be fair no, those earning higher end salaries will pay more tax ect yes

 

[wellquickwoody]

But you still haven't come up with an idea (no, I'm not taking that other one seriously) as to how to tackle this problem. All you've done is shift the emphasis on to the politicians sorting it.

You care about the problem (don't we all), but where's the solution?

The solution is very unpalateable to many people. we cut the welfare state. We reduce benefits to subsistance levels. In the short term this may/would have some detrimental effects - lower living standards for those on benefits, possible increase in crime levels etc etc.

The longer term would hopefully be that more people would understand personal responsibility and therefore expect less for nothing and be motivated to support themselves.

 

[ROSM]

the whole concept of automatic child benefit is flawed, my wife received it and we clearly didnt need it , it should go to the people who NEED IT, not to someone who like me at the time earned quite a lot of money.

I dont have a problem with it being means tested although defining the level of means to test would be interesting given the direct correlation of reduced income when people become parents.

 

[Chicken Run]

Doubt it.

Most people get married (or have civil partnerships) because they love each other - at least, one would like to think so.

A minimal tax break might be nice, but not a deciding factor.

Many friends of my GF (she's ex Cabin Crew) chose civil partnership because it gave many of the legal rights of marriage. They all knew they loved each other, that was the easy bit TLO.

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

As a 'common' kid who got a scholarship to public school, got 'kicked out' went to both state schools and boarding schools for military kids (attached to state schools) I believe that you have to have the option of going to a public school. In some of them, the quality of teaching is much lower than some state schools and there is little quality control but if we have decided to live in a democracy with the economic right to choose than they have the right to exist. They just shouldn't be paid for by the taxpayer. that's all.

 

[The Large One]

The solution is very unpalateable to many people. we cut the welfare state. We reduce benefits to subsistance levels. In the short term this may/would have some detrimental effects - lower living standards for those on benefits, possible increase in crime levels etc etc.

The longer term would hopefully be that more people would understand personal responsibility and therefore expect less for nothing and be motivated to support themselves.

'Possible increase in crime levels? 'Hopefully'? Bloody hell, we're trying to sort a problem out not chuck petrol on it. There's plenty of stick there without much carrot.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but the 'longer term' is the right apparoach, but ultimately futile and self-defeating without the concept and implementation of education of social and moral responsibilities - without that, you're doomed before you start. Sadly, you can't force education on people. Well, you can, but it doesn't work effectively that way.

 

[The Large One]

Many friends of my GF (she's ex Cabin Crew) chose civil partnership because it gave many of the legal rights of marriage. They all knew they loved each other, that was the easy bit TLO.

Of course there are legal rights and benefits to be had from marriage and civil partnerships - and in some cases, that could be an important factor, but that's still a different from the Tax Break.

 

[Gwylan]

The solution is very unpalateable to many people. we cut the welfare state. We reduce benefits to subsistance levels. In the short term this may/would have some detrimental effects - lower living standards for those on benefits, possible increase in crime levels etc etc.

The longer term would hopefully be that more people would understand personal responsibility and therefore expect less for nothing and be motivated to support themselves.

We had that prior to the Liberal government at the start of last century. Do we really want to return to the system of workhouses, higher crime levels, child prostitution and mass poverty? Society has advanced considerably since those days.

I'd agree that the tax and benefits should be simplified and overhauled but reducing them to subsistence levels is not the answer - for a start, the child mortality rates would be unacceptable to most people.

 

[binky]

Re. Raising the level of state schools to that of private.

Jesus, what have I been saying? How can you state this, and then come out with all the other stuff? How do you think this is achieved. By doing nothing?

I don't think that doing nothing is an option, however, neither do I think that enacting law to deprive some children of a good education is a good solution, or in any way helpful to the overall debate.
I can state, and have stated that I would like the state school system to be as good as the education I am buying for my children. I'm not quites sure what you mean about "all the other stuff". Do you mean my lack of empathy for state sanctioned dumbing down? My support for excellent education, wherever it might be found?

I don't agYou're obviously a bit sensitive about this, hence all the personal stuff.

Not sensitive. As I said before. OUTRAGED, by successive governments failure to grasp the nettle and provide a better education experience to those who would benefit from it.

Fair enough. I don't agree with you over private education. Deal with it.

Good constructive assembly of ideas. That's the way to win an argument.

 

[wellquickwoody]

We had that prior to the Liberal government at the start of last century. Do we really want to return to the system of workhouses, higher crime levels, child prostitution and mass poverty? Society has advanced considerably since those days.

I'd agree that the tax and benefits should be simplified and overhauled but reducing them to subsistence levels is not the answer - for a start, the child mortality rates would be unacceptable to most people.

Do we really want to return? No.

But we do need to re-educate the population. We cannot keep supporting people who refuse to support themselves. If that means lower standards of living in the short/medium term then so be it. Medicine doesn't always taste nice.

 

[The Large One]

Do we really want to return? No.

But we do need to re-educate the population. We cannot keep supporting people who refuse to support themselves. If that means lower standards of living in the short/medium term then so be it. Medicine doesn't always taste nice.

All you'll end up doing is having to resolve a problem made ten times worse by this 'medicine'.

They don't need an excuse to make things worse.

 

[Tooting Gull]

neither do I think that enacting law to deprive some children of a good education is a good solution, or in any way helpful to the overall debate.

Do you mean my lack of empathy for state sanctioned dumbing down? My support for excellent education, wherever it might be found?
QUOTE]

It does make me laugh, people like you who use the 'depriving' argument as a defence for fee-paying schools. Talk about missing the point. This is 10 per cent of kids we're talking about. That's ten per cent. Who is really being deprived of better education and facilities - the ten per cent (or let's say five per cent, if we reluctantly assume your Etons etc will always escape), or the 90-95 per cent?

I've got no problem with you disagreeing, but don't wrap it up in a load of disingenuous claptrap. You claim you want standards in state schools brought up, but everything else you say betrays a total ambivalence to that aim. You support "excellent education" but only for the relatively small number of people that can afford it. I want excellent education for all. Sorry.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

Tories by a 17 seat majority, stick a tenner on it!