Labour La La Land?

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.

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 ... .

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.

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

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

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

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..

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"?

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

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.

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.

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

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!!!!!!

Impartial, totally agree.

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.

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

Going to top public schools like Eton costs in the region of £42,000 a year - that is more than the average wage.

Even minor public schools cost a great deal of money and there are many basics and extras that have to be purchased. To imply that many of these children's parents are "sacrificing other material benefits" is a think a bit of a stretch of the imagination. No doubt a few do, but they are likely to be a small minority.

Why on earth should these schools be given charitable status? They were originally set up to benefit gifted poorer students but have been hijacked by the better off.

As I've mentioned before on this subject, when it was reported that Corbyn's marriage had failed because of a disagreement about his children being privately educated, many people commented on how selfish it was of parents, for ideological reasons, to deprive their children of a better future. If people on the left use private schools, they are criticised but if they, for ethical reasons, refuse to do so they are also criticised.

Impartialandeducated I didn't identify the people mentioned I simply posted the figures taken from a newspaper account. If you want to add more feel free.
If people want to privately educate their children they should have to pay the real cost not have discounts for charity, particularly when no one really benefits from the charity.They shoulda also pay VAT on fees If I join a club, or a gym or any other organisation I have to

Jeremy Corbyn is now the greatest recruiter for the Lib Dems

www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/jeremy-corbyn-s-brexit-position-now-a-great-recruiter-for-liberal-democrats-1-6293940

Impartialandeducated Fri 27-Sep-19 09:33:31
[...] national debt quite clearly increased while banks became in difficulty, unless you would support ridding thousands of their homes and savings. [...]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.

I repeat what I said above, Impartial: Household debt is now at record heights, one third higher than it was in 2008, just before the economic crash. This dangerous increase has happened under the Tories and their austerity policies!!

Growstuff, you rather cleverly saw through my Gransnet identity and have outed me on one score. On the other, i was educated by the state and a refund may prove difficult. You may well draw the inference that i am now justified in supporting the concept of private schools. Let's now give up the witch hunt on such schools, dispense with the "posh boys"
Mentality. There mihht be an outcry if one began to refer to some state school adherents as "common girls" !!!!!!!

Trisher, Vat is not paid by most sports clubs, entrance fees to swimming baths and other organisations that do not set out to make a profit. You can doubtless afford to pay for prescriptions but do not. The general principle is that services regarded as essential or desirable do not attract VAT. I would tentatively suggest that education falls into both the categories above. Charitable status is not the same as being a charity...the recipients of such status must show that they benefit the local area in some way, eiyher by giving use of facilities or providing other services. My own local experience is of a school that puts students into a home for the elderly, provides help with youngsters in a local school, hosts football sessions for juniors and runs a political society to which people from the locality are invited free of charge. I reiteratecthe point you fail to acknowledge, namely the benefit of taking half a million out of the state system which could not cope if they had to suddenly be reintegrated.

Well I’m properly impressed Impartial by your posts! You’ve educated me this evening with one Otelli’s two points.
?

BTW are you a newbie? If so, you’re very welcome.

* one OR two

I’m having trouble today with me words .... !!

Most informative Impartial , thank you.

If I may add? Corbyn is lower in the polls that Michael Foot was

The Spectator in February 2014 reported that:

"Britain’s wealthiest parents can have their private school fees slashed and save on their tax bills under deals being offered by some of the country’s leading independent schools.

"Under them, parents are encouraged to stump up fees in advance for all or part of the years their children are at private schools.

"The advance payment is then invested by the private school which, because of its charitable status, is exempt from paying any tax on interest earned from the investment.

"One school, Radley College in Oxfordshire, with fees of just over £30,000 a year, estimated one in six of its parents have taken advantage of the offer - with £17 million accruing to the school as a result.

"The College says that as it enjoys charitable status it does not pay tax on the interest received and add that “this can be very beneficial when parents and others are assessed at the higher rate of tax.”

"If the parents had invested the money themselves, they would have been liable to pay tax on any interest earned. In addition, they benefit from the tax-free nature of the investment through the discounts offered to them.
The plans are designed for those parents capable of paying several years’ fees in advance.

Guardian August 18

"Between 2017-22, private schools will get tax rebates totalling £522m as a result of their status as charities.

The Charities Act defines a charity as an institution that’s established for a charitable purpose and “provides benefit to the public”. While the remit of the “advancement of education” means private schools fall into this category, you would be forgiven for balking at it. Rather than providing “benefit to the public”, modern private schools too often actively harm it, giving a tiny minority of already advantaged offspring a further leg up at the expense of already disadvantaged children.

"In 2017 only 1% of private school pupils were schooled for free. In June, it emerged that private schools are spending millions more on giving affluent middle-class families fee discounts than on children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Even the means-tested bursaries include help for families on incomes as high as £140,000."

How can such a system be thought to be of genuine public benefit when only a miniscule number of free places are available to the less well off and charitable status is being used not only to directly benefit what is in effect a private business but also to benefit wealthy parents by indirectly reducing their tax burden?