Labour La La Land?

Insults instead of debate there growstuff......very poor.

You clearly have little understanding of macro economics, Impartialandeducated, so there's little point discussing with you.

BTW You're certainly not impartial. I haven't a clue where you were educated, but I'd consider asking for a refund.

Impartial, totally agree.

Hi Trisher (hope this is the correct spelling). Thanks for highlighting the fact that DC and Boris went to private schools.vyou strangely omitted to mention Jeremy, Diane Abbot's children, Ms Chakrabarti, Emily Thornberry , all front bench opposition key personnel.
Do try to remember that those who choose to sacrifice other material benefits for privste school fees are paying twice, once through earned and taxed income and once through their council taxes for which they do not receivevthe respective benefit. Overall they are saving the taxpayer hundreds of millions. Think of the extra funding required in finding schools, teachers, on costs, etc if 550000 extra children hadvto be catered for!!!!!!

Hear Hear Impartial ??????????????

MaisieD your graphic represents national debt not personal debt. National debt quite clearly increased while banks became in difficulty, unless you would support ridding thousands of their homes and savings. Hope this helps with your understanding. Austerity is the necessary conssequence of overspending on borrowed money, ,rather like a family who perhaps move house one year and for the next couple of years have to forego a holiday. This brings me to the question of basic economics of which my understanding is shaky!!!!! The basis of an economy from the earliest times has not really changed. If you want to acquire some material benefit, you hand over the cash, trade something, offer a service in kind....otherwise you do not have it. Sadly we are paying now for Labour profligacy which on the basis of the recent Labour conference will simply be repeated under another labour govt especially led by Marxists. This is why, maisie, the polls across the country yield the lowest popularity rate sine Michael Foot.

Dottynan strangely enough we also have a lot of unoccupied housing and other buildings which are just being used as financial investments for some people. They can offer these for rental or they will be compulsorily purchased and offered for rental.
All those who are opposing any interference with private schools, do you realise how much is currently not being paid in tax by them?

Business rates firm CVS sent freedom of information requests to councils, and responses from 132 showed that 586 out 1,038 private schools held charitable status and were granted the mandatory relief.
Its analysis of government data suggested that on 2,707 properties classified as private schools there would be a business rates bill of around £1.16bn over the next five years. Extrapolating from the data received from councils, it forecast that £634m would be paid, with £522m saved through the schools’ charitable status.
CVS said Eton College, whose former pupils include David Cameron and Boris Johnson, would have faced a bill of £4.1m for business rates over the next five years without its charitable status, but instead it would pay just £821,040.
Dulwich College in south London, which educated former Ukip Leader Nigel Farage, will only pay £786,752 out of its £3,933,760 five-year bill under the tax regime.
Leeds grammar school, which offers extensive sports facilities on a campus of nearly 60 hectares (140 acres), will only pay £826,016 out of its £4,130,080 five-year bill.
Just think what could actually be funded if these schools lost their charitable status. As for the scholarship argument there is evidence that this accounts for about 1% of the fees collected and that some of these go to families with incomes of £140,000 a year.

Non political question. If Labour have an open door policy to immigration where will these people live as we have a shortage of housing.

ImpartialandEducated (a rather presumptuous name I think) You say "We are worth what we earn, not what we are handed out". According to the news, Thomas Cook's senior managers were paid substantial bonuses - did they "earn" those bonuses?

Did the bankers who pushed for de-regulation and who actively encouraged people to take out more and more credit, which they were not in a position to pay back, "earn" their bonuses and their enormous salaries?

Money has been wasted hand over fist for illegal wars, "free" schools, academisation, NHS re-structuring (which Cameron promised would not happen), grandiose projects that serve no real purpose, bringing back "in-house" public services that were damaged by privatisation, etc, etc, etc. Added to that, austerity has, in the long run, caused massive problems that will take more money to put right than was saved in the first place - and which has caused great unhappiness and social division.

Who make up what you say are the "43 per cent of the population who make no tax contributions"?

MaizieD, for 'political reasons'. Austerity measures were never actually needed:

As I pointed out, Hetty58

Thanks for the confirmation...

And I'm afraid that Impartialandeducated has a very shaky grasp of basic economics...

Perhaps I'll just pop this ^ here again to remind us of the tory record..

MaizieD, for 'political reasons'. Austerity measures were never actually needed:

www.tuc.org.uk/blogs/chancellor-finally-admits-austerity-was-political-choice

Impartialandeducated
The country was brought to its knees, as you remark, by high growth levels in the early part of this century funded by excessive public spending, by excessive public and private borrowing which gave everyone with a credit card the impresdion that all was hunky dory. Sadly and surprise surprise the debt had to be paid back. Education, health etc are under resourced to the tune of the 43% of people who make no contribution to the inland revenue yet take out disproportionately. Gordon Brown's tax credit buy off of the middle earners by giving away taxpayers money to families earning as much as 60k further establishing expectations in a "because I'm worth it" society was funded by borrowed money. We are worth what we earn not what we are handed out. If we cannot afford it we should not expect to receive it on a plate provided by others.

But apparently household debt (excluding mortgages) is one third higher now than it was in 2008, before the financial crash, so Tory policies clearly aren't doing what we are led to believe.

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cardsloans/article-6565233/Household-debt-crisis-level-hits-new-high-15-000.html

ELOETHAN The country was brought to its knees, as you remark, by high growth levels in the early part of this century funded by excessive public spending, by excessive public and private borrowing which gave everyone with a credit card the impresdion that all was hunky dory. Sadly and surprise surprise the debt had to be paid back. Education, health etc are under resourced to the tune of the 43% of people who make no contribution to the inland revenue yet take out disproportionately. Gordon Brown's tax credit buy off of the middle earners by giving away taxpayers money to families earning as much as 60k further establishing expectations in a "because I'm worth it" society was funded by borrowed money. We are worth what we earn not what we are handed out. If we cannot afford it we should not expect to receive it on a plate provided by others.

newnanny
I have never made any references to 'feckless benefit scroungers'.

No, I know you haven't, but my first post mentioning BTL LL was part of my response to someone who did. One thing then led to another ... .

This country has been brought to its knees by the present government. Education, justice, transport, health, etc, etc are so under-resourced now that the resulting operational difficulties are thought by many to be at crisis point.

We can add to that infrastructure projects such as Crossrail and HS2 which are seriously behind schedule and massively over budget, the latter now being the subject of a cost/benefit investigation which may see the project abandoned all together.

To my mind "La la land" is the residence of those people who believe this country is now in a fit state to leave the EU and speedily negotiate complex and favourable deals with the EU and other nations without significant disruption to incoming and outgoing goods and services.

I am NO fan of JC, and yes, I agree, 4 day week is nonsense. And as much as I would rather there were no private schools- or hardly any, because all kids are offered a good quality education, wherever they live, and whomever their parents are - banning them is not the way. Etc. Etc.

And yet- yesterday and today - Johnson's abominable and despicable behaviour, made Corbyn and others on the front opposition bench, look like Statemen- calm, well argumented and humane.

Legal aid should not be given to terrorist. I wish it would be capped at £5k.

I have never made any references to 'feckless benefit scroungers'.

The reason we know our tenants do not get benefits is because we see bank statements to show earnings before renting to them. Benefits payments show up on bank statements.

We know they work hard as both parents work full time and some work 50-60 hour weeks. I call that working hard. We rent to lorry drivers, pickers in factories, a paramedic and 2 nurses. I don't think they could get away with not working hard.

newnanny
We let out 6 houses but only to people who can afford to pay the full rent and not rely on benefits to pay it for them

That may well be true in your case, but working and relying on some sort of benefit towards rent are not mutually exclusive. A significant number of working people are still eligible for, and need, some form of benefit. They almost all have to rent in the private sector, so even if you don't, lots of landlords clearly do rent to them (not that housing benefit for working-age people is generally paid direct to landlords any more, so I wonder how many landlords would know if part of the rent their tenants paid them included an element of HB, especially if this came about after the initial checks?)

If they work and pay money themselves they take better cate of house, and we rent to Polish and Romanians as well as Brits who all work hard.

How do you know they 'work hard'?

Btw, I will stop bashing btl ll (not that I have ever mentioned them before) when others stop making ignorant, sweeping references to 'feckless benefit scroungers'

Legal Aid used to help many people who could not otherwise have gone to court.

I think it's to prove your point Maizie. Debt is higher in real terms and as a percentage of GDP than it was in 2010.

Legal aid is badly awarded. I see Jhadi Johns parents are getting over 100k. Victims get nothing. I dread to think how much Shamima Begum will get. In my book this is money wasted whilst schools desperately need more funding.

Corbyn has also said he wants an open immigration policy. BJ wants a points based system like in Australia with shortage jobs like nurses gaining a lot of points and jobs we can fill ourselves attracting fewer points.

Stop bashing btl LL. We let out 6 houses but only to people who can afford to pay the full rent and not rely on benefits to pay it for them. All LL I know do likewise. I know a lot of LL. If they work and pay money themselves they take better cate of house, and we rent to Polish and Romanians as well as Brits who all work hard.

We havd a shortage of nurses and teachers so giving them one extra day off a week will mean closing schools and hospitals. It takes years to train a nurse or a teacher and there are not enough spaces on nursing courses. Yet another policy Labour have not thought through. We can give surgeons another day off each week but see waiting lists for operations get longer and people die from waiting. Labour is all ideology and no pragmatism.