Why do you support Labour?

Sago

Beeches

Shinamae you got so angry earlier the moderator removed your comment, time for bed I think - sleep well

Yes but your whole thread was removed.

I think that top trumps Shinamae.

P.S You obviously missed the thread on paragraphs.

Ah, so it was shut down because of the lack of paragraphs.
Thanks for the info. 😂

Recause unfortunately life isn't a level playing field.

Someone might have worked just as hard all their lives but not accumulated enough to not need help from the state.
Agreed. By the end of a working life, though, it doesn't matter how much you have paid in - it is the number of contributions, not the value of them that counts towards a full pension. I think this is fair. Those who can afford to save as well as pay NI will have occupational pensions, and/or savings in the bank as well as a state pension, but everyone who has worked for decades and has a full contribution record should have a decent pension, which should be the same whether they have paid £10 a week or the maximum (about £80 a week?). In this case I do think that those who earn more should pay more.

Some might have worked really hard as family carers and not accumulated enough although they have contributed a great deal.
People caring for the sick or disabled should be recognised and paid, IMO. Not just free NI contributions, but allowances and employment rights such as paid holidays and cover if they are sick.

Some have been unfortunate enough to have chronic serious illnesses or disabilities although they've done there best.
Yes, and a decent society will look after people who are unable to do so themselves. If everyone capable is expected to contribute then there will be more for those who can't, but (IMO) nobody should be able to decide not to pay in if they can, yet expect to take out. That is very unfair.

Thats why I agree with the principle of taxing - not over taxing - those who can afford it. It's all about seeing oneself as part of society not as an individual.
I agree with the principle of taxation too. But I think that all capable adults should pay, as I said above. We are all part of society, so should all contribute to wider society above and beyond our own families (unless we are carers, in which case see above).

How that should work, and details such as at what ages taxation should start and end, who should be exempt, or for how many years we should be expected to contribute before being entitled to retire on a pension would need to be decided, but should be evenly spread. Those who are sick or disabled themselves may not be able to pay, and that is why it's important that the rest of us do.

One day, who knows, what will happen to us in the future - or our DC or DGC, and need state help? Those are th underlying principles I hold to and despite all the difficulties why I vote labour.
Agreed. I would hate to live under the American system where people can't afford to be ill and there is very little help for those who are unable to work. There is no need for taxation to be very high if more people pay in and the load is spread. It is the fact that it is easy for people to get a free ride that means those in work are squeezed so hard.

MaizieD - you’re so right in prioritising grounding in how the money system works over Latin
It’s something that could be taught in different ways across age groups
If you set up a virtual class can I come

ronib

It may have been a waste of time for you escaped but don’t make the mistake of thinking that others haven’t flourished with Latin as a building block. I was made to study a module in economics and that was complete gobbledygook at the time. Economics still is an unfathomable subject for me but I wouldn’t stop anyone else from trying to make sense of it. If possible …

A basic grounding in how the money system works would be a lot more beneficial for our children and the country than any amount of Latin.

It may have been a waste of time for you escaped but don’t make the mistake of thinking that others haven’t flourished with Latin as a building block. I was made to study a module in economics and that was complete gobbledygook at the time. Economics still is an unfathomable subject for me but I wouldn’t stop anyone else from trying to make sense of it. If possible …

growstuff

Barleyfields

Thanks Casdon. I hope they are able to do that rather than give pupils of independent schools an advantage in whatever circumstances Latin may still be required in order to study for some degrees, as was my experience many years ago.

I don't know of any degree where school-level Latin is still required. I did Latin O level in 1971 because it was clear that I was good at foreign languages and would possibly want to study for a languages degree. At the time, most of the prestigious universities required Latin to study foreign languages. However, that requirement was dropped in the year I applied for university and I can't really say that my knowledge of Latin has ever been very useful.

University degrees which require some knowledge of Latin (eg ancient history, law, medicine) could easily provide short course in the first year covering the essential subject-specific language.

I'm just reading through this thread as a latecomer while waiting for a delayed train.
Your path sounds similar to mine growstuff , except at a London Comprehensive there was no chance of my doing Latin. I don't know if my form tutor told the university that, but I was accepted with unconditional offers in 1976 for a languages degree with the promise I would attend weekly lessons with the Professor of Latin in his study! Latin was an entry requirement at my university. Anyway, he gave up on me after two months, and me on him. Waste of time all round.

I suppose you could ask people why they vote Conservative, Lib Dem, Green, Reform, it's usually a case of habit, family always voted that way( although the Greens and Reform are far more recent), belief in what a party stands for, or are members of a political party. I don't like the two main parties, and won't vote for either of them, as they've been such a huge letdown in the last 20 years.

Jeremy Corbyn wasn’t popular because he was a radical, and therefore his plans for government weren’t trusted by the electorate.

england.shelter.org.uk/media/press_release/at_least_354000_people_homeless_in_england_today_#:~:text=New%20research%20from%20Shelter%20shows,hostels%20or%20other%20homeless%20accommodation

nanna8

Why are there so many homeless people having to live on the street when boat people arrive and are given hotel rooms and food ? Seems unfair.

Not quite what you are portraying. See this Shelter Report.

Wyllow3

love0c

Iam64 What!? You save in your working life so you can enjoy a more comfortable retirement. Then you pay more tax because you have savings. And you think this fair????? I most certainly do not!

Recause unfortunately life isn't a level playing field.

Someone might have worked just as hard all their lives but not accumulated enough to not need help from the state.

Some might have worked really hard as family carers and not accumulated enough although they have contributed a great deal.

Some have been unfortunate enough to have chronic serious illnesses or disabilities although they've done there best.

Thats why I agree with the principle of taxing - not over taxing - those who can afford it. It's all about seeing oneself as part of society not as an individual.

One day, who knows, what will happen to us in the future - or our DC or DGC, and need state help? Those are th underlying principles I hold to and despite all the difficulties why I vote labour.

I agree.. good measured, compassionate post

Why are there so many homeless people having to live on the street when boat people arrive and are given hotel rooms and food ? Seems unfair.

love0c

Wyllow3 I do agree with you in principle. However, before any of this can happen Labour must stop giving out to all so freely. If they did this then the actually deserving, needing people would get it and there would be enough money to do it. As it is Labour just love to gleefully give out other people's money. At the moment I do not think any party is fair.

It's actually very complicated, isn't it? What would you like to see curtailed and how? More means testing?

ronib

I thought Labour was intent on reducing numbers claiming disability benefits? Work is being put forward as better for mental health and reduces social isolation etc. by this government. So the goalposts are moving in theory at least. Plus of course there will be more money for us to send to Ukraine….

Those aims are not incompatible with what I laid out - its not moving the goalposts as in continuing to support those where its necessary

On the example you chose from those I gave, disability and work: they are suggesting that its following better (or even any) treatment that numbers could be reduced/get people back into work which incurs costs of its own of course.

I had in mind most of all severe disabilities of all kinds where the family cannot be expected to bear the costs and family members cant work becuase of it.

Wyllow3 I do agree with you in principle. However, before any of this can happen Labour must stop giving out to all so freely. If they did this then the actually deserving, needing people would get it and there would be enough money to do it. As it is Labour just love to gleefully give out other people's money. At the moment I do not think any party is fair.

I thought Labour was intent on reducing numbers claiming disability benefits? Work is being put forward as better for mental health and reduces social isolation etc. by this government. So the goalposts are moving in theory at least. Plus of course there will be more money for us to send to Ukraine….

love0c

Iam64 What!? You save in your working life so you can enjoy a more comfortable retirement. Then you pay more tax because you have savings. And you think this fair????? I most certainly do not!

Recause unfortunately life isn't a level playing field.

Someone might have worked just as hard all their lives but not accumulated enough to not need help from the state.

Some might have worked really hard as family carers and not accumulated enough although they have contributed a great deal.

Some have been unfortunate enough to have chronic serious illnesses or disabilities although they've done there best.

Thats why I agree with the principle of taxing - not over taxing - those who can afford it. It's all about seeing oneself as part of society not as an individual.

One day, who knows, what will happen to us in the future - or our DC or DGC, and need state help? Those are th underlying principles I hold to and despite all the difficulties why I vote labour.

I think Corbyn was popular with left-leaning voters, Mollygo and I think he might have won but for the muddled approach to Brexit

If Labour had come out as "Remain" I think they would have won. Unfortunately he wasn't a remainer and they were scared to put off the Brexiteers in the core anyway.

Johnson won because of Brexit I believe. It split the Labour vote.

Casdon
People didn’t vote Labour in 2010 because they had been in power for 13 years and they wanted a change, as so often happens.

Cotton, I have been saying that for so long it’s unbelievable thank you for agreeing with me

^ Jeremy Corbyn wasn’t popular because he was a radical, and therefore his plans for government weren’t trusted by the electorate.^

But the Labour party, was the Labour party and people didn’t vote because they wouldn’t vote vote for the man, regardless of Labour's policies.
If somebody different have been out the head of the labour party, they would have got in on the same basis as the Conservatives got in in 2010.

ronib

NotSpaghetti I know that Italian is taught online and there are some excellent Zoom classes. A reasonable fee is charged so that is one way of getting around any deficiency in teaching time in school. I suppose some enterprising teachers could do the same with Latin?

It's already been done. The lessons are free. Schools could either offer the lessons outside school hours or within the normal timetable. They would need an adult supervisor who wouldn't necessarily have to be a teacher.

www.thenational.academy/teachers/programmes/latin-secondary-ks3-l/units

An advantage of using these lessons is that any school can access them (including home-schooled pupils), so they would be available to more than the 40 schools which currently receive LEP funding and don't rely in finding scarce staff.

I don't support any political party, never have, never will. Every single one of them promise people the moon, get voted in, then it's a different story. My late mother was a Labour voter all her life. I often wonder what she would think now. The only reason I vote is women died to get me my vote and it is the only voice you have. You don't vote, you cannot complain.

Pension credit level def needs to go up, but not pensions all round as you then get the situation claimed by most people that well off and actually wealthy pensioners don’t need it, which was said of the WFA.
But there has to be a balance between penalising people for having pensions and ensuring that people aren't suffering hardship. Too many people IMO expect that 'someone' will look after them with no real input from them, and it's just not realistic.

I was in a hospital setting the other day, and one of the staff was complaining to another patient that she wants to retire but can't just yet. I understand that POV totally. Then she said that she couldn't afford to go for a few years yet, as she wants to have some more good holidays (fair enough), but also that she and her husband would have to spend some serious money before retirement as 'you are not allowed' to have more then £23k when you're retired.

There was a definite suggestion that she thought there was no alternative but to go on benefits, or that she didn't see the point in not doing so. She said she had worked in the NHS for over 25 years, so I assume she was entitled to an occupational pension - she certainly would have one unless she'd chosen to opt out.

Why should it be the case that people who choose not to have an occupational pension should get PC benefits? They haven't paid in, but expect to be paid for by those who have. At least this woman has worked and paid tax for years - many people choose not to work, as opposed to being unable to. Why should those who have worked pay for them?

It's not just pensions, all sorts of things are affected. I was at the theatre earlier in the week, and there were cheap tickets available to 'the unwaged'. My friend claimed one, as she doesn't work, and hasn't done since her marriage over 30 years ago, which was her choice. Mr Dog and I paid, as we have pensions, despite the fact that we paid into them and pay tax on them. My friend will pay no tax on her pension when she gets it, as it will be her only source of income because she hasn't worked. Her husband has a good pension, and she has other money from inheritance, so they are not poor by any standards, but as she paid the voluntary fraction of NI (significantly less than the amount paid by workers) she will get the full new pension free of tax, which those who have worked and paid into an occupational pension do not. If people don't want to work it is their choice, I know, but that choice shouldn't put them at an advantage of those who do work.

Deciding that those with occupational pensions 'don't need' more money, but people who have chosen not to work should get more is unfair. That would bring everyone to the same income, give or take, and remove all incentive to provide for ourselves. As ever, it would be ok for the rich, and for those claiming the benefits, but be clawed back from the people who have worked and paid tax all their lives - the 'squeezed middle' if you like.

I don't know what would be both fair and not have a built-in disincentive, though. It's an inherent flaw with a welfare state that the options are either to penalise those with very little by tightening up on claims, or to allow 'chancers' to play the system. Who decides what others 'need' anyway? Of course those who would otherwise do without the basics need to be provided for, but equally, people on modest incomes should be able to save for a retirement doing whatever they like with their own money, and not see it clawed back because they 'don't need it' when those who haven't saved get benefits for not doing so. I don't know the answer though.

NotSpaghetti I know that Italian is taught online and there are some excellent Zoom classes. A reasonable fee is charged so that is one way of getting around any deficiency in teaching time in school. I suppose some enterprising teachers could do the same with Latin?

Oreo

Sorry!🤭 sleep deprived, meant nationalised of course.

Thank goodness. I was completely baffled for a while

I agree with your list for renationalisation.

Rail is on its way, though as it's being taken back as franchises end. Though, unfortunately, we're not renationalising the manufacture of rolling stock.

ronib

NotSpaghetti 48 percent acceptance rate for Classics at Cambridge and the entry requirement is two A stars and one A at A level. Not exactly an open door course is it?
The point is that pupils who were working towards GCSE will now have funding dropped in February. Is this in preparation for a future where the government minutely controls every aspect of life? Who is in control of an individual’s choices? Not the individual.

48% is a high acceptance rate - I'm aware that people will self-select out but it's a much higher rate than most of us faced when we were applying to university years ago.

February is not the right time to change funding in my opinion however the exams are in May so I believe it would be a very odd school who actually pulled courses 3 months off exams. My son had a non Italian specialist take him through to GCSE Italian from roughly February when his teacher abruptly left. I believe most, (if not all) schools will find a workaround this year.
I accept this is not good.

Data for "Ancient languages" (Latin, Greek, Ancient History) shows a 2% drop in 2023. It peaked in 2020 with 12,215 and has dropped year by year to 11175 people would have taken Greek or Latin or Ancient History last year. I don't know the demographics off this. Info was from Government statistics at a .gov website. I think the numbers were over A level and AS as well as GCSE.

I'd like to know how many schoolchildren are affected by the LEP - the MEP (Mandarin) was a success but I don't know the data on the LEP.

I hope someone has a link.