A Labour victory would be better for the Voluntary Sector

Thanks Charlie- sorry i haven't time now to respond to your points, but hope to return later.
It seems there's a bit of an "industry" in versions of events, as per usual in politics.Yes, there will always be disagreements...

I actually think that post election, there may well be a leadership contest- but now is not the right time.

I too would like to see a radical renewal within Labour; but the thought of Tory policies returning to me is so far worse, and will take the country so far back.

Good luck anyway! Jo.

Hi Charlie,
I'm sorry to hear things are financially tough for you- and I certainly can relate to that.

I'll be totally honest and say- I'm not an economic expert, and can only take an overview of politics over the past 3 decades- much like most of the general public I guess.

My instinct is that there is far more in the background than any of us realise, and the public only get to hear limited info in the papers and media.

My impression is that GB was a very able and experienced chancellor, and has received great accolades internationally, and as a statesman.So it seems pretty incongruent then, that he could have made such grave errors of judgement?

There appear to be a vast number of theories about the current recession.

Yes, the Tories would have us believe it's all down to overspending alone.But what about the collapse of Lehman Brothers'
Bank in USA, sparking off a global crisis?
What about so called greed on the banking/financial sector- and over reliance on that sector to generate wealth?
That started in the 80's- alongside a decline in British manufacturing?
It was under a Tory government that we had the whole Yuppie/greed culture proliferating?

I'm sure Brown and Darling, and the party are fully conscious that greater mesaures need to be taken to stave off the worst effects of this global recession, and will have to continue austere measures for years to come.BUT- the difference is, Labour is always protected public and front line services, and the welfare state.

I remember the 80's clearly, and have recently seen first hand what Conservative councils are capable of doing, and how drastically they are prepared to do it.And yet at the same time concentrating efforts on repealing fox hunting laws, and marrage tax beaks that will benefit the better off in society!

As for the "Conservatives being the party of the NHS"- that to me is one of the biggest cons of the century, and directly stolen from Labour.If the public fall for that, then clearly they are just voting in a change of party for the sake of it, without thinking it through or realising the possible consequences.

But I am pretty depressed with politics as a whole right now- and I think real voter apathy and alienation.This has got to radically change.

Yes Hazico, it is depressing and all the more so after 13 years of a hugely mandated Labour government.

I disagree about Brown's accomplishments - when you say " . . . GB . . . and has received great accolades internationally, and as a statesman.So it seems pretty incongruent then, that he could have made such grave errors of judgement?", well they gave Kissinger the Nobel Peace Prize didn't they and a lot of very very rich people have made a lot of money out of us so to the rich status quo he is indeed a hero.

Gordon's economy was based on consumer debt and rampant house price inflation giving people confidence to take out even more debt, he saved nothing and invested nothing and yes, the financial crisis is worldwide but Brown missed no opportunity to tell us what a genius he was when things were 'going well' but, like a small child, when things went wrong, 'a big boy did it and ran away'. Its very telling that in the latest Watt memoirs 'after ten years of scheming and backstabbing there was no plan', and very obvious now. The welfare state IS the economy, we make nothing, design nothing and have nothing, it will be cut and cut deeply whoever wins the election. But trebles-all-round continues in the city where 'greed is good' still rules and has ruled for 13 years, they just keep quiet about it now.

I know its not necessary to like your politicians but Brown temper and 'psychological flaws' are well known, I really don't like him and don't want the bloke running the country although obviusly the same can be said about CallMeDave.

Foxhunting is irrelavant. Seriously, the world has moved on, if killing a few foxes is bad, Iraq must be off the scale to you (I hope) and we all know who was second-in-command when that was all happening.

I make no apolgies for my cynicism and hatred, yes hatred, of politicians, even Thatcher didn't manage that.

Hi Dave

Have a good day .


Danny

Hi Dave

You might be right , but do any MPS deserve a pay rise ?


Danny

Danny - point taken. Take care - I'm off for a while now.

hi Dave

arnt minsters on 140k ?


Danny

Danny, quite right - just over £144k which may well be £150 by April, perhaps?

Hi Dave, I agree with you wholeheartedly- but it's a huge uphill struggle, and very demoralizing at times.

As someone who's spent most most of my working life in the NHS, and a little time in the voluntary sector, cerainly not on high wages- I simply do not undestand this obsession with paying relatively miniscule amounts of higher taxes for better public services etc.I would rather pay a chunk of tax and live in a more humane and fairer society/have a better quality of life all 'round- than have everything sold off that was worth having...

My memories of living through the 80's and 18 years of Tory government are what spur me on, and remind me of the reality of what could be re run come May.

I think the fundamental problem with New Labour has been trying to emulate and compete with the Tories, and occupying the centre ground to the point where both the 2 main parties have lost identity, and existing in a murky middle ground.

I'd imagine many within Labour would like a radical shake up and return to its core values in practice- albeit a modernised and reformed version.
I also think a renewal and fresh start is needed once the air has been cleared post election.

Thanks Dave- and good luck! Jo.

Hazico, we seem to be about the same age and have similar memories of the 80s, however the Labour spending of the last ten years just can't continue, there really is no money left. Brown is in denial and we currently have 6 months of a phoney war where things don't appear too bad but believe me, the bill for the last decade will arrive the day after the election whoever wins. You can't run a country by spending recklessly for a decade with no planning and no saving for the hard-times because that will inevitably be followed by two decades of cuts and misery, its happened before and its about to happen again. You'll blame the 'cutters' but there's a reason for the cuts, after 15 years of 'growth and prosperity' we have absolutely nothing to show for it.

Whilst your willingness to pay more tax is admirable you are lucky to be able to be in that position, I am hoping to make 10K this year after a disastrous year last year and no, I really don't want to pay more tax. Its not mentioned here but council tax adds almost 15% to my tax bill (so that's 10% tax, oops, I mean 22%, 11% in NI and 15% in council tax = wow, I am almost a 50% taxpayer!!), I don't receive any benefits and don't particularly want to, I just want to keep as much of my money as possible because I don't trust the government not to waste it/steal it/give it to all their mates.

Dave, you are an example to us all, and a credit to the party.
You are putting decent values into real action, not just talkng hot air on blogging sites...politicians would have a lot to learn from you. Jo.

Jo, the only point is to refute the Tory assumptions. I would prefer to keep my personal life personal. The people we should admire are the social workers, teachers, Citizen Advice people, health workers (medics, paramedics, nurses, and ancillary staff), and so on, all of whom bring professional qualities for relatively low pay. I was thinking about that this morning when the questions were being asked about executive pay. I was considering the respective levels of anxiety and concern and pondering the unrelenting pressure of being a social worker, teacher, health worker, CAB adviser. I'm afraid that I ducked all those professions, so I could have contributed much more. I find it interesting too that Goldman Sachs is, apparently, now retreating from its position of making a donation to charity to 'compensate' for the bonuses it is handing out, to a new strategy of asking the recipients to make donations to charity.

700 canvassed out of over a million voluntary sector staff,the voluntary sector is made up of,
the elderly sector.
age concern
help the aged
alzheimers society.
parkinsons society.
childrens sector.
nursing home sector run by charities
the armed forces charities
wrvs
red cross
st johns ambulance etc,etc,

and thats a dip in the ocean.taking 700 hundred samples tells us nothing.

'and thats a dip in the ocean.taking 700 hundred samples tells us nothing.'

What is a statistically valid sample? Can we discount all psephological polls as statistically insignificant?

@ Danny. One of you is very helpful, indeed. Wish there could be more like you contributing here. We need your help.

Perhaps this is not the right place to post this question, but it might be the appropriate one:

What was that "Great" and indeed, holy "Labour" paragon of virtue Frank Field doing yesterday, less than 5 months away from a general election, sitting on a platform with DAVID CAMERON?


Answers please, on a postcard. Winner of the competition will receive a great prize - a week in Birkenhead with Frank Field. Second prize will be TWO weeks.

Seriously, are we to assume the good people of Birkenhead will vote for anything provided it is wearing a red rosette. Time to retire, Field - or cross the floor of the House to where you truly belong.

@ Alan Giles
Yes, Field should resign.

HI Labourlist

The voluntry is filled with human beings not party hacks , There is no need to say that one party voulnteers more than others , But rather support all who volunteer .

Danny

'The voluntry is filled with human beings not party hacks , There is no need to say that one party voulnteers more than others , But rather support all who volunteer .'

You are absolutely right, Danny. There are other points, though: (i) the tertiary sector believes itself to be exactly that, the third sector, which supplements, not replaces, government- and local-government-provided services which can attempt to be comprehensive; the third sector works in the interstices and fills out, not substitutes; the Tories want the tertiary sector to be the main sector, if I understand their policy correctly. The tertiary sector doesn't want that. Again, may I reiterate that during the financial difficulties the contributions to charities have crashed at exactly the time when they are needed. Again, at the rick of being even more boring, 'entrepreneurs' have moved into the second-hand rag trade depriving charities and the charities have complained. At the risk of using a word which may raise hackles in Tory circles, advice and charity work needs professional training. The role of the volunteer is valuable, but the core service in charitable provision needs professional people. That's why some charities pay their CEOs £350k (too much in my opinion) to attract the best people - and accordingly down their scales. IN that respect, charities too have to be run like businesses, but for charitable purposes.

Voluntary workers are mostly left wing so this is no surprise.

The Conservatives are bigger fans of the voluntary sector purely because they see it as useful in doing (less well) the job that we think the state should do.

indeed King Kong, it seems the tories plan to replace expensive front line services with inexpensive volunteers, that is a receipe for diaster. In any talk about cuts in these times front line services should never be replaced by volunteers who if the pressure gets too much can walk away.

Volunteers add to soceity by complementing exisiting services not by replacing them

Laffer Curve. Oh, there's something else I remember now about the Laffer Curve just as I was nodding off in bed. The concept was sketched out by Laffer in the Reagan era to demosntrate that tax cuts would improve the tax take (i.e. the amount of tax coming in). The inadvertent effect, however, is to place a greater tax burden on the poor and middle. For example, in a Brit context, if you cut income tax by 2% on a salary of £700k, the taxpayer receives back £14k. The rich taxpayer may not see that as a significant amount, but it's quite a few cappuccinos. For the taxpayer on £10k salary, however, it's only a recovery of £200, a couple of cups of tea a week. So a disproportionate burden falls on the poor (and middle). I can see, however, that this perception will not convince everyone.

Or you could look at it this way...

Taxpayer pays 40% tax on £1m earnings. Pays £400k tax. Government wants more, so puts up their rate to 50%, expecting that extra £100k to alleviate the tax bills of those less well off. Taxpayer decides that 50% is too much and decides to leave the country. Now pays zero tax. Government is now £400k down, and has to tax the less well off more to make up for the loss.

Well, the current rate of taxation in Switzerland, the destination of choice, is 44%, as I understand it, so they can get involved in all the expense of moving there (and moving is expensive) and still be paying a great swathe of tax.

Dave

Your suggestion that Swiss tax is 44% prompted me to do a little reasearch. It appears you have been misinformed.

http://www.lowtax.net/lowtax/html/jswpetx.html#income

You'll notice that taxes are "levied at federal, cantonal and communal level. Personal income tax is progressive in nature. The total rate does not usually exceed 40% and in most cases, the maximum tax rate is much lower than this. For example, in the Canton of Schwyz, the top rate, inclusive of federal, cantonal/communal tax is approximately 22%."

22%. That's considerably less that the 44% you've been led to believe.

I think congratulations are in order for the most ridiculous comment here Mike C.
Do you have any idea how a progressive taxation system works?
The 50% rate kicks in on money earned OVER £150,000. So if you earned £150,001 you would pay 10p more tax under the 50% band than you would under the 40%.
Its really not that hard.

And the "missing the point" award goes to...... Gus.

The point is that if as a government you set the tax too high, instead of getting the intended amount, you end up with nothing at all.

Now it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will move abroad. Some will, some won't. Those that don't leave, have other options to reduce their tax bill. As an example, my brother's in-laws run a large B&B. Approximately five years ago, they reduced their work to only three days a week. The reason? To avoid entering the top tax bracket. They're not doing anything illegal. They've decided that the incentive to earn more is just not there for them anymore. The government's desire for that extra % has actually reduced its tax take.

Gus why dont you put the real numbers in and see if it makes much of a difference and alters Mikes argument?

No it didnt did it.

@Gus Baker

Give or take, the taxpayer in Mike C's example would be circa £85,000 per year worse off. I think his argument is valid. The 50% tax rate is a political tax, and will do more damage than good. All those people leaving the country because of it will be business owners, on the whole. What happens if those people just close relocate the business out of the UK?

There is a reasonable chance that the 50% rate will reduce the tax take and thereby force the missing tax to be made up by the less well off.

It is madness to attempt to shore up the core vote and then have to tax them...

@Gus Baker

Two points.

* Have the Tories promised to rescind it immediately?
* How many will just award themselves compensatory salary increases?
* How many will understand that for the interim we are asking everyone to make a sacrifice?
* How many are already tax exiles - including your multi-millionaire celebrities?
* How much disposable income do they really want? £85 is, for example, a fraction of the price of D. Ballantyne's Maserati - another expensive luxury import.

Having said that, it would be better to specify: look, we are in trouble; part of that trouble has been caused by a bonus culture in the city; we still, however, would like you to make a contribution for the next couple of years, to 2014, or something like that, as an emergency measure. What we should do, and are attempting to do, is plug all the holes for tax avoidance which are being employed now by people who are escaping their appointed tax levels and make all these existing non-doms like your Ashcroft's clarify their status publicly. When they go to such inordinate lengths to avoid paying tax, they tend to lose sympathy.

Dave

"* Have the Tories promised to rescind it immediately?"

Well, all we keep hearing from die-hard Labour fans is "the tories are going to cut taxes for the rich and tax the poor more", so I guess they must be.

"* How many will just award themselves compensatory salary increases?"

Some will. Some will have the option to reduce their salary, and increase their dividend payments. (Result, same or less tax payable), some will reduce the amount of work they do, some will move overseas, and some will have no option but to pay the extra tax. The question is, when it all balances out, will there be more tax coming in, or less?

"* How many will understand that for the interim we are asking everyone to make a sacrifice?"

Some will be of the opinion that when it comes to "Labour" taxes, there's nothing interim about it.

"* How many are already tax exiles - including your multi-millionaire celebrities?"

Quite a few probably. Which goes to prove the point. When people believe they're paying too much tax, they're likely to become tax exiles. Of course up thread you argue something completely different. You suggest that it woulnd't make any difference for someone to move to Switzerland. But for some reason, a lot of those wealthy celebrities manage to find a cheaper place to pay tax, thereby denying the UK a % of their income. BTW, was the issue of Tony Blair being non-domiciled for tax purposes laid to rest?

"* How much disposable income do they really want? £85 is, for example, a fraction of the price of D. Ballantyne's Maserati - another expensive luxury import."

Who are you to decide how much disposable income someone should have, and what they should be allowed to spend it on? What personal luxuries have you given up? Have you personally decided to abstain from purchasing a flat screen TV so that you can donate that disposable income to your local community? Have you forgone nights out on the town so that the underprivileged can enjoy your extra cash? Do you just put aside the amount that you "need" to live on, and give away the rest? Why is it that most people advocating higher taxes set that tax bracket above their own earnings? they're never the one actually paying that extra tax.

If I mislead you with the 44% tax rate, then I apologize. My source is:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=awNIE35abSFY

'"* Have the Tories promised to rescind it immediately?"

Well, all we keep hearing from die-hard Labour fans is "the tories are going to cut taxes for the rich and tax the poor more", so I guess they must be.'

I didn't see tha Andrew Marr programme, but apparently Cameron could not commit to removing the 50% tax - I don't know if this is the current 50% on bonuses or the prospective 50% tax.

How can Cameron commit to anything at the moment?
Even Darling wont commit to anything because Brown and Balls refuse to acknowledge the truth that the country is skint.
Until Brown is chuckeed out on May 6th He will continue to lie lie and lie again about the seriousness of the economic mess he has made of the economy.

'How can Cameron commit to anything at the moment?'

So, if necessary, he is prepared to consider sticking with the 50% tax rate.

A 50% tax rate would not be necessary had brown not made such a mess of the economy; dont forget he has not balanced a budget in a decade, his forecasts have been woefully inaccurate, and he has managed to run at a deficit even during a boom.

@ Wycombe Wanderer

How is any of that different from most other governments? The USA has a deficit of £600bn. Did Bush run a balanced budget?

@ Mike C

Ah, well, I'll reply to this one first:

'What personal luxuries have you given up? Have you personally decided to abstain from purchasing a flat screen TV so that you can donate that disposable income to your local community? Have you forgone nights out on the town so that the underprivileged can enjoy your extra cash? Do you just put aside the amount that you "need" to live on, and give away the rest? Why is it that most people advocating higher taxes set that tax bracket above their own earnings? they're never the one actually paying that extra tax.'

Flat-screen TV - don't have one. Nights on town - don't have any. Just put aside what I need to live on and give the rest to charity - yes, indeed. Extra tax - no problem. You have obviously not read my previous posts. Don't ask anyone else to do what I don't do myself. I'll repeat it though, for the sake of argument. In the last five years: £10k to help young people at a Midlands university; when working £20 per month to Shelter; now, as a retireee, £15 per month to British Red Cross and one-off contributions for special purposes; for my birthday and Christmas £200 to Centrepoint to help young homeless people and additionally sponsor two rooms at Centrepoint (£48 per annum per room - it's a great idea - please help us); £3 per day into charity boxes (usually LOROS and Moto community fund); soon after I retired £3k-value in books to 3 universities. My luxury is a cappuccino a day at Costa (Rainforest Alliance and jobs for young people - gave the baristas about £100 last year in total as appreciation). I could have bought new notebook computers, but I use ones that are five years old - prefer to give the money to charity. I'm abstemious so that I can do this.

Dave

If that's true, then good for you. It's your money, and you are free to do with it as you please. I'm certain however, that you are in a minority when it comes to that level of charitable donations. My argument still stands though. You have no right to dictate how much disposable income is "enough" for anyone else.

@ Mike C
The ABI has warned remuneration committees of banks about their 'compensation' packages - that sends a message that something is fundamentally wrong. As I understand it, from what I read, those receiving over £150k constitute 1.5% of the adult population. Those include the PM and members of the cabinet. When are we all going to be 'in this together'?

'If that's true...' Of course it's true. I'm not in the habit of lying. Why do you feel the need to have this conditional clause?

Banks giving compensation packages when they're in receipt of government aid is wrong. Once the money we have given them is paid back, they should be free to pay their employees whatever they want. And at that point, you or I have no right to tell the banks how much is "enough".

Ministers are paid £144,520. Curiously that's just below the 50% threshold. Strange that they should set the top rate just above their own salary, don't you think? "We are all in this together" indeed.

I didn't intend to insult you when I said "if that's true". Apologies if I did.

I am afraid half this argument is surreal.
You have omitted to include National Insurance - another 10% + to c£44k a year.

Some of us - and I speak for myself but know many others= refuse to earn more as the end result is putting money into the hands of a grasping Government and marguinal tax rates of over 50%..

And what do we get?

Abuse from a people who want to tax us more.

The pot is not endless. People who are taxed excessivley (in THEIR eyes) ensure they either do not earn or earn elsewhere. Period.

Forget Laffer curves.

Intelligent people work out best how to maximise their income for a given effort.. (which in some cases - eg benefits is nil)..

I have deicied before I go gagag to spend all my money and rely on the state.. If I save for my retirement I am penalised and if I require aid, I have to pay for it . But if I have no moeny I do not.

Any fool can see the obvious choice...

And so it is for most things..

I ma not rich. Just middle class - if you want to pigeon hole me. The kind of person the tax system HAS to rely on. No Ferraris, Porsches .. just a Toyota Yaris.

And Labour effectively treat me like a criminal## to be taxed and fleeced.

And you wonder why Labour are losing votes?

## Not true. Criminals get half jail sentences and free accommodation.

@ Madasa Fish.

It was you Tories who brought up the issue of the 'L-curve' as you put it, in the context of the tax take under Thatcher.

I don't understand the point about NI.

Are we to understand that you could make £150k, but you refuse to because you would qualify for the tax rate of 50%? Sorry, but you out it into personal terms. The question is: are you likely to be affected by that level of tax now?

This idea that motivation is inspired by pay is a result of the libertarian economics of the last three decades. When I went on management training courses, the emphasis was on Herzberg's motivational theory: responsibility, initiative, satisfaction, and that (perceptions of) salary were causes of dissatisfaction but that additional salary did not inspire motivation to work any better.
Why has the business language now been transformed to 'compensation' rather than salary and bonus? 'Compensation' for what? The whole of work psychology has been subsumed by this libertarian concentration on money at work. When I was working - for a pittance by comparison with the numbers banded about here (including the £85k additional tax on £1m by the 50% levy) - my concern was always to take responsibility and initiative, do a good job and get personal satisfaction (as far as I could as an employee) and to nurture initiative by my colleagues. Where is that ethos now? It's all me, me, me - mePod, meBook, meCrap.

That's only half the story re the Laffer curve, Dave Postles.

Prof Laffer drew "the curve" on a napkin at luncheon one day. A bit of an ad hoc job, if you like.

What he illustrated was that if the state applies no taxes, the state will collect no taxes ; equally, if the state taxed everyone at 100 per cent, it would collect no taxes either because it would not be worth working.

So, he drew something that resembled a parabola (I guess) but he placed no numbers on either the x-axis (percentage rate of taxation) or the y-axis (tax collected by the state) to arrive at a maximum value for the state. All he intimated that there must be "some level" of taxation which gives a maximum return to the state. He did not state what that "some level" should be.

It is always a paradox that the right say that in order to "maximise" the state's take, taxation should be set as low as possible.

Er, doesn't the right always say, as well, that the state's influence in affairs (ie the money it collects) should be as low as possible?

Always remember J K Galbraith : "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy ; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

'Prof Laffer drew "the curve" on a napkin at luncheon one day. A bit of an ad hoc job, if you like.'

Yes, and it was taken up by Cheney. I wanted to stick to the practical aspects, but thanks for adding this. Krugman demolished it as well.

Dave I wish you luck.It's an uphill struggle.

On social mobility, I was born to a single mum on welfare, I went to a local comp school, Certainly no privilege in my background at all. Yet I have since built and sold several businesses and am now successful in the city. I did not wait around for the man from the government to come along and give me an opportunity, I worked hard to create my own.

However, there is no way I would start a new business under Labour, they are so hostile to entrepreneurship I simply can't be bothered. Which is a shame, I took plenty of youngsters with disadvantaged backgrounds and gave them opportunities.

That's the route out of recession, make life easy for the small business man. Don't think government can deficit spend its way out of a debt crises.

Laffer curve
It has largely been discredited in the US by pragmatic economists, as I understand it, because of the contrary movement in Clinton's presidency. The point that is made in this country is also a pragmatic one about the movement of high-end salaries. Laffer proposed that if you cut taxes, your tax take will increase because high earners will not engage in tax avoidance. That begs the question whether they will be prepared to cough up if their tax is reduced by a few percentage points. The real difficulty with analyzing it, however, is that it assumes static wages, but that was rarely the case. When salaries explode astronomically, then Laffer does not obtain. Suppose that a government taxes at 40% and the salary of CEOs is £150k. Salaries then explode and in a few years are £700k. If the level of taxation had remained at 40%, tax take would have increased. Reducing tax take to 38% means that it inevitably increases even further. That is what has been indicated about the Tory years, the Laffer curve, and top salaries.

Would I be correct in assuming that David Postles did not have a private education or go to Oxford University? Well neither did I, but it was no barrier for me to make my way in the world. I have met all types from differing backgrounds and never ever thought that because I was the son of a working class family that living in rented accommodation and attending a bog standard Secondary modern there was a barrier. Nobody ever tried to make me feel inferior on my journey from leaving school at 16, gaining an MSc in Engineering to eventual Director of a FTSE listed PLC. Social mobility is for those that get on their bikes.

What funny people you are. I did go to oxford University - 'matriculated' 1967, graduated BA (Hons) 1970. Anything else that you wish to know about me that is not germane?

Ralph

You seem a good person but I don't think you do yourself any favours.

I have voted for Labour since 1997 but I will be voting Tory in May. Why? Because Labour actually scares me. It's not just the incompetence, the lies and spin and the quest for social engineering that reminds me of a third world dictatorship that puts me off but the total disconnect with reality.

Another term of Labour would be a disaster for everyone - and most of all Labour (or what badges itself as such)

For example my local MP is fighting a marginal. I have been campaigning for 3 years in a non partisan manner to improve a particular thing. We need government funding and we get to bid for this funding soon. Our three years hard work is now being undone because our MP thinks he can score some cheap political points over the county council which is now run by the Tories. It makes me sick and determined to get rid of him.

I liked the Britain that Blair painted back in 1997 but I now see that his vision never arrived and what we got instead was a nightmare of epic proportions.

I'm scared of Labour and so are most of the people I meet and talk to. We have lost all confidence in Labour to deliver any form of fairness.

You have 12 weeks left in power. Prove us wrong.

@ John Doe (where's Richard Roe?) to Ralph

I'm not a good person like Ralph.

'the quest for social engineering'

There is social engineering and social engineering. I'm afraid that I regard social closure and 'opportunity hoarding' as as much social engineering as trying to open opportunities for the under-privileged. Over the last thirty years, social and economic distances have widened? Some people here are blaming Labour. It seems to me that the converse is true: that despite the best efforts of Labour's investments, the privileged have entrenched their position by their ability to purchase social goods (education; social networking to get good jobs; etc). Whereas there were opportunities for social mobility in the 60s, those avenues have been closed off by the perpetuation of an affluent elite. Jo regards David Cameron as a decent chap - I don't share that opinion; regardless of that, his grandfather was a stockbroker and his father was a stockbroker and they have been able to 'opportunity hoard'. That's why over 50% of admissions to Oxbridge (and some Russell Group universities like Durham and Bristol) relentlessly comprise fee-paying undergrads, whilst only about 7% of the A-level population attended fee-paying schools. To my feeble mind, that social closure and 'opportunity hoarding' is just as much social engineering as trying to mitigate its dominance. Sorry.

Dave

You get all types in people in life.
Those who have advantages of birth and use it: eg David Cameron and Tony Benn.

Those who have no advantages in life and rise above it: eg John Prescott. David Davies.

and those who have no advantages and don't try.. and those who have advantages and p1ss them away.

A lot of it is down to home attitudes.. If you accept your lot and cannot be bothered to try, uou will not get anywhere.

I was lucky. I did not go to private school but my parents taught me to try.

I see some kids and frankly their parents don't even try to bring them up. Period..

No amount of social engineering can alter lack of parenting or unwillingness to try. And it is a fact in the UK that Socialist Governments end in failure.. and make the poor no richer.

The point is this: every indicator and survey has shown that there has been a widening of social and economic distance over the last thirty years and that there is social closure. Those are the survey data. You can give me all the anecdotal stories that you wish - and I rejoice in your success - but the survey data show that there has been an intensification of differentiation. Some will make it against the odds and good for them, but the general pattern is different and significant. As Peter put it, I will not close the door after I have had the opportunity and I will not accept the values of social closure and 'opportunity hoarding' - and both those terms are common in the sociological literature about what has happened in the last thirty years. You seem to think that we are driven by envy rather than altruism, by insincerity rather than conviction. Our values are not your values, but they are sincerely held, and we, here on this list, do not fabricate or misinform as far as is within our ability. Furthermore, let's not have any more of this jumping to conclusions - for your own sakes as much as ours, for you only reveal vitriol, vindictiveness and carping natures.

Dave please publish the survey data links you reference.

@ John Smith The most recent and complex (in the sense that it considers all its complexity) is:

www.socialmobilitycommission.org/.../2009/.../social-mobility-report-final.pdf

but it is necessary to read the whole report and in particular p.16.

A brief context for it is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jan/12/social-mobility-disadvantage

A report commissioned from the LSE by the Sutton Trust, which is more straightforward, is:

cep.lse.ac.uk/about/news/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf

No doubt, not everyone will accept these conclusions, but I think they are pretty reliable in showing that since 1970, inter-generational mobility has stalled in the UK.

Dave

You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder. No government of either colour will make you happy because rather than doing something yourself you will be much more intent on complaining that life isn't being handed to you on a plate. My guess is you live in a Labour safe seat

'Dave

You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder. No government of either colour will make you happy because rather than doing something yourself you will be much more intent on complaining that life isn't being handed to you on a plate. My guess is you live in a Labour safe seat'

Just shows how wrong you can be, John (Doe). I live in one of the safest Tory seats in the country - Ken Clarke's Rushcliffe. None of what I suggest is for me - I am retired, have had my opportunity, and am only trying to do what I consider is best for the coming generations. I have no axe to grind for me personally. You have obviously not read what I have previously written. So I hope that first you will apologize for commenting that I have a massive chip on my shoulder and secondly that I want life to be handed to me on a plate. I had the great advantage of social mobility when a teenager in the 60s - I want those same opportunities for the young people of today who will be growing up in my circumstances. Please don't make assumptions.

Dave

I'm delighted that I'm wrong and that your vote is as worthless as the pound would be under another Labour government.

'I'm delighted that I'm wrong and that your vote is as worthless as the pound would be under another Labour government.'

But it's not, of course, because we have to contribute to the aggregate popular vote to show that Labour is still a force to be reckoned with - just like Bush/Gore.

You mean the popular vote in 2005 where the Tories got more votes in England than Labour?

'You mean the popular vote in 2005 where the Tories got more votes in England than Labour?'

Exactly so, if it was just an English election and that was the basis of the popular vote. I don't differentiate. I would, myself, prefer a PR system; I think FPTP should be abandoned - have thought so for some time. Whichever party wins any election under the FPTP system, it is still valuable to note (just note) the aggregate popular vote.

@John Doe

I am not really concerned about the outcome of the General Election. I have enough to do in one constituency and am not part of the Government and therefore am not liable for the outcome in all the other ones.

I understand and appreciate where you are coming from.

I do spend most of my time talking about where they have gone wrong and what they ought to do (without too much detail) to help themselves.

I watched Blair's election speech from 1997 last night. Left me feeling very sad.

I will not be proving anything to you. I am and always will do what is in the best interests of the party, victory or defeat.
Grey clouds can have silver linings.

Ralph

I wish you well in your quest. I don't think you or many other tribalists know what you represent anymore but as you're fighting the BNP in a Labour safe seat I wish you well.

@John Doe

I assure you I do know what I am fighting for. Also I am a very poor tribalist as I attack the areas where my party goes wrong in the hopes it will sort itself out.

It is an election campaign and I am (from the context of the converation with madasa fish) trying to get some debate with the Tories. Mainly for fun than tribal reasons. Lol

Madasa promised some more debate and I hope we will both enjoy whatever he cooks up next....

Also as a caveat I would like to point out that officers and non-commisioned staff still do an excellent (the vast majority) job in their service for this Country and though I may not see eye-to-eye with some of them it was for me, a great privalage and honour to serve with them and I always remember them fondly, whatever their rank and hope they keep safe wherever they are sent.

I'm a regular reader of this site but rarely comment however this time I do feel the need!

Ralph I generally find your comments to be at least based in some form of reality unlike a number of others on here but your comments in this thread frankly beggar belief!
I spent 16 years in the army finishing as a sergeant and the picture you paint of a radical difference between officers and the rest of us is frankly a complete load of rubbish and seems to be based on nothing more than pure class warfare, Officers = Tories = bad, the rest = Labour = good, what a complete load of bo**ocks!.
Having served in a number of different units I can quite happily say that, should politics ever be discussed which was rare, the general consensus would be that all of them were useless but if pushed the mayority of the guys would have more faith in the Tories and would vote that way, I hardly ever came across anyone who said that they'd vote Labour, didn't matter what regiment or corp they were in, infantry, tankies, Reme etc or generally were they came from and that includes guys from the valleys, the north etc

No surprise there. The forces will tend to attract traditionalist, authoritarian types who like order and discipline and would tend to be Tory.

@2tallbyfar!

No not many officers bothered to volunteer, could of been for a variety of reasons. Just stating what occured. I will retract the implication that Officers are naturally associated with the Conservative Party and agree with your sentiments that most armed forces personnel are indeed apolitical.

I too never met any Labour voters in the armed forces (even after their wages were increased in 2000).

I have to admit I placed the statement to gain more debate from madasa fish. It clearly did not work and I apologise if i caused offence.

Ralph

Thanks for the apology, again not something you see too much of here!
And for what its worth good luck in beating the BNP scum, I may be a blue but, as like most right thinking people, detest what they stand for.

"The greatest failure of the Conservative Party is to express any kind of real morality within the Party ranks."

I spoke too soon.

Ralph really hasn't figured out that everyone in politics is 99 times out of 100 in it for the right reasons.

I think Gordon is a utter moron who has financially destroyed this country for a generation. But I have never, ever, doubted his path was paved with the very best of intentions.

@James

No they are not. A grave misconception.

“Deeply unworthy of you, Ralph. You're not far from the de-humanising of the "enemy"”

I think is Ralph is correct that there is a pretty fundamental divide between you guys and us in terms of how we think. But actually the first grown up thing you realize in politics is that everyone in it believes what they are advocating is for the greater good.

I know that the policies of the left usual serve the exact opposite effect they were intended for because on the left don’t understand how their manipulations change the behaviour that drive the outcome they are observing. But I never lose sight that just because Labour governments, for example, increase poverty, they actually think they are reducing it. It what makes them so dangerous.

I hope Ralph really does know that everyone Lib/lab/con etc all strongly believe in making everyone happier healthier and improving their standard of living. It’s just that we all diverge on how to go about it.

Another example. I want people in the UK to be healthier, I think the way to do that is to dismantle the NHS, I know that you lot will think that’s madness because you think it inconceivable that the state does not deliver health care (as distinct to pay for it), but hopefully you all accept I’m genuine when I say I do want to make people healthier.

When it comes to charity, the provision of voluntary support in the community and helping one's neighbour I see no political colours, as in my long experience people, in the main, are basically good, generous and do not wish others harm. However, once we write politics into the equation out comes the pathetic claims of "my Party right or wrong", "I love my Party", "members of my Party are better than yours", etc, etc. then I despair! I love no political Party and despise all isms, as it is these that are the millstones that hold us back, except of course good old fashioned pragmatism in pursuit of a better Britain for my grandchildren.
Just think about Tony Blair loving the Labour Party, then vomit.

Which only serves to highlight how appalling Labour's record in government has been.

Voluntary workers are infested by Labour voters - 42% approval rating for Labour in this sector is abysmal.

Billy,

You could argue this support isn't surprising on two fronts.

1. Many of Labour's 'intake' (PPCs, Councillors and activists) are from the third sector.

2. Thanks to Labour's policies, they are sending plenty more clients their way.

Why end a good thing?

Good bye Guy.

I usually save my firepower for those who use naughty terminology to describe the Party I love with a very deep affection. It is a tough time for us at the moment and though questioning and challenging is normally a good thing, as I am sure people in your party felt in the run up to 1997 people can get very upset and sensitive in the run-up to a General Election.

I am even moderating my own language and tone and have asked Alex to delete without question anything I write that can harm our Party at this time, though I am critical I am constuctive also and only level my comments at those who seek to undermine the values of the Labour Party Old or New, whilst using the guise as being loyal supporters.

At the moment Guy it is time to just lower the tone a bit, all of us must realise the country and democracy itself is not in a stable or well-placed position.

The last Tory I challenged in a colourful manner had already accused people in the Labour Party as being "rats" and he really served himself/herself up to me as a starter.

As I said Guy it is a General Election and people coming back or going to canvass need a place for "inspiration" and Labourlist has to provide that.

I suggest you have a break until after the General and then come back when people are feeling less sensitive.

@Ralph

No problems mate, I was playing devils advocate a little with that post.

Good luck to you, personally I'd have no problem with you elected.

Anyway, really am off now for good.

Cheers

Actually Ralph,

I described Labour as "rats fighting in a sack on a sinking ship" which as a metaphor seems about right at the moment.

@Mike

No it was another Rat comment. Wrong Tory and wrong Rat hahahahaha

I described the Party as fighting like ferrets in a sacks on the sinking ship...at the time of the last challenge to Gordon.

I'll try something more original for the next challenge:-)

(In February?)

Mad,

Great minds... great minds.

@madasa and Mike

Do your worst, I'll be waiting ;)

Ralph
Well odds on there will be another challenge so I will be better prepared next time:-)

Or could challenges be like buses?

:-)

@madasa

Possibly, though more like bad taxi's as no-one knows where they end up lol!

yes, I finished in 2009 a period of 11 months in the voluntary sector completely unpaid for a medical charity

I vote Labour.

There's a lot of us about..........

Alex you really are scraping the barrel for something positive to say. Every time I see these Polls and the Poll of Polls, I imagine paid for Political Bloggers attempting to bottle Moonbeams. I see no movement in the settled opinion of the public, they do not love Cameroon and definitely dislike Brown. For us the GE is a catch 22 situation, we are plagued whoever wins. The future certainly is not brown.

Agreed completely. I remember how few officers would voluntarily give blood when I served, the vast majority were non-commisioned.

Doing anything kind or generous or in fact that even saves a life in contrary to the Conservative thought-process.

"Doing anything kind or generous or in fact that even saves a life in contrary to the Conservative thought-process. "

Deeply unworthy of you, Ralph. You're not far from the de-humanising of the "enemy" which is used by the Pinochets and Stalins to justify political murder and torture- "they just aren't the same as us". A very nasty slippery slope.

@Bill Lockheart

Nothing more de-humanising than not bothering to help people in real trouble.

Perhaps you will get in a car and drive to the nearest base and the next time blood is needed drag the Officers from their mess and show us all how "worthy" you all are.

Actions define us and what occured, occured.

There is, unfortunately a serious lack of morality within the ranks of the "old school", though there are ethics with some, there is clearly a trend as evidenced by the actions.

Clean up your conduct and I won't be able to say these things will I?

The greatest failure of the Conservative Party is to express any kind of real morality within the Party ranks.

Laughably, there is a moral case you people could use. Shame you have not found it yet.

@ Ralph, I'm not a Tory. I'll be voting tactically, Lib Dem, to make sure Labour is kept out in Hornsey and Wood Green. I voted for your lot in '97, to my eternal shame. It is not necessary to be a Tory to understand what has become of this country under New Labour, both materially and morally. I now share the blame for neither the haut-en-bàs superciliousness of a Nicholas Soames nor the arriviste kleptomanic greed of Blair, Blears or Mandelson. A plague on all their houses. The decent few- Hoey, K. Clarke, Hague, your lot must have a couple more I've forgotten- are diamonds in a dungheap.

Your argument about "Tory officers" v. "selfless NCOs" has a rather glaring flaw: you're assuming that none of your NCOs were Tories.
That strikes me as a rather large and implausible assumption.

It's Lockhart, by the way. No "e".

Bill,

If there is one thing I like, its somebody with a mind of their own and the ability to express themselves. Diamonds in a dungheap, excellent turn of phrase!

For the record Jeremy Corbyn another diamond.

@Bill

When you try an label my comments as "closed door exactions" you need to read what I write. I left a caveat stataing there were exceptions. Of course some people could not give blood, but we were all amazed at the sheer lack of attendence. I did see an officer there who I knew who was as shocked as we were.

Incidently you cannot attack me for the inaction and apathy of others. Your shooting the messenger because you do not like the message.

Apologies I assumed you were a Tory, I guess you are just anti-Labour.

Ralph
The greatest failure of the Conservative Party is to express any kind of real morality within the Party ranks.

I cannot see the value of a Labour Party member criticising his opponents on morality grounds when your party still apparently has Damien McBride as a member. Or Tony Blair.

Neither major Party has anything to crow of in morality issues.

@madasa

Well you did not ask me what the greatest failings of the Labour party are hahaha.

If the Tories had approached (Cameron tried too at your conference)their policies from another perspective they would be well above the 40's on the Polls.

Honestly just like Labour, it is all yours for the taking, it is so easy it is amazing they will not do what it takes to take power.

@Ralph

I've just told Alex on another thread I'm leaving LL.

I was warned that "if you're offending people here we'll have to end our friendship".

As a parting shot I wonder if saying "Doing anything kind or generous or in fact that even saves a life in contrary to the Conservative thought-process" also falls within that "offending people" definition.

I suspect not, which leads to my view that debate on LL isn't really a good use of my time.

You and I have had interesting discussions and I wish you well, but perhaps you should look at your own prejudices before attacking Tories.

Bye bye all, it's been fun.

P.S. This is no way a criticism of Alex, good luck to him.

Hi Alex - I wouldn't be surprised to find that more people in the third sector are Labour supporters than Tory anyway. The poll is pretty meaningless unless people's voting intention was asked so that any bias in the sample could be shown. If 42% of those polled were Labour supporters /committed Labour voters then you would expect to get the result that was found.

and?

Rather unsurprisingly - for a Labour supporting site - this comment was ommitted:


"Joe Saxton, co-founder of nfpSynergy, said the result was unexpected. "I was surprised that people were quite so pro-Labour and anti-Conservative," he said. "The Tories have made vast strides since 1995/96, when they were not that interested in the sector; now the sector is central to their thinking. Maybe it's ‘better the devil you know'. ""

And of course there was no voter weighting: so it's a voodoo poll and so entirely worthless.

Show me the statistics that list what Tory supporters in the charitable sector thought would be best.

Else all it reads like to me is Labour voters in the charitable sector, of which there are many, think Labour is best.

Not sh*t Sherlock

Next you'll tell me Tory voters in the business sector think the Tory party will be best for business - shock horror.

Regarding your last sentence Alex; very good to be hearing some real statistics about Labour's actual acheivements.

The debate and discussion so far in the national media have been very unbalanced in my opinion- all driven by vested interests and outside agendas.