Oh and Stocky third and final strike for why I dislike this Government - the wages of those who are working for a living is going up by well under inflation, while the taxpayers funded wages for those who are on benefits instead is protected by the Triple Lock.
If the Conservative Party won't stand up for people who work for a living, who will?
The modern Conservative Party has become the party of the welfare state, its just that welfare state now is for people who have retired. Triple lock, student taxes going up, wages held down, taxes on wages going up, rents to be paid due to a shortfall in housing . . . what is there to respect?
Where is the party of aspiration?
The people standing up for people who labour for a living, should be, err, Labour. They will be triple lockers as well though, albeit for slightly different reasons.
The conversation on pb this week about a 70 year old needing a new car and the tone being about eligibility for a blue badge and that their children should pay for the car demonstate why Labour will keep it. There is still a lingering misapprehension that 70 year olds need extra support. 70 is the new 60 and 80 is the new 70 and all that.
As I said yesterday Sunak is committed to including the triple lock in the conservative manifesto and now Starmer has done the same
I also posted a 2021 yougov survey that showed majority support for the triple lock across all ages including the young.
It is a warning to all those who seem anti elderly that it is not a majority view
It is for those who are reliant on the state pension only, in any case benefits and the minimum wage also are up 10% so the poorest receive most protection from high inflation
No, it isn't.
You can make solid arguments for and against it. But to paint opposition to it as "anti-elderly" is a deliberate mischaracterisation.
If we had a period of low earnings growth and low inflation, the triple lock says that pensions should grow faster than both, minimum 2.5%.
You can argue that they should grow faster. You can argue that they shouldn't. But those who would remove that pillar are against the triple lock without agreeing the inflation should erode pensions. At some point, and this is absolutely certain, the triple lock will have to go. It's a question of when, not if.
The average state pensioner has an income less than minimum wage.
Pensioners paid in via National Insurance all their lives to the Treasury, pensioners vote more than any other age group and pensioners will continue to increase as a share of the UK population with our low birthrate. So triple lock stays
But it will have to go eventually, won't it? If you have a ratchet on inflation, a ratchet on average wages, and a hard floor of 2.5%, and you leave that in place in perpetuity, eventually pensioners will own literally everything.
You might rationally see this as a correction to get the UK in line with other European countries. But it's not a policy that can be sustained forever. You need an exit strategy, not to turn the policy into a holy cow that can never be slaughtered.
No not everything, their heirs will inherit.
As I said anyway minimum wage is up by just as much as the state pension and someone working in the City of London for example will earn more than even the average private pension pensioner
"Working in the City of London." Cleaners? Nurses? Cooks? Security?
But of course these people *do not count* in Rich Pensioner Tory Land where all the workingt age people can do is sit on their thumbs waiting for mummy and daddy to die.
So Scottish Nationalist Carnyx wants state pension reliant pensioners to be in dire poverty.
As I already said but you couldn't be bothered to read so you could have your usual anti Tory rant, minimum wage also up 10%, same as state pension
Stocky, I missed the second half of your question, sorry just re-read it. What makes me think a LP Government would satisfy me more?
Pretty much nothing to be honest. I do not trust Labour as far as I could throw them, and as far as extracting the efforts of those who are working and transferring it to those who are preferred interests then I think Labour could be every bit as bad as the Tories are. So I'm not exactly keen on Labour winning.
Though if my efforts are to be taxed and redistributed to others anyway, then I'd rather that redistribution goes to fund the less fortunate than fund those who want to ensure their inheritance is as big as possible. So Labour becomes the lesser of two evils.
And at least on housing, SKS is making the right noises. He's at least pretending he gets it. Whether he does or not, I don't know.
But I've always been an advocate of better the devil you don't know. If we know the Tories are going to be bad, then its time for a change.
Labour haven't yet won my vote though, but it is certainly open to them for the first time in decades.
IMO, and I feel I know you reasonably well and are not too far away from you ideologically on most things, it would be a big mistake to vote Labour. Disaffected Tories like you should surely stop off at at the LibDems??
I did go Lib Dem at the Local Election, in part because my local Lib Dem candidate was not remotely NIMBY and appealed based on campaigning on roads and schools instead.
However on a national level, while I respect the Lib Dems on many issues I am appalled at their cynical NIMBYism. And SKS at least is attempting to tackle the Housing issue, what has Davey had to say about it apart from appealing to NIMBYs to win by-elections?
I've not made my mind up yet. But SKS is currently winning my respect more than Davey or Sunak, and I never thought I'd say that.
Doesn’t the situation in your constituency matter? Who had a realistic chance of winning there?
Oh and Stocky third and final strike for why I dislike this Government - the wages of those who are working for a living is going up by well under inflation, while the taxpayers funded wages for those who are on benefits instead is protected by the Triple Lock.
If the Conservative Party won't stand up for people who work for a living, who will?
The modern Conservative Party has become the party of the welfare state, its just that welfare state now is for people who have retired. Triple lock, student taxes going up, wages held down, taxes on wages going up, rents to be paid due to a shortfall in housing . . . what is there to respect?
Where is the party of aspiration?
The people standing up for people who labour for a living, should be, err, Labour. They will be triple lockers as well though, albeit for slightly different reasons.
The conversation on pb this week about a 70 year old needing a new car and the tone being about eligibility for a blue badge and that their children should pay for the car demonstate why Labour will keep it. There is still a lingering misapprehension that 70 year olds need extra support. 70 is the new 60 and 80 is the new 70 and all that.
As I said yesterday Sunak is committed to including the triple lock in the conservative manifesto and now Starmer has done the same
I also posted a 2021 yougov survey that showed majority support for the triple lock across all ages including the young.
It is a warning to all those who seem anti elderly that it is not a majority view
It is for those who are reliant on the state pension only, in any case benefits and the minimum wage also are up 10% so the poorest receive most protection from high inflation
No, it isn't.
You can make solid arguments for and against it. But to paint opposition to it as "anti-elderly" is a deliberate mischaracterisation.
If we had a period of low earnings growth and low inflation, the triple lock says that pensions should grow faster than both, minimum 2.5%.
You can argue that they should grow faster. You can argue that they shouldn't. But those who would remove that pillar are against the triple lock without agreeing the inflation should erode pensions. At some point, and this is absolutely certain, the triple lock will have to go. It's a question of when, not if.
The average state pensioner has an income less than minimum wage.
Pensioners paid in via National Insurance all their lives to the Treasury, pensioners vote more than any other age group and pensioners will continue to increase as a share of the UK population with our low birthrate. So triple lock stays
But it will have to go eventually, won't it? If you have a ratchet on inflation, a ratchet on average wages, and a hard floor of 2.5%, and you leave that in place in perpetuity, eventually pensioners will own literally everything.
You might rationally see this as a correction to get the UK in line with other European countries. But it's not a policy that can be sustained forever. You need an exit strategy, not to turn the policy into a holy cow that can never be slaughtered.
No not everything, their heirs will inherit.
As I said anyway minimum wage is up by just as much as the state pension and someone working in the City of London for example will earn more than even the average private pension pensioner
"Working in the City of London." Cleaners? Nurses? Cooks? Security?
But of course these people *do not count* in Rich Pensioner Tory Land where all the workingt age people can do is sit on their thumbs waiting for mummy and daddy to die.
So Scottish Nationalist Carnyx wants state pension reliant pensioners to be in dire poverty.
As I already said but you couldn't be bothered to read so you could have your usual anti Tory rant, minimum wage also up 10%, same as state pension
You're the one who needs to learn how to read. "average private pensioner" is what you said. That means usually a State Pension as well, and no NI on the income, compared to a low paid person on minimum wage.
Stocky, I missed the second half of your question, sorry just re-read it. What makes me think a LP Government would satisfy me more?
Pretty much nothing to be honest. I do not trust Labour as far as I could throw them, and as far as extracting the efforts of those who are working and transferring it to those who are preferred interests then I think Labour could be every bit as bad as the Tories are. So I'm not exactly keen on Labour winning.
Though if my efforts are to be taxed and redistributed to others anyway, then I'd rather that redistribution goes to fund the less fortunate than fund those who want to ensure their inheritance is as big as possible. So Labour becomes the lesser of two evils.
And at least on housing, SKS is making the right noises. He's at least pretending he gets it. Whether he does or not, I don't know.
But I've always been an advocate of better the devil you don't know. If we know the Tories are going to be bad, then its time for a change.
Labour haven't yet won my vote though, but it is certainly open to them for the first time in decades.
IMO, and I feel I know you reasonably well and are not too far away from you ideologically on most things, it would be a big mistake to vote Labour. Disaffected Tories like you should surely stop off at at the LibDems??
Not if they are Leavers who want more housing in the greenbelt like Bart, the LDs were anti Brexit and are the most NIMBY of the 3 main parties too
I don't believe that the LDs are more "nimby" than the other parties - it's just a stance to win particular constituency elections. Environmentalists, who are sometimes accused of being nimby, actually do not want mass house-building in any green area of the UK. Not in anyone's back yard. As for the others, why is nimby a derogatory term anyway? I always think less of those that use it. Of course people want to look after their own area and, by extension, their country.
The principal objections to the development are (a) new residents would have to drive down pre-existing streets and (b) loss of dog-crapping space.
As a general point, political questions about new development come up early in almost every political career. Campaigning against new development is one thing that you need to do to get elected - it is in the same category as reporting potholes. Because it is something that matters to voters. I don't see how this will ever change. In many ways it is a necessary part of the process, because often it leads to improvements in developments and compromises being struck.
The problem with developments is that there is nothing like enough. We have a shortfall of 3 million homes, so people are compelled to live within crappy sublets of a house rather than having a home of their own.
It can change by a government having the cojones of removing the political process out of development. Liberalising the system, Japan style, so that politicians do not get a say in what people do with residential zoned land.
It should be no more up to politicians what someone does with their own land, so long as it's within regulations, than it is up to them what stock a supermarket sells subject to same caveat.
That's fine for one house. Scale it up to 5,000 houses and suddenly you face a shortage of doctors, dentists, shops, bus stops, schools and so on.
They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?
Comments
As I already said but you couldn't be bothered to read so you could have your usual anti Tory rant, minimum wage also up 10%, same as state pension
Labour plan to give teachers £2,400 to stop them quitting
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66078820
They’ve already pledged all and indeed far more than the money that ‘abolishing tax breaks for private schools’ would raise for other things. So how will they pay for this?