Why do poor people keep voting Labour..

[Longcol]

Depends what you mean by equality.

 

 

 

I never said and I don't believe that most Labour voters are on benefits. However I do believe that most people on benefits will be Labour supporters.

 

Re: equality - if you are going to avoid an "underclass" of people poorer than the rest then you are bound to have greater equality. Poverty in this country is largely relative - so even if the lowest 20% earned £15k pa they would still be "poor" if the average was £45k pa.

 

From experience in the area where I live - most people on benefits don't vote.

[Alien]

Of course your stance proves my point entirely. You seem to have this weird idea that simply increasing spending money (which, as far as education is concerned, is both true and false) makes people wealthier when obviously it doesn't.

What makes people wealthier is getting them to provide goods and services that have a high valuation attached to them.

 

By creating nearly 4million unemployed under the Tories?

[pininsho]

That Labour's policies have not got anyone back in to work is too absurd to even know where to begin with. Have you never heard of New Deal? Local Employer Partnerships etc.

 

Yes I have and many of these jobs are low paid, unsustainable positions due to the fact that some (not all) have no or very little value added wealth creation attached to them.

 

Those particular programmes are for getting long term unemployed in to work, it doesn't matter that they are low paid jobs, it is irrelevant to your assertion.

 

The point that you seem to have lost very quickly is that this thread is precisely about 'why poor (low paid) people keep voting Labour' so is totally relevent.

The clue's in the title.....maybe you need to look again to refresh your memory.

 

Broadened access to training and higher education has also enabled people to work at all levels in society.

 

Tell me something I don't already know.

 

There is a problem of social mobility because of the competition for high paid jobs that unfortunately working class people educated to the same standards experience. But that is not caused by a lack of funding. In fact it is caused by the opposite, it is caused by student debts and the need for students from lower income families to work whilst they are studying, that limits their ability to take on work that would make them more employable in higher earning jobs.

 

This paper for example discusses the problem:

 

 

 

http://www.hecsu.ac.uk/hecsu.rd/research_reports_he_expansion_and_the_graduate_labour_market.htm

 

It took you all that time to come up with this piece of evidence? Couldn't you do better than that?

This simply shows up the problem of New Labour's idea of trying to get as many people into higher education as possible to keep them off the unemployment register, the result being that the quality of secondary and further education has to be dumbed down for students to achieve the 'qualifications' needed to get them into higher education. And then when there are too many students going after too few top jobs the 'working class chip' comes to the fore yet again.

(Is this condescending enough for you redrobbo?)

 

The problem then is not a matter of overfunding, it is one of the underfunding of student loans.

 

So.....you want students to get into more debt then?

[Longcol]

Basically, the Labour Party need to keep people poor or on benefits (whilst at the same time giving the impression that they are/will become better off under Labour) so that it has a ready supply of gullible voters at election time.

 

So - if you believe this - let's see your masterplan to get rid of the poor.

[Wildcat]

Yes I have and many of these jobs are low paid, unsustainable positions due to the fact that some (not all) have no or very little value added wealth creation attached to them.

 

What evidence do you have for that?

 

The point that you seem to have lost very quickly is that this thread is precisely about 'why poor (low paid) people keep voting Labour' so is totally relevent.

The clue's in the title.....maybe you need to look again to refresh your memory.

 

So you are talking about relative poverty, not the unemployed after all?

 

The point is that getting people on to the lower rungs of the ladder is a step up and a start towards getting better work.

 

Tell me something I don't already know.

 

In the classic Alfred Hitchcock movie Psycho, they used chocolate syrup for blood, and the 45-second scene took seven days to shoot.

 

It took you all that time to come up with this piece of evidence? Couldn't you do better than that?

 

I have been eating my tea.

 

This simply shows up the problem of New Labour's idea of trying to get as many people into higher education as possible to keep them off the unemployment register,

 

Actually that was a Tory idea. The clue was in the first sentence:

 

In this article, Aphrodite Papadatou, HECSU Researcher, juxtaposes some of the theories and evidence surrounding the wider economic and social implications of the post-1992 expansion of the UK Higher Education sector.

 

the result being that the quality of secondary and further education has to be dumbed down for students to achieve the 'qualifications' needed to get them into higher education. And then when there are too many students going after too few top jobs the 'working class chip' comes to the fore yet again.

(Is this condescending enough for you redrobbo?)

 

Any evidence for that, aside from the annual rubbish that the papers publish just before the exam results come out?

 

http://www.deceptikons.com/article.asp?file=254.xml

 

So.....you want students to get into more debt then?

 

No, I am in favour of bringing back student grants like they have done in Scotland.

[pininsho]

From experience in the area where I live - most people on benefits don't vote.

 

I agree.....but what I actually said is that I believe most people on benefits are Labour supporters, which is different to actually getting off their backsides and voting Labour.

[Longcol]

I agree.....but what I actually said is that I believe most people on benefits are Labour supporters, which is different to actually getting off their backsides and voting Labour.

 

Nope - these people largely believe that all politicians are in it for themselves - they do like simple answers - thats the ones aware of politics.

 

They don't support anybody.

[Wildcat]

I agree.....but what I actually said is that I believe most people on benefits are Labour supporters, which is different to actually getting off their backsides and voting Labour.

 

I have met a fair number of Tories on benefits. They tend to be Alf Garnett types, heavy on the prejudice and a little intellectually challenged. I am sure the diet of daytime tv doesn't help.

[pininsho]

So you are talking about relative poverty, not the unemployed after all?

 

I'm talking about low paid working class people or people on benefit.

 

The point is that getting people on to the lower rungs of the ladder is a step up and a start towards getting better work.

 

And everybody lives happily ever after. If only it worked like that in real life.

 

In the classic Alfred Hitchcock movie Psycho, they used chocolate syrup for blood, and the 45-second scene took seven days to shoot.

 

Fascinating.

 

I have been eating my tea.

 

Even more fascinating.

 

Actually that was a Tory idea. The clue was in the first sentence:

 

Which was continued and expanded by New labour.....but as I'm not a supporter of any of the political parties http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=6242300#post6242300 then your point is totally irrelevent.

On top of that I never had you down as a Tory supporter.

 

No, I am in favour of bringing back student grants like they have done in Scotland.

 

Ooops....now you've suddenly gone all Lib Dem on me. You'd do OK in this new coalition wildcat.

Or IOW, what you're wanting here is for everybody else, including low paid workers, to subsidise students going to university with the understanding that most people who complete their university courses will earn a lot more money than these low paid tax payers will ever earn.

Hmmm.....doesn't sound very fair to me.

[Longcol]

Or IOW, what you're wanting here is for everybody else, including low paid workers, to subsidise students going to university with the understanding that most people who complete their university courses will earn a lot more money than these low paid tax payers will ever earn.

Hmmm.....doesn't sound very fair to me.

 

How do low paid workers subsidise students? In terms of taxation the low paid are largely subsidised by the higher earners. Just as the City of London and the south east subsidise the rest of the country.