The people who have everything also run everything.

Gosh!

I probably find something I disagree with in most pieces of opinionated journalism unless it is something factual.

I stand by my opinion (and believe it can be borne out by examining what various governments have done when in office) that Labour governments have brought in many progressive policies, such as State Pension, NHS, Minimum Wage, Equality legislation, etc, etc, whereas Conservative MPs have almost always opposed these and other policies designed to improve the lives of the average person.

lemongrove You say my analysis is incorrect, that Conservative government have also introduced measures to help the average person. You cite just one example - our current Conservative government's increase to the tax threshold.

In April 2019, the Guardian reported:

"A surprise £3bn income tax giveaway worth £860 a year to high earners was the centrepiece of Philip Hammond’s third budget, but tax experts said it would leave low earners with little or no gains.

"The rises in personal allowances translate into significant tax cuts further up the income scale. For someone on £12,500, the increase is worth £130, but for those on £50,000 salaries it is worth £860 a year, although this is reduced to £520 once national insurance is taken into account.

................... "Victoria Todd, of the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group (LITRG), said: “Personal allowance increases are often welcomed as helping those on low incomes. However, such increases do not benefit those on the lowest incomes at all, or benefit them by a lower amount than those with higher incomes.

“Those earning under the current personal allowance of £11,850 will see no gain from this change. Those earning above £11,850 may benefit but it depends on whether they receive tax credits or other means-tested benefits such as universal credit.”

And now Boris Johnson is making tax cuts a central part of his campaign to be PM.

Guardian June 2019

"Boris Johnson has promised to cut taxes for around 3 million higher earners by raising the 40p threshold from £50,000 to £80,000 if he becomes prime minister, saying

“The move would cost around £9.6bn a year, which would be paid for partly from savings in Brexit no-deal preparations, he said." (I think many people would question that blithe assumption - in the same way that they should have questioned the notion of a quick and easy resolution of our withdrawal from the EU)

Jeremy Hunt is also jumping on the tax cuts bandwagon, with his proposals being described by the Institute of Fiscal Studies as likely to cost in the region of £37-65bn.

Virtually all our public services are on their knees - police force (a crisis is manpower, courts system (barristers threatening to strike), probation system (part privatisation described as a disaster and cancelled) , older care system (residential homes closing for lack of funding) , NHS (chronic lack of trained medical and nursing staff and failure to retain) schools (250 either having gone part-time or planning to go part-time because of funding crisis
parents protesting that SEN children are being left completely unsupported) ................... and the list goes on.

At such a time, our two Conservative PM candidates propose to significantly cut taxes and thus the ability of the government to try to address the major crisis in our crumbling public services - upon which the vast majority of this country's population rely.

Very well said Eloethan I agree with every word you said, who wouldn't?

Who would vote Tory?

eleothan I am always in awe of your moderate, sensible intelligence. Long may you reign?

Eloethan yes, that was one example I gave and I could trawl through adopted polices going back a long way ( if I could be bothered, just for the purpose of point scoring.)
The plain truth is, that both main parties, have, over the years brought in some excellent policies....and have also ( both of them) brought in some that are huge mistakes.
Grany Having such tunnel vision about a political party makes a person unable to see the flaws, makes them deny any mistakes or wrongdoing, and they become almost like a cult member.This has to be resisted at all costs.?
It makes a person say things such as ‘who would vote Tory?’
Common sense tells you that millions do, which is why we often have Tory governments in power.
I wouldn’t say ‘who would vote Labour?’ Or even think it.It
Shows complete narrowness of thought.
Ideally, I would like a good mix of MP’s from all parties to form a new central party ( but not just a group of angry Remainers as in Change UK.)

Agreed Lemongrove - I’ve met so many blinkered people over the years who damn anything and everything from t’other side!

Of course it applies with religion as well and I’m appalled at the lack of respect that people show to someone who believes something different - what ever happened to reasoned debate and agreeing to disagree? More open mindedness wouldn’t go amiss...

I like all the hundred or so new polices that socialist Labour would bring in, transformative and would be beneficial to the many. If that makes me tunnel vision so be it.

And I have to defend Labour against lies smears propaganda campaign from MSM

I look at polices like these and compared to the Tories what Tories haven't done, or what they have done since 2010 I would have to say, Who would vote Tory?

I think people who voted Tory through the years have been fooled.

The neoliberalism has failed and getting worse for all to see but the very rich have benefited that's all.

Wow I’m impressed Grany....even Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t like ‘em all! Perhaps you should be the leader of the Labour Party?
Wish my friends who are tories had your total faith in all their own policies, they might not be dithering as much as they are at the moment.

I never knew that paying your due taxes was called noblesse oblige that's a new one!

No, paying your taxes isn't, Callistomen, but relying on rich people to 'relieve' the poor by charitable acts certainly is.

Having been brought up in an era when it was understood that the state should care for all its citizens the idea of relying on the charity of the rich for such care seems to me to be curiously outdated.

It doesn’t work anyway. Read your history folks and then tell me what a good system it was.

I hope I never see a Britain where, because the state cares for all its citizens, more fortunate individuals stop giving back to the not so fortunate.

I agree with you, Pantglasl.

On the other hand, I don't wish to see a state where charity is a substitute for state care. But wasn't that David Cameron's Big Idea? Cut public services and rely on charities to step in?

All that went well didn’t it?

the idea of relying on the charity of the rich for such care seems to me to be curiously outdated

Sadly, I fear that we may be heading back in that direction though MazieD with charities having to do more and more, ordinary people having to raise money to pay for necessary equipment and specialist medical treatments for their loved ones and the poor relying on foodbank donations in order to feed their families....

Exactly the way we are going. It's sad frightening and incredible. I remember asking my mum what is that building ( in the grounds of our Belfast hospital)and she sadly said it had been the Poor House. Do people not remember or read about the past??

lemongrove

"That’s the trouble with being a blind supporter of any party,
You fail to see the good things being brought in by the other one.
Both political parties have brought about some good policies to improve lives of the ‘average’ person."

You posted this opinion. I responded, asking you what great steps forward, in terms of improving the lives of the average person, this and other Conservative governments had made.

You then citede just the one recent example of cutting tax thresholds.

I took issue with this because financial experts and economists have pointed out that cutting tax thresholds has had the greatest benefit to the much better off and the least, or no, benefit to the less well off.

So, because I quote some facts that challenge your example, rather than just spout my opinions, you say you "can't be bothered" to "trawl" the net for any other examples (if there were some shining examples of progressive policies I would have thought they would have sprung to mind without having to "trawl" for them) - and my opinions, backed up by facts, are just "point scoring".

Does anyone read posts properly anymore?
Eloethan I didn’t say that your examples were point scoring, but rather that if I bothered to aquire and cite more examples myself, that would be point scoring.
You are obviously like Grany in that you fail to see good policies ( ever!) in ‘the other side’, good foot soldiers for Jeremy Corbyn.

Well, lemongrove, I really don't mind you "point scoring" - if that's what you choose to call including some facts to support your argument.

Does anyone read posts properly? is exactly what I was going to ask.

What I said about entrepreneurs has been deliberately misinterpreted because I stated that they would be paying their due taxes and perhaps carrying out charitable works too. Those with drive, ambition and energy will often find time to spare to help others too.
If they are paying due tax there should be no need for essential public services to be 'propped up' by charity, although, the amount of fraud, theft and inefficiency reported in the NHS would, if tackled, provide more medical staff and equipment.

There are other worthwhile charities which cover areas not under the umbrella of public services, both here and overseas which always welcome help and I don't think that anyone offering their time and expertise should be sneered at.

Ha Ha annepl

Wish my friends who are tories had your total faith in all their own policies, they might not be dithering as much as they are at the moment

Well if they took a look at all these many good polices they may actually approve, they wouldn't need to dither anymore, then say let's vote Labour for the many including ourselves!

Last post should have been to Pantglas1 Mon 08-Jul-19 10:18:43

Not annepl sorry

The Labour party did not introduce the State Pension.
The beginning of the modern state pension was the Old-Age Pensions Act 1908, which provided 5 shillings (£0.25) a week for those over 70 whose annual means did not exceed £31 10s. (£31.50). It coincided with the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and Relief of Distress 1905–09 and was the first step in the Liberal welfare reforms towards the completion of a system of social security, with unemployment and health insurance through the National Insurance Act 1911.

Labour were Johnnie-come-latelys where the introduction of the welfare state is concerned.

I like all the hundred or so new polices that socialist Labour would bring in, so do I, but then I look at what they will cost and wonder just how they intend to finance them. The idea that soaking the rich can generate 10s of billions of £s of extra money is a fond belief but wrong.

They can do it one of two ways, either they soak the lot of us or they increase the national debt even faster than the Conservative party and then, like Harold Wilson before them they have to bring in the IMF and World Bank etc and like Greece bow down under the crack of their financial whip.

Greece has had 30% youth unemplyment for the last 10 years. That is not what I want for my grandchildren.

That is the problem with being an economist, you tend to ask how things will be paid for and who has the money. As they say in the states. 'I do the math' and this math doesn't add up.

Politics! Always a touchy subject. The top tenth of taxpayers paid close to 60pc of all income tax last year according to figures from HMRC. So I do believe that the rich are paying their way ... (of course there are many who will try to avoid etc etc) ... but we'd be in a pickle without them!

They can do it one of two ways, either they soak the lot of us or they increase the national debt even faster than the Conservative party and then, like Harold Wilson before them they have to bring in the IMF and World Bank etc and like Greece bow down under the crack of their financial whip.

We have a sovereign currency, MOnica. We can issue as much as we like to do whatever we wish to do without having to borrow it from anywhere or raise it by taxation.

When we went to the IMF in the 70s we had only just come off the gold standard. The gold standard was a limiting factor because currencies had to be backed by a country's gold reserves. That no longer applies. The gold standard was abolished in 1972 and at the time the IMF was involved economic thinking hadn't really got to grips with the implications of the abolition. Nearly 50 years on there is a better understanding. Quantitative Easing has been used on more than one occasion since the world financial crisis of 2007-2008. The some £200+ billion QE the UK has issued was not 'borrowed', it was created by the Bank of England. Some of it was in the form of the issue of government bonds, so that created an obligation for the government to pay interest on them and redeem them at term, but a large proportion of it wasn't. It was just money creation by the state.

The idea that a national budget is like a household budget is completely wrong, just about any economist will tell you that. As long as there are resources available to spend it on a government using their own sovereign currency cannot get into difficulties. The difficulty occurs when there is nothing to spend the extra money on; that's when inflation takes hold.

Greece is an entirely different case. They don't have a sovereign currency under their control. It was being in the euro that caused their problem; the euro being controlled by the ECB which still believes that deficit spending is Bad and that austerity must be imposed to reduce the deficit. Tell that to Japan, which runs a perfectly successful economy with a huge deficit.

This website explains it all much better than I can:

gimms.org.uk/mmtbasics/