egafd.com

Fair points. Normal service now resumed.

alicia_fan_uk

Have you thought about what impact a shorter journey time to the capital may have on the local areas these lines with go to/through? It could mean someone from Birmingham, or Nottingham could comfortable commute into the capital and work. This pulls money out of the city and helps spread it around the country. Surely a good thing.

It also means London companies can cast their net further than before, picking up employees who otherwise may not have moved to London. Better employees could mean better productivity putting them in a better position to compete internationally. Surely a good thing.

It could mean companies scared of London rates can move further out of the city, again helping to spread the wealth, but still having the advantages of being tied closely with the capital of Europe. Surely a good thing.

David Johnson wrote:


> This is generally a 19th Centrury Victorian type argument which
> has surfaced again in the developed world with the Neo-Cons.
> As far as the Neo-Cons go, it involves a withdrawal of the
> state in these areas and placing more of a reliance on
> charities and in the States, food stamps to try and support
> people who are struggling. There is a stigma in the US on
> anybody getting food stamps.
>
> This view logically also involves the withdrawal of all
> State-paid support for children and their parents e.g in the
> Uk, Surestart, child tax credit, child trust fund etc etc.
> This is the logical result of your statement above i.e. if you
> have children, you pay for them.
>
David, child trust funds are being withdrawn - or at least the last government announced that they were being abolished.

There used to be a stigma in this country about being on the dole - going to see Father Feed Em All was supposed to be a last resort not a lifestyle choice. Too many people these days have never worked nor have their parents and that can never be a good thing either for society as a whole or those people themselves. Work is more than just a paypacket at the end of the week/month - it is psychologically beneficial or so we are told.

Perhaps if there was a stigma attached to being on the dole, more people might get off their backsides and find a job. It can never be right that people can get as much if not more on benefits as they would working.

Your last sentence was, I guess, supposed to make us all recoil in horror but yes if you have children, you SHOULD pay for them.

I wish that you had changed the subject - people might think that I don't know all this arcane political stuff - and believe me I can bore people rigid with it!

alicia_fan_uk wrote:

> I wish people would understand how our democracy works. There
> is no such thing as an "elected" PM in the context that this
> issue is normally raised (as it has been done so above).
> Gordon Brown was no more or less elected as PM by the public
> than Tony Blair, John Major or Maggie Thatcher (to name but a
> few). Gordon Brown put himself forward for the vacant post of
> leader of the Labour Party - which just happened to be in power
> at the time - and was elected unopposed (as Tony, Maggie and
> John would have been had no-one stood against them for party
> leadership). I'm not saying I agree with the system, but
> that's just how it is.

While what you say is accurate I think that in the case of Mrs Thatcher and Tony Blair, people did vote for their parties because of them. John Major became PM in 1992 because Neil Kinnock was unelectable as was Michael Foot in 1983 (even without the Falklands War).

There is no law requiring them to do so but if a party changes leader mid-term (for reasons other than illness or death), it should go to the country to seek a fresh mandate. Gordon Brown would almost certainly have won if he had the guts to call an election in the autumn of 2007 but that was always one of his failings - cowardice.


> We can argue about whether "everybody really just votes for the
> party leader though, don't they?" until we are blue (or red, or
> yellow) in the face. In reality, people vote the way they do
> for a whole host of different reasons. Some are leadership
> led, others due to a plethora of alternative reasons.
>
See above...

[quote]Too many people these days have never worked nor have their parents and that can never be a good thing either for society as a whole or those people themselves.[/quote]

But how many is too many? We Brits work the longest hours in the developed world, we have the fewest bank holidays in Europe and take the shortest lunch breaks too.

Maybe a big step in getting people into work is to change our attitude to it. Work to live rather than living to work.

Americans get only 10 days holiday a year compared to our 4-5 weeks.

I wouldn't want to live under either the French or Italian systems. Spaniards have long lunch breaks because of the heat... again not ideal.

Those things are good things but the cost of the commute will be so expensive that it could barely be afforded by the average person. If going from Birmingham to London becomes as quick as it presently is from Luton to London the cost of doing it certainly wont be as cheap as Luton to London presently is.

I imagine some of the money for these lines had already started being spent before the Tories/Lib Dems took office so they have to go ahead with it. Crossrail in London began before the Election. I still wonder why the huge allocation of monies towards lines not yet started is still going to be spent.

It might be beneficial to have shorter rail jouney times but it is also beneficial to retain the number of Police, and Police support staff, we presently have, and also to keep a lot of money allocated to the Armed Forces. The sub standard equipment a lot of the guys have had in Iraq and Afghanistan have, tragically, cost lives. If we find ourselves in another conflict - and I hope we don't - the equipment needs to be up to standard, so the budgets allocated to the Forces needs to be kept high.

"David, child trust funds are being withdrawn - or at least the last government announced that they were being abolished."

Wrong, I suspect.

On 24 May 2010 the Government announced that it intended to reduce and then stop Government payments to Child Trust Fund accounts. Parliament has now passed the Regulations necessary to introduce the first stage of these changes with effect from August 2010.

"There used to be a stigma in this country about being on the dole - going to see Father Feed Em All was supposed to be a last resort not a lifestyle choice. Too many people these days have never worked nor have their parents and that can never be a good thing either for society as a whole or those people themselves. Work is more than just a paypacket at the end of the week/month - it is psychologically beneficial or so we are told."

This has nothing at all to do with the subject being discussed i.e. the state involvement or otherwise in supporting those in need, hence no comment.

"Your last sentence was, I guess, supposed to make us all recoil in horror but yes if you have children, you SHOULD pay for them."

I disagree and am no more convinced by your use of CAPS.

Nothing more to discuss.

Cheers
D

Gentlemen,

I am interested in the wider argument about universal benefits.

Alicia Fan stated
"Why should, say, a city banker on a multi-million pound package get ?46 a week to fund his three offspring whilst someone cleaning his office with no kids is effectively part-funding that?"

Sam Slater stated
"Family allowances should only be given to families who need it. Maybe I should've been clearer."

Obviously, a similar argument can be used re. bus passes, winter fuel allowance i.e. why should a retired city banker etc etc.

If you agree with the same logic being used for bus passes and winter fuel as Osborne has used for child benefit, where would you put the cut-off point i.e. get it, don't get it? And how would you see it administered?

Cheers
D

David,

Firstly, I believe Osbourne's logic (as presented) to defend the move is not necessarily the real reason he has done this - it's just a useful way to present it to the public. Fundamentally, he wants to cut spending and through this he will have something to point to as a means to show "we're all in this together" etc. He readily gave in re the ?6bn tax liability to Vodafone remember - the very same amount Cameron and Brown fiercely argued over during the Leaders' Debates. Also, I don't see him hammering the core Tory pensioner vote too hard come CSR announcement time...

Re universal benefits: it's hard to set anything other than a somewhat arbitrary level re where to draw the line (in the same way as, say, how/where the higher rate tax threshold is set). And as with all rules and regs there will be winners and losers. However, if you need benefits to live to a minimum/reasonable standard, by all means you should be able to claim them. If we as a society agree a level (?15k, ?20k, ?25k, ?100k, whatever) over which you should not be able to receive benefits such as winter fuel payments and free bus passes then so be it, you shouldn't get them.

alicia_fan_uk