The Conservatives

[MammaBrussels]

I cannot believe someone, even someone in the Conservative Party, would say this.

How can anyone support them?

Fwiw, I would love any of you Tory apologists to provide a scrap of proof, a link, a statistic, anything really, that proves you're not living in cloud cuckoo land. Instead of telling me to 'fuck off to North Korea' back your arguments with facts. The truth is you can't. Only the rich get richer under a Tory government.

Novack, Josephine and Xenia, collectively you lack the ability to debate in a cogent and cohesive manner. Just like your sausage skin headed leader you lose your collective rag. Like I said earlier, come back with facts and I'll take you seriously. Till then I shall point and laugh at your inability to grasp the truth.

Don't forget I'm a lefty, so am less educated than you, yet at least I can back up my argument with well aimed FACTs. Which serves to prove that when I do argue on MN I'm right and not just trolling pisssing in the wind.

It is no wonder the right wing thinkers can't get it together cognitively speaking, they are probably all like Edmund Berk keen on a bit of reductio ad absurdum, which basically translates as twaddle.

moon

I would say the Royal Family are affordable to the tune of what they bring in to the economy valued at job creation and sustainability, tourism, diplomacy and 'brand', for the Queen + 1, the Prince of Wales +1. The Duke of Cambridge + 1, and his future heir.

That should be sustainable through the Windsors' own non-taxed and after-tax revenues plus a civic disbursement of £3 million per year.

That article about right-wingers being a bit thick and racist was genuinely new to me. By Canadians, no less.

Xenia

People are a lot better off than they were. I have no problems with income differences. If the rich are richer the poor tend to do better too.

The gini coefficient (a measure of how equally income is distributed) will rise over this parliament. Income distribution will become more unequal as a result of government policy. There is a wealth of empirical evidence into the impact of income inequality, the majority of it suggests the impact on quality of living for all is negative. I don't want to get too technical on MN but this TED clip explains it clearly and simply. I would urge everyone to watch it.

Here's a prize Torism from their great founding prat member Mr Berk (the name says it all)

"Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without"

This relates to the fact that Berk thought that wealthy people were the gate keepers of all moral standards and he believed the poor to be morally bankrupt. Nice philosophy that hasn't much been improved upon over the years. The tory elite and their sucker uppers still think the poor are there to soften their footfall over the pavements and be scoffed at.

Leader, Communist and Nicholas I think you'll be waiting a while for evidence to back up the statements. Am still waiting for evidence re Tories being better for the poor, a statement that still has me reeling. But dp is out tonight, ds is in bed and I am about to pour a glass of wine so am happy to wait, it should be worth it.

Watch the TED clip

Yes, the Canadians are a bright bunch. I'm off to watch the ted clip (what's a TED clip?) you are all very technical Mamma. I'm still stuck in the C18th

Communsit Moon . You give nothing to the Queen. Her income comes from her own estates and even if she was not head of state you'd have the same bills for a head of state and if that socialist Mitterand is any example to go by then the Queen as very cheap.

Mini You are making a straw man argument no where did I say education and health are a waste of cash. I asked how much do they want for sitting around all day.

Mammabrussels.. Why should someone get 60% of median for not working? what you have the do for this free cash?

As for the figure that only 0.3% claim it or more than 5 years. 5 years if far too long and no JSA should be allowed to claim for that long. How many are still claiming after 18 moths. How many migrate during the 5 years to other benefits eg. disability allowances they should not be getting.

People who receive JSA should be expecting to do some work for their allowances. Workfare may be flawed but its better than nothing and can be improved.

And read the Spirit Level by the same guy for more facts and figures.

Mammabrussels.. Why should someone get 60% of median for not working? what you have the do for this free cash?

Because 60% of median income (after housing costs) is the internationally recognised measure of relative poverty.

The official, published cost of the monarchy, as declared by the Royal household is £38.3m p.a. (Republic's estimate is £202m). The sovereign grant is £30m, as far as I am aware. Perhaps they bring more into the economy than this via tourism, I don't know. Hereditary privilege should not be taxpayer-funded and Buckingham Palace could house a lot of homeless people, imvho.

Novack: "How many migrate during the 5 years to other benefits eg. disability allowances they should not be getting."

If this is a question and not a merely an unfounded assertion based on prejudice, why don't you find out some facts, e.g. statistics from the DWP, and let us know? Thanks in advance.

There is the sovereign grant, plus the civil list, plus tax 'breaks', plus the cost of police protection for the wider royal family, plus the cost of royal events and facilities.

Taking into account the private wealth of the royal family, after the tax that they do now pay, that's why I said their gross disbursement from the public purse should be £3m p.a. - seems very fair to me.

Let Edward, Sophie, Andrew, Beatrice and Eugenie et al get a proper fucking job and pay market rent.

Mamma that is not poverty though is it. It's just a relative lack of wealth compared to your peers and is more akin to marxist wealth redistribution to suggest that the unemployed deserve 60% of median for doing nothing all day.

The crown estates brings in a lot more than 30m and the deal was that the income of the crown estate could go to the country for the civil list payment to HM. Thankfully the new deal now means that HM takes her own income and the remainder of the crown estate income is given to the government.

Republic spin the figure using security costs etc. that would still be needed no matter who the Head of State was. Going by the handful who turned out at republics demo during the jubilee celebrations I think we can take it that they are irrelevant and taking this way way off topic.

NovackNGood Sat 09-Jun-12 19:22:53 "We are already shelling out for their education and healthcare

Yes you did imply that your tax money being spent on the education of the poor is a problem to you.

Agree stuff about Monarchy is off-topic. Actually, so is the stuff about the benefits system, no? I'd still love to hear some facts about movement between JSA and disability benefits (and movement the other way). Will you start a new thread, or shall I? Thanks again.

I did not say it was a waste now did I.

Mamma that is not poverty though is it.

That's how relative poverty is defined so by definition it is poverty .

It's just a relative lack of wealth compared to your peers

Which is what relative poverty is.

and is more akin to marxist wealth redistribution to suggest that the unemployed deserve 60% of median for doing nothing all day.

Median income after housing costs. How is it redistributing wealth? Income and wealth are not the same. It can't be Marxist wealth distribution if it's redistributing income can it?

You implied that too much of your money is used in the provision of state health and education Novak.

Do you visit the GP, go to a hospital or use state ed for your children? Should you are others like you benefit from state welfare, especially if you can afford to go private?

I don't believe Marx had any set ideas about wealth redistribution through taxation. First I know of it