We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Economic impact of a Labour win
Comments
-
chewmylegoff wrote: »I don't think it will make much difference if labour get into power or not frankly. I assume there will be an amusing set of events about three months in when Balls stabs Miliband in the back and becomes prime minister .
Mrs B was the favourite to replace Ed in the betting last time I looked.
I agree though it will not make much difference who wins. Labour can be accused of not having funded programmes, but so can the Tories. In fact I was amazed that last week the Tories proposed the sort of unfunded tax cuts that had Balls suggested them would have been panned by Osborne. Elections are generally about who has the most convincing lies.
The main interest in the next election is the impact of 4 party politics on the outcome. It will be a crap game.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Not true. Family Allowance was introduced to provide women with children with an income if their husbands failed to provide for them. It's a ridiculous anachronism.
I may be wrong but I recall that it was introduced after the war as a way of encouraging population growth, giving mothers the money was as you say considered beneficial.
The left opposed it fearing that it would simply be taken into account in pay negotiations.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
I may be wrong but I recall that it was introduced after the war as a way of encouraging population growth, giving mothers the money was as you say considered beneficial.
The left opposed it fearing that it would simply be taken into account in pay negotiations.
The point of the campaign was to provide mothers with an independent source of income.0 -
The point of the campaign was to provide mothers with an independent source of income.
You're wrong and BobQ is right.
It was also an important tenet at the start of the welfare state that everybody got a bit back regardless of income. It was felt at the time that the moment you water down the universal aspect of certain benefits then you would create an unhealthy divide between those who receive and those who don't but still have to pay for those who do. This current government as you're aware broke this important principle when it means tested CHB a couple of years back, this was the death knell for UK welfare state as we know it and we'll see a gradual wind down of the universal benefits we all recieve. As an example, I as the potential recipient of decent pension do not expect to receive a state pension when I retire at 68 in 2034, if I get there of course!
The direction of travel on benefits is clear in my view.“Britain- A friend to all, beholden to none”. 🇬🇧0 -
No I'm not.............
There were good reasons why child allowance was payable to women but it was not created specifically as you say to provide married women with an independent income. If I recall correctly and as BobQ has said, it was paid out for the second and any subsequent child in an attempt to up post war birth rates and of course to eradicate child poverty.“Britain- A friend to all, beholden to none”. 🇬🇧0 -
0
-
Appears that Gordon's budget forecasts were awry. Today reflects decisions made years ago not yesterday. Remind us what happened in 2010/11 after the coalition took office........0 -
Taking no account of inflation or the relative size of the economy of course.“I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.” - P.G. Wodehouse0
-
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards