Because I value spending my last months with my family over going to work and earning money for some rich, overpaid CEO who probably couldn't give a to$$ if I had cancer or not and would be replacing me a week after I died. Thats why.

You failed – repeatedly – to comprehend that it was not my idea, even though I had made it patently clear who had mentioned it, and that it was not suggested (by that original person or, later, by myself) as anything more than an example.

Then you twisted another comment – and have persisted in pretending that what you claim was said was said, when it never was.

You're either very stupid, a troll with nothing positive to add to any discussion or a combination of the two.

It will be fascinating to see how the French economy performs under Hollande in the next two years. It should provide a better comparison of the success or failure of the coalition's economic policies relative to a Labour style government.

That may be so but there is another reason why the benefit was universal. It is to do with, ironically enough, being "all in it together". If you pay into the welfare state via taxes and NI and you also benefit from it (in this case via child benefit) then you have a stake in the system. If it is all one way traffic in that some people only ever pay in and are never eligible for any form of pay out, then sooner or later the system breaks down as those people begrudge paying anything in at all and start to support parties from the right to who promise them just that. We are well down that road and it is quite deliberate policy from the right which is very divisive.

Why? You are assuming a UK Labour government would be a clone of the Hollande administration which it would not be and furthermore there are so many differences between France and the UK economically already you would not be comparing like with like.

It's far simpler IMO. Which is the better approach? The more pro-growth style of Obama or Austerity? It seems so far the yanks are winning that particular debate.

No one will win that debate until they reach equilibrium, a state of steady growth with the budget deficit under control. Both the UK and the US are a very long way off that. Obama may be in the lead now but he's nowhere near the winning post.

The French economy isnt the same as the UK's but it is more similar to the UK than is the US. And Hollande's policies are much closer to Labour than are Obama's. But even allowing for the differences, if the French economy significantly outperforms the UK's in the next 2 years, Labour will inevitably cite that at the next election as a vindication of their views on how the economy should have been managed. And ditto for the Tories if the French economy does worse. The state of the French economy will be a big deal at the next election.

Has anyone else stumbled across this cheery little number?

[url=http://www.moneyweek.com/endofbritainMoneyweek - The End of Britain[/url

It's a long piece, very alarmist in nature, and clearly the main aim is to flog copies of their 'Wealth Preservation Report'.

But leaving that aside, I'm wondering what people's views are of the [url=http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/uk/the-end-of-britain-sourcesfacts and figures[/url within the article, and the outlook for our glorious nation? Moneyweek tend to be pretty good and the key facts seem valid enough. The Welfare State is not only a massive burden, but has morphed into a monster and in its present form appears to be completely unsustainable without radical changes to not only our economy but the expectations of our society.

Of course, assuming the article's projections are correct, it also ignores any intervention measures or other action that may help ease the damage. Presumably some of these are touched upon on an individual and national level in their much-vaunted 'Report'.

To save a little time, skip the exhausting promotional crap and start from the section entitled, "The downward slide has begun".

I'm no economic expert and would be interested in the views of my more learned peers on these fine boards.

Very good post.

The divide-and-rule stuff is really quite heartbreaking – at least in terms of how effective it is being at present. You only need to look at the survey that was released last week that showed the difference between what many people [ibelieve[/i is the situation on benefits being paid and the reality to see how effective it has been.

But then again, the right has the likes of Murdoch and the [iMail[/i group behind it. And a generally dumbed-down public discourse doesn't help.

My son and his family get them, no Nissan, no iPads just a struggle to make it last.

No he doesn't.

Thatcher presided over a period of burgeoning meritocracy. That's the last thing the Old Etonian brigade want. Even she went the beginning of our meritocracy have been swept away - mainly, it has to be said, as a result of Labour's crass ideology.

Quote ="Cibaman"No one will win that debate until they reach equilibrium, a state of steady growth with the budget deficit under control. Both the UK and the US are a very long way off that. Obama may be in the lead now but he's nowhere near the winning post. The French economy isnt the same as the UK's but it is more similar to the UK than is the US. And Hollande's policies are much closer to Labour than are Obama's. But even allowing for the differences, if the French economy significantly outperforms the UK's in the next 2 years, Labour will inevitably cite that at the next election as a vindication of their views on how the economy should have been managed. And ditto for the Tories if the French economy does worse. The state of the French economy will be a big deal at the next election.'" Creently the French econonomy is way underperforming the British one. It has slipped down the competitiveness rankings significantly, whereas the UK one has improved its competitiveness. The UK economy is about to overtake France's GDP too. That said, the UK is in a mess, a very big mess. I think this article sets things out nicely and shows what a way we have to go to reverse long-term decline: www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... loons.html

Quote ="Cibaman"No one will win that debate until they reach equilibrium, a state of steady growth with the budget deficit under control. Both the UK and the US are a very long way off that. Obama may be in the lead now but he's nowhere near the winning post. The French economy isnt the same as the UK's but it is more similar to the UK than is the US. And Hollande's policies are much closer to Labour than are Obama's. But even allowing for the differences, if the French economy significantly outperforms the UK's in the next 2 years, Labour will inevitably cite that at the next election as a vindication of their views on how the economy should have been managed. And ditto for the Tories if the French economy does worse. The state of the French economy will be a big deal at the next election.'" Creently the French econonomy is way underperforming the British one. It has slipped down the competitiveness rankings significantly, whereas the UK one has improved its competitiveness. The UK economy is about to overtake France's GDP too. That said, the UK is in a mess, a very big mess. I think this article sets things out nicely and shows what a way we have to go to reverse long-term decline: www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... loons.html

Post war, the UK had built a meritocracy, where anyone, from any background, could aspire to pretty much any heights.

But from 1979 on, that started to change. One of the ways in which it started to change was that vocational tertiary education started to become removed from the grant system.

So, for example, from the 1950s on, this country produced an extraordinary array of acting and writing talent, with a vibrant theatre and film industry to go with it, covering everything from serious drama to farce, to musical to ... well, just about anything you can think of. And many of those involved were from working-class backgrounds.

But from the very early 1980s on, you could only – for instance – get into an acting course if you had private funds. Indeed, not just that – there were drama departments in good universities closing because of the attack.

This applied in other vocational areas, whether music or even the clergy. The start of the attack on tertiary educational grants was the start of an attack on meritocracy itself.

The demise of grammar schools also played a part. They had been a way for working class children to get a break – for instance, consider both the UK's top architects, Norman Foster and Richard Rodgers both northern, working-class boys from council estates who went to grammar school.

The problem with the grammar schools was not so much with those schools, but with the arbitrary nature of the 11 plus and, indeed, the attitude that accompanied it – ie that you 'passed' or 'failed', rather than it being a way of working out what form of education/training might work best for you; and also that in far too many cases, the subsequent secondary education was of a lower quality than that at a grammar school.

I post that on the basis of my own experience at grammar school and my sister's experience at secondary schools.

But to go back to the beginning: the Thatcher era was most certainly not about creating or extending meritocracy. It was the beginning of the reining back of that.

Mintball has that absolutely right.

I post that on the basis of my own experience at grammar school and some very good friends' experiences at secondary schools.

The 11 plus was not arbitrary. Certainly far less less arbitrary than football or rugby trials (which rely more on human judgement / misjudgement). Should they be banned?

Thatcher attacked many vested interests. During her premiership the percentage of non-public school educated people running top listed companies increased (and since has declined).

Members of the Labour party cynically kicked away the grammar school ladder that had allowed many of them opportunity. To pretend that is not the major cause of the decline in meritocratic advances is disengenous. It is the prinicipal reason.

Of course it was. Why 11? Why not 10? Why not 12? The age was purely a bureaucratic matter.



I haven't. Read my post. Properly.

And by your own logic, if "Thatcher presided over a period of burgeoning meritocracy", then earlier attacks by Labour on the grammar school system, which you now say were "the major cause of the decline in meritocratic advances", and which started rather earlier, are rendered pretty much irrelevant.

How is it, and WHY is it, that the millionaires are going to end up 2-3k better off per month from April?

Have a guess



Heres mine

Most of the cabinet are multi millionaires, most of there mates are, Tory governments are renowned for looking after the rich and kicking the poor. I could go on.

Of course, the Cameron version is that it was so expensive to collect millions off millionaires it was not worth it, much better to let them keep it and let them 'offer' to pay up.

Because this is a government of the millionaires, by the millionaires, for the millionaires.

No - because mature people had come up through that system. As the tap was turned off the later supply weaned - there is a big lead time between destroying the system and people reaching their 40's or whatever.

Well i was actually curious, are they just going to be paying less % per £1? That sorta deal?

And therefore, by your own logic, if "Thatcher presided over a period of burgeoning meritocracy", we'd have seen the results. Whereas, in fact, we have seen the continuation of a decline in numbers of those people brought up on council estates etc making it into public life at the highest levels.

I thought this from a gentleman called Tony Bury's blog might help you:

I found this very easy to understand analysis of the taxation, explained through a group buying beer!
Enjoy the reading… !

THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER…

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:-

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. 

The fifth would pay £1…
The sixth would pay £3…
The seventh would pay £7…
The eighth would pay £12…
The ninth would pay £18…
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59…
So, that’s what they decided to do…

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20.” Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80. 
 


The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody’s share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. 
 


And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving). 

The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving). 

The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving). 

The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving). 

The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving). 

And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving). 


Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free.

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got £1 out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got £10″ 
”Yes, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved £1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me” “That’s true” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks” 
”Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next week the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill. 
 
 
 
 
 


And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. 
 


David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. 
Professor of Economics. 

For those who understand, no explanation is needed…
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible….

You'll have to wait for someone better informed than me to answer that question that specifically. But I do know that everyone else – other than the already-best-off are being hit with increased tax/loss of benefits.

Just received this by email:

In church I heard a lady in the pew next to me saying a prayer.
It was so sweet and sincere that I just had to share with you:-

Dear Lord,

This has been a tough two or three years.

You have taken my favourite actor, Patrick Swayze.

My favourite male singer, Michael Jackson.

My favourite Blues Singer, Amy Winehouse.

My favourite actress, Elizabeth Taylor.

And now my favourite singer, Whitney Houston.

I just wanted you to know that my favourite politicians are:
Ed Miliband, Tony Blair, Nick Clegg, Ed Balls, David Cameron, Gordon Brown and John Bercow