AIBU To think that Labour is more against aspirations than the Conservatives?

[DistinguishedSocialCommenator]

Both of the above are ready to shaft the hard-working people who have not just worked hard, but spent/invested wisely rather than throw it way on lifestyles.

IMO, Labour is seriously anti those with some investments, EG, BTL, and people who own another property. People who have savings etc as these people decided not to blow away their money but be wise with it

Both, Labour and Tories don't give a flying F about those that own even a single property when it comes to care home charges. The new alliance is a con. So, if you don't own you home as about 45% of England does not, you are unlikely to be shafted unless you have large amount of savings for your rainy day/retirement etc

The extra tax on cars , ir road tax pay extra in their hundreds/thousands on cars costing more than 40k new RRP was set several years ago and not been adjusted for inflation - thanks to Tories

LL's getting hammered by new rules always favouring the T's - There are many good LL's as well as T's, so why penalise asperations?

We boguth a couple of properties to fund our retirement, erly retirement and went without hols/etc for many years and at times both of us worked 50 hours a week, 6/7 days a week. We also did not want to live of the state and pass money etc to our children/grandchildren to help them to a less stressful start thn us.

Though both Lab/Con are as bad as the other, if you've saved a few qquid, earn a decent amount of money and have more than one property, AIBU to think the Labour lot will shat us hard, seriously hard and waste money on foolish projects in order to secure votes for the next election if they win this election?

It was hugely cut and many closed. So in many areas it was effectively stopped.

Another shit move from the Tories.

Over 1400 centres have shut, so presumably the one in extraonions' are is one of them.

Agreed. This is what used to be with the last Labour government and Sure Start, taken away by the Tories.

One third of centres closed - there are still around 2,200 in England.

Nice generalisation that old = rich there

Yes, a huge cut.

Aspirations = Grift and tax evasion?

Labour favour those who are not net contributors.

The fact that only 20% of people are net contributors means they now have a huge voter base who lap up all the promises of tax rises they’ll never have to pay themselves such as VAT on private school fees.

It won’t end well. Too many people play the role of victims nowadays. Personal responsibility is seen as anathema by many which is a pretty catastrophic state of affairs.

It'll get worse, much worse under Labour.

Those policies are right wing.

Having put up taxes to deal with the overall mismanagement and stagnant economy is a separate matter.

I’m a hard working person and was better off under Labour.

conditions under Labour were far more conducive to running a business for a start.

who would want to start up a business now? Loans are expensive, everything costs a fortune, wages are going up to compensate which drives costs up further.

Record taxation?

Since ww2.

https://ifs.org.uk/articles/will-be-biggest-tax-raising-parliament-record

@dollybird - based on the unremarkable point that older people have had longer to build themselves up, had higher state spending over a lifetime, get triple locked state pension arrangements.

Not all old people are wealthy. But they certainly have a better deal overall than the young from this government. Societies that spend their time, policies and resources on the old are foolish.

I would have a triple lock on education and children's services. That's where our spending and tax should go, and supporting business.

No I mean record taxation is seen as a right wing policy is it

Their general modus operandi is to increase the bases of people who vote for them - it was immigrants in the early 2000s but now immigrant families have either returned because the country doesn’t offer the same opportunity now, or done well for themselves and now have no reason to vote labour. So it’ll be people on benefits and a slim wedge of wealthier bohemian types (although many of them tend to be shy tories). I think a lot of votes for labour will be through despairing at the tories rather than natural affiliation with their stance. That’s basically why I’m voting for them. I would much prefer a centrist party, a bit like New Labour, with a youngish leader with a radical vision and the bollocks to impose it.

They went from house to house did they, looking for dangerous dogs and fall hazards and exposed wires? Sorry I still don’t understand what you posted about reducing children’s accidents and hospital admissions

Just because you don't understand it didn't mean it didn't happen. The IFS report will be on their website somewhere.

I’m not saying it didn’t happen at all, I’m actually surprised it took place (I believe you) but what I don’t believe is that it would be accepted now. If public health workers announced tomorrow they wanted access to the houses of more deprived children to inspect them, there would be outcry - invasion of privacy, human rights, undignified treatment of the marginalised and so on

This is absolute fantasy.

Labour voters skew young and educated.

But that is not how Sure Start functions. That is you making things up again.

I don't think you are a serious person, so I am not going to engage with you further. God knows I have wasted enough time. But I will leave you with this from the IFS. No house inspections involved.

Sure Start services seem to have affected children’s health through several different channels. At younger ages, large impacts on infectious illness suggest that Sure Start significantly strengthened children’s immune systems. A drop in poisonings in these age groups suggests that advice on child-proofing the home also had an effect. In early adolescence, we see far fewer hospitalisations for mental health reasons. Throughout childhood, we see a bigger drop in admissions for injuries among boys than among girls. These effects point to potential longer-term benefits from Sure Start supporting children’s socio-emotional and behavioural development.

^^

Funny how nap never offers sources for her assertions.

@IClaudine thats the impression you’ve been working hard to give me! Don’t get stroppy now I’ve taken that on board and am questioning it. You said yourself, an integrated service that prevents childhood accidents and therefore A&E or hospital admission. I asked how that would happen, because the only way it could would be people going into the homes to remove hazards and so on. You did not deny this and just said something noncommittal of ‘oh you can’t believe it didn’t happen if you want’ while clarifying nothing else, so obviously that’s the impression I took.

You just rely on word salad, never provide specifics then get irritated people come away with the wrong impression when that’s what you’ve given them.

I said who they’re trying to appeal to. I wasn’t talking about voter habits, that’s yet to be seen.