Jamie Oliver: 'sugar tax'

[WiseOwl182]

It would be true to conservative form, since it will hit the poor the worst.

 

 

Yes, the poor do much better under Labour, being paid to stay unemployed, having a car crash of an economy to try to find a job in, and trying to afford housing with house prices doubling in just a few years.

[Cyclone]

Fortunately we have more than 2 parties to choose from.

[unbeliever]

It would be true to conservative form, since it will hit the poor the worst.

 

Yes those dastardly conservatives. Putting up the minimum wage, increasing employment, giving bigger pay rises to low paid public sector workers and cutting the income tax of low earners to zero. I don't know how they live with themselves.

[Cyclone]

Cutting benefits (including in work benefits), directly contributing to the deaths of several thousand people who were told they were fit enough to work (and promptly died to prove the system wrong), increasing the number of zero hours contracts so that more people appear to be in work...

 

Don't try and spin the conservatives as helping the poor, they're the party for the rich, if the middle class had any intelligence they wouldn't vote for them either.

[El Cid]

Fortunately we have more than 2 parties to choose from.

 

Not a real multi party system tho, not since 1915 have the Liberals held true power.

The Liberal welfare reforms took place and rescued many from poverty, they introduced free school meals and attempted to bring in a land tax.

[unbeliever]

Cutting benefits (including in work benefits), directly contributing to the deaths of several thousand people who were told they were fit enough to work (and promptly died to prove the system wrong), increasing the number of zero hours contracts so that more people appear to be in work...

 

Don't try and spin the conservatives as helping the poor, they're the party for the rich, if the middle class had any intelligence they wouldn't vote for them either.

 

Zero hours contracts are not really a problem except where the employer demands exclusivity. Demonising them is not helpful.

People die whenever government makes mistakes, but those work fitness assessments could have been and should have been done a lot better.

 

It makes no sense at all for the government to take money off the poor in taxes and then give it back in benefits. I think the conservative way of not taking it off them is far more respectful and in everybody's long term interests.

 

The working poor are better off. This is good. The chronically unemployed are still supported above subsistence level, but need to understand that unemployment is not a legitimate lifestyle choice.

 

I find it difficult to accept your refusal to acknowledge that an honest person with the best of intentions could come to the conclusion that the conservative way is a better way. I suppose some people are just brought up to hate one side or the other in politics and like a religion it becomes part of their identity and they struggle to see these things objectively.

 

---------- Post added 04-09-2015 at 09:21 ----------

 

Not a real multi party system tho, not since 1915 have the Liberals held true power.

The Liberal welfare reforms took place and rescued many from poverty, they introduced free school meals and attempted to bring in a land tax.

 

That's changing. The SNP, who I don't like, are doing very well and on the other side UKIP are becoming a force to be reckoned with.

[El Cid]

That's changing. The SNP, who I don't like, are doing very well and on the other side UKIP are becoming a force to be reckoned with.

 

The FPTP system favours two parties, UKIP could get totally wiped out at any time. What sort of party will they be once we have had a vote on the EU?

[unbeliever]

The FPTP system favours two parties, UKIP could get totally wiped out at any time. What sort of party will they be once we have had a vote on the EU?

 

The system does favour 2 parties. But as long as other parties are attracting votes (even if not seats) they're influencing policy.

I have no idea what will happen to UKIP if we vote to leave the EU. If we vote to stay in, they're not going anywhere.

[Cyclone]

I find it difficult to accept your refusal to acknowledge that an honest person with the best of intentions could come to the conclusion that the conservative way is a better way. I suppose some people are just brought up to hate one side or the other in politics and like a religion it becomes part of their identity and they struggle to see these things objectively.

 

You'd be wrong about that.

Personally I benefit from conservative policies, but I can see how they favour big business and the rich, and they continue to attack the NHS with the intention of selling it off and lining their own pockets.

 

My parents and grandparents were staunchly labour.

 

I'm liberal.

 

So it's definitely not a case of upbringing. I like to think that I'm capable of rationally looking at things like politics and casting my vote based on what is best for the entire country. I don't think the conservatives are best unless you're well educated and/or wealthy, and widening the gap between the haves and the have nots is bad for the country.

[unbeliever]

You'd be wrong about that.

Personally I benefit from conservative policies, but I can see how they favour big business and the rich, and they continue to attack the NHS with the intention of selling it off and lining their own pockets.

 

My parents and grandparents were staunchly labour.

 

I'm liberal.

 

So it's definitely not a case of upbringing. I like to think that I'm capable of rationally looking at things like politics and casting my vote based on what is best for the entire country. I don't think the conservatives are best unless you're well educated and/or wealthy, and widening the gap between the haves and the have nots is bad for the country.

 

I disagree. I think that Liberal and Labour policies (especially Labour) create the impression of serving the poor but actually achieve the reverse.

I don't like this obsession with reducing the difference between rich and poor. I'm interested in improving the lot of the poor in absolute terms. I think that in practise these 2 goals are in conflict.

I make a distinction between the working poor who are a high priority to me; and the wilfully, chronically unemployed who I want to offer basic support to but no more.

I was brought up Labour and took a lot of ideas as facts for a long time which I later realised are just opinions and in my experience they are not well informed ones.

 

I firmly believe that the real debate in UK politics is between 2 opposing ideas of how to improve the lot of the poor. Since I reject the idea that the relative wealth of the poor is important, and I know a little about economics, I have come to the firm conclusion that despite tending to increase the gap between rich and poor, the welfare of the working poor is generally better served by conservative policies.

 

By the way, the NHS in England has received funding increases above all measures of inflation since 2010. Myself I would prefer a continental style hybrid system of healthcare funding. But clearly the current conservative leadership is determined to support and protect the current fully-state NHS system. If you're concerned with the NHS in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; I'm sure you must be aware that this is not currently controlled by the Conservatives.

Edited September 4, 2015 by unbeliever