An election looms, so I think it is time to look at all the success over the 13 years that we have witnessed from the government.

Germanshepherdsmum

Don’t we?

Well I can only speak for myself, but no, I don’t because I accept that we’ve got to help those who are less fortunate than we are. I’ll still be lucky in comparison so I count my blessings, and those of my family.

Don’t we?

Germanshepherdsmum

Higher income, capital gains, dividend and inheritance taxes. I see all of that coming with a Labour government.

I’m sure you’re right, but we don’t vote selfishly because we are in the fortunate position of being affected by those things because we are already relatively wealthy so will be personally impacted, do we?

Dinahmo 'Thankfully, there are many people out there who are comfortably off and possibly retired professionals who do not support the Tories. With a bit of luck their numbers will be diminishing'

did you mean 'increasing' - this is what I hope.

GrannyGravy13

Fleurpepper any examples of me attacking posters ?

Unfortunately on this site it is not possible to look back - so apologies if I have made a mistake, I will admit that I often mistake you for another poster, who is constantly making personal attacks, on me in particular.

So my sincere apologies if it does not apply to you.

Higher income, capital gains, dividend and inheritance taxes. I see all of that coming with a Labour government.

GrannyGravy13

Fleurpepper any examples of me attacking posters ?

I thought we had just been discussing one.

^ Do you deny that Labour would seek to redistribute whatever assets people have really aboutacquired?^

Not the current Labour lot, GSM. I wouldn't worry about them.

It's not really about redistribution of current assets as far as I am concerned. The government continually puts new money into the economy. I see no reason why it shouldn't try to ensure that those who have least get a better share of it, by e.g progressive taxation and reclaiming more from those who currently are able to pay a smaller percentage of tax on their wealth than those who just pay income tax and VAT. Or by capping excessive profits, executive pay, bankers' bonuses etc.

I know you will disagree with me.

Germanshepherdsmum

Not in this house they won’t.
Actually I have always voted Conservative, other than when I voted for Blair. It isn’t a trait I’ve developed as I’ve got older and better off. Do you deny that Labour would seek to redistribute whatever assets people have acquired?

Eg the money from people with nom dom status ?

Germanshepherdsmum

Not in this house they won’t.
Actually I have always voted Conservative, other than when I voted for Blair. It isn’t a trait I’ve developed as I’ve got older and better off. Do you deny that Labour would seek to redistribute whatever assets people have acquired?

Labour would certainly seek to level up so that the most disadvantaged are able to live decent lives, which they can’t at present. The Tories promised to do that too, remember? That is a humanitarian policy which in a developed society we should all support. They want to target the top 1% wealthiest people and companies who don’t pay their due, to make sure tax loopholes are closed.
There’s no evidence that the economy fares worse under Labour Governments than under Tory Governments however, so I wouldn’t worry too much.

Not in this house they won’t.
Actually I have always voted Conservative, other than when I voted for Blair. It isn’t a trait I’ve developed as I’ve got older and better off. Do you deny that Labour would seek to redistribute whatever assets people have acquired?

Forgive me for the following generalisation. It is a commonly held belief that as one grows older and richer one tends to vote Conservative.

I was attacked once on a forum when I wrote that I was an accountant, lived in a nice house and had a fairly comfortable life and that I voted Labour. I was told in no uncertain terms that I should be a Tory in order to protect the assets that I had.

Thankfully, there are many people out there who are comfortably off and possibly retired professionals who do not support the Tories. With a bit of luck their numbers will be diminishing.

you are isolated from the poor you shop at Waitrose not Lidl

What about people who shop at both?
Lidl first then on to Waitrose to top up as we did yesterday?
Perhaps we and everyone we know who do this are just odd.

It’s impossible to generalise
I'll agree with that.

My will contains a number of charitable bequests and I make regular donations to the same charities - all for the benefit of animals, who by and large I find infinitely preferable to humans.
However no Waitrose round here and my son went to a state school.
It’s impossible to generalise.

Wealth is having more than you need for your day to day life, it may be a little or may be a great deal. I would say that if the house is paid for and you have a good pension you are pretty wealthy, your assets are likely to be over half a million.

In my experience empathy is less the wealthier you are, you are isolated from the poor you shop at Waitrose not Lidl, your kids go to a nice school, maybe private. You might help out in a charity shop, most dont get involved beyond that.
When we die most don’t donate to help the poor they donate to an animal charity or medical research.

Although we don’t want to admit it most of us are thinking “No Bread let them eat cake”

maremia yes the lawyers were Tory supporters, the government is treading on dangerous territory it would seem.

I saw a newspaper report this morning where legitimate lawyers were complaining how dangerous it is for the Government to use such inflammatory language e.g. 'leftie lawyers'. They now fear attacks because of these dog whistle comments.
And now, people are having to vacate the barge. Who will get the blame for this? Who put pressure on the barge managers, to not wait for the lab result?
Never mind what you thinks about these immigration issues, does anyone think this Government is actually competent enough to deal with it?
Which brings us back to the original post.
This incompetence is one of the things still being brought to us, in so many departments. Therese Coffey and the sewage issue? Dominic Raab, and the sea was closed? Matt Hancock and the PPE scandals, Graylings 'ghost ships'.

GrannyGravy13

Fleurpepper any examples of me attacking posters ?

No, never, GrannyGravy. I may not always agree with you but you are always civil and polite, even when under extreme pressure.

Fleurpepper any examples of me attacking posters ?

GrannyGravy13

DaisyAnneReturns

GrannyGravy13

You can no more prove that the wealthy have any empathy or understanding than I can fly. GG13

That is the part of MaizieD’s post I find rude.

Dismissing the moral fortitude of a section of society because they have £’s in the bank.

But it's true. You cannot. How is that "rude"?

You are perfectly entitled to argue that it is unlikely/you do not believe/it is too sweeping to say - that it applies to all the rich.

But it is not rude! That is an attack on the poster not the post and is an inadequate explanation of what you feel is wrong. It is as if you cannot explain what you dont agree with, so just attack the person.

DaisyAnneReturns

The only attack on a poster is unfortunately coming from you.

There are lots of people on here that I do not agree with, but I do not go at them like a ^ terrier after it’s prey^. which is what you are currently doing to me!

Well that is bl**dy and extremely rude- coming from someone who dishes personal attacks so regularly!

GrannyGravy13

Sorry MaizieD I am so fed up with the wealthy being lumped together as one and the same bad barrel of apples

How do you define wealthy?

Are you talking about billionaires or millionaires?

It is not a crime to have £’s in the bank anywhere other than on GN apparently…

You have no idea about other posters- who they are, who they are related to, who their friends are. Multi millionaires and billionaires, private jets and yachts and so much more. Very nice people, and generous and empathy in some circumstances- but at the end of the day, hard as nails when it comes to paying a bit more tax to help the less fortunate.

NO, there is nothing wrong at all with having some £s in the bank- at all. Not on GN, not ever. Nothing wrong in using private edu and private healthcare either - as long as it is not to the detriment of those less fortunate, and as long as you don't expect to be subsidised by others who don't have that choice- knowing that you have the choice, and never mind about those who don't ...

It is not a crime to have £’s in the bank anywhere other than on GN apparently

Don't worry, GG13, I'm not after your hard earned £s.

I've said before, I'm not in favour of a communist style confiscation of wealth. I'm more in favour of preventing an accumulation of excessive wealth. And distributing money around more fairly...

DaisyAnneReturns

GrannyGravy13

You can no more prove that the wealthy have any empathy or understanding than I can fly. GG13

That is the part of MaizieD’s post I find rude.

Dismissing the moral fortitude of a section of society because they have £’s in the bank.

But it's true. You cannot. How is that "rude"?

You are perfectly entitled to argue that it is unlikely/you do not believe/it is too sweeping to say - that it applies to all the rich.

But it is not rude! That is an attack on the poster not the post and is an inadequate explanation of what you feel is wrong. It is as if you cannot explain what you dont agree with, so just attack the person.

DaisyAnneReturns

The only attack on a poster is unfortunately coming from you.

There are lots of people on here that I do not agree with, but I do not go at them like a ^ terrier after it’s prey^. which is what you are currently doing to me!

Sorry MaizieD I am so fed up with the wealthy being lumped together as one and the same bad barrel of apples

How do you define wealthy?

Are you talking about billionaires or millionaires?

It is not a crime to have £’s in the bank anywhere other than on GN apparently…

GrannyGravy13

^You can no more prove that the wealthy have any empathy or understanding than I can fly^. GG13

That is the part of MaizieD’s post I find rude.

Dismissing the moral fortitude of a section of society because they have £’s in the bank.

But it's true. You cannot. How is that "rude"?

You are perfectly entitled to argue that it is unlikely/you do not believe/it is too sweeping to say - that it applies to all the rich.

But it is not rude! That is an attack on the poster not the post and is an inadequate explanation of what you feel is wrong. It is as if you cannot explain what you dont agree with, so just attack the person.