But its not guff that they've implemented levelling up policies. Pupil Premium, for instance, is intended to improve the education of the most disadvantaged kids. However, the National Foundation for Educational Research found that pupil engagement in online learning during lockdown was lowest in the most disadvantaged schools. While some of that can be ascribed to a lack of availability of suitable IT facilities (which from anecdotal evidence seems unlikely- few people don't have a smart phone these days), some of that is also down to attitude towards education. So what's the point in the government throwing money at it if people aren't interested in the first place? And this is the thing, much of the problems with society that people want to blame the government for are, actually, societal problems that no government can change overnight. I mentioned on this thread that I'd heard an interview with people that ran a peanut processing factory somewhere in Yorkshire. They were being asked about a by-election and why they wouldn't be voting Conservative "people don't want to do factory work like we're offering, so its hard to get staff" was their response. The interviewer stepped in and said "but that's not the fault of the government, that's a trend in society" and they had to agree. If we want a fairer society, society has to change too. Changing the party in power isn't some kind of panacea. Having people in poverty doesn't suit any political ideology.
I don't doubt it Sid, sadly 'tax' comes in all forms and not just income tax. The poor are 'taxed' by disadvantageous energy payments, the cost of shopping, greater insurance premiums for living in poor areas, etc. Besides the percentage of minimum wage doesn't amount to much at all in the grand scheme of things.
VAT is a bugger, Smug. It's on pretty much everything bar food you buy from shops and kids' clothes. There's reduced rates on energy supplies too, but everything else has 20% slapped on top. National Insurance contributions are a killer too. The basic rate of tax will be 33.25% on income above £12,570 (20% tax and 13.25% NICs) so someone on average earnings of c.£25,000 will be paying away 1/6th of their income on that from next April.
Pupil premium has been around for years man. It is spent on buying on support for those lost on need and they do access it. I’m one of the support providers. They access it daily and they are worthy of it. The gap between rich and poor exploded during the lockdown. What’s the point in spending money on those who already have it and do t need it ie throwing millions at their mates under the guise of being PPE providers when people needed someone to engage with their community. It should have gone into the hands of the voluntary and community sector not Tarquin the opportunist.
The PM gave the go ahead for HS2 knowing the £50 billion cost would probably double, it has and the line isn't even needed. It's for people with money to commute back and forth to London offices. The new 'National Flagship', according to the PM, will allow Britain 'show off around the world', otherwise known as politicians going on jaunts .... ... at a cost of £250 million. What next, 'Air Force One', to fly Boris around the world ruffling his hair and shouting out corny jokes his script writers churn out.
Exactly, Pupil Premium has been around since 2011. So Tory levelling up policies aren't lies or bluster. I'm not sure what PPE contracts have got to do with the point I was making. I suspect its just a stick to beat the Tories with. Its not accurate to imply that corruption only happens under Conservative governments. The money that was required for PPE (no matter how badly it was spent) shouldn't have been given to the voluntary sector, it should have been spent on PPE. While its not accurate to cast anyone in poverty as feckless or lazy, its equally not accurate to describe everyone in that situation as downtrodden proles, deliberately kept in servitude by a rich elite. Similarly, while its not accurate to associate wealth with moral rectitude, its not accurate to describe everyone with any wealth as greedy, corrupt, back-stabbing bastards who take advantage of anyone financially weaker than them. Neither is it accurate to suggest that individuals can't break the cycle of poverty or that opportunities don't exist for people to do so, although it is not accurate to suggest that those opportunites won't be available for only a very short time for many people. Its not accurate that having a regional accent makes you kinder or more empathetic and that speaking with RP makes you cold and callous. From what I've experienced in life its people's value systems, and how they vary, that makes a lot, if not all, of these things inaccurate. No political party (well, not in this country) can control those value systems with an ease. Its all very well blaming one party for all societies ills but, it seems to me, that until our collective value systems change, the problems will always be there.
Firstly the pupil premium was a way of replacing swingeing cuts to educational provision, youth services and youth support. It was a facade and spend on support for families levelled down not up. Pure bluster and can’t be attributed to the current incumbent and his levelling up agenda. The point about PPE spend was that at a time deprived families needed help, rather than do something economically wise they blew the budget on close, rich acquaintances not on balanced programme. The choice was to throw wasteful money into back pockets not into services. Bad policy decisions socially and economically. Not levelling up. With regards to the political philosophy if a party chooses a drip down economic model, you rely on the wealthy dripping it down. What if the PPE riches and profits is dripping down ? While at the same time the poorest paid are hardest hit by increased NI contributions . There isn’t much about this lot that indicates redistribution of wealth or levelling up. It’s just plain bullshit and blag like the now fuelless driverless 350million for the nhs bus.
I disagree about the PPE stuff. As far as I understand it, its not possible to move budget that has been set aside for one thing into a different area, and that has always been in the case. The bit I've highlighted is exactly the point I'm making. You can choose any political philosophy you like, but you can't make people behave in a way that is necessarily going to allow that philosophy to work in practice.
They allocate the priorities and set the budget. Of course it is. On the philosophy yes I agree. Bit many left leaners are you for redistribution of their own wealth either which is why it has to be done via engagement. However’ I’ll say it again. Redistribution of wealth is a stated policy in the Labour Party and also a single model adopted by Greens and Liberal Democrats i other forms through policy eg Lib Dem’s increasing income tax is the most honest version. Levelling up / redistribution of wealth in the Tories eg increase in income tax- is frowned upon, hated even. Levelling up is bluff and those believing it anything other are fools. Johnson and co are the least trustworthy, most cynical I’ve ever known.
Where does "redistribution of wealth" start, though? At what level do you you actually start to take assets off people and give them to someone else? And does it work? You could take a billion pounds off someone and give 5 million of the poorest people 200 quid each. Big whoop. Surely better to get people into decent jobs with a sensible minimum wage than legislate hideously complicated tax rules, which would possibly be easy to avoid...?
Surely we already have income redistribution through income tax and, to some extent, through council tax, don't we? Paying different rates of things like VAT doesn't seem like something a fair society would do though. I was under the impression that wealth redistribution was something different altogether, and which has been shown not to be effective, isn't it?
One of the biggest problems atm is that firms that are making aprofit in this company do not cough up enough tax. Amazon, Facebook, Starbucks. Apple etc all by and large dodge paying taxes which the individual tax payer has to make up for.
We have vaccinated more people than each country you mention. Probably best to check your info first mate.
You had to vaccinate more people cos you had more cases of corona virus, you had more cases cos you ****ed about while Italy and Spain went into full lockdown, something the UK never did. You were always slow to react, Boris was still in denial mode when Italy and Spain were shutting down.
Number of COVID-19 vaccine doses administered in Europe as of October 7th, 2021, by country(per 100 population) https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196071/covid-19-vaccination-rate-in-europe-by-country/
