David Cameron's conference speech - live stream from 11.15am today

[JaneGMumsnet]

Hello,

David Cameron's conservative party conference speech will be live streamed here at 11.15am today, if you're interested in taking a look:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19890459

MNHQ

[0liverb0liverbuttface]

sunflower I read all the manifestos, I read, I listen to the radio - I know exactly what all the parties stand for.

I am just sick to the stomach of this unelected government dismantling our public services and attacking the most vulnerable in our society for reasons totally unconnected to austerity, but totally connected dogmatic ideology. I don't need to listen to their rhetoric.

Don't judge me by one slightly flippant comment.

[MiniTheMinx]

claig

The deficit is growing, the recession is deepening, the right are out in force attacking the scroungers. Thing is, if you strip people of every last penny whether it be through tax or through benefit cuts everyones job security is threatened.

[threesocksmorgan]

"scroungers"
and that also includes disabled people!
that is what the government have painted them as.


(I notice that the accusations made earlier in the thread were not backed up)

[claig]

I agree I don't like all this stuff about scroungers and strivers, 'hard work' and the feckless. It is divide and rule and is certainly not 'one nation', just as I don't like teh socialists divide and rule of Daily Heil and Tory scum. They are all at it - class war and divide and rule.

[TurquoiseTranquility]

Sorry haven't read the whole thread. Neither have I bothered listening to what nonsense the public school boy had to say for himself.

One thing stuck in mind though.

"Work is the only way out of poverty".

"ARBEIT MACHT FREI".

You know what, Dave, if you can't come up with anything original, at least you should be bolder. Do as your austere Nordic predecessors did - get those scroungers to donate their clothes and shoes to charity before sending them off to labour camps for their benefits. Oh, and why burn them afterwards, you could mince their meat and feed it to more scroungers. Coz they just keep coming ain't they

[domesticgodless]

Peachy I am quite sure your DH IS a hardworking taxpayer!

It won't matter of course to those who decide he is 'not earning enough'.

Education is becoming a matter of privilege alone. It is indeed an utter mess as you say above.

[BridgetBidet]

Reading through this thread the bit of his speech about Ivan seems to have had the desired effect on some people. 'Sod what his policies are, he's suffered and I feel sorry for him.

FFS, it's a party political conference, not a Jeremy Kyle style competition to see who's suffered most.

Apparently the Tories are suffering most with the female vote and unfortunately there are a fair number of women voters (and it is women) who will watch something like that and decide he looks like a nice sensitive man who in the style of Peter Andre loves his kids and go out and vote for him.

This isn't an off the cuff remark about Ivan, it is a speech that will have been carefully considered and signed off with exactly this kind of effect in mind. It IS cynical.

[domesticgodless]

agreed Bridget. Nothing that man does is spontaneous. The same could be said for any politician.

[threesocksmorgan]

BridgetBidet too true.
but sadly people do get sucked in and will gush over him,
You only have to look at this thread and how he has managed it.
It then makes it hard for parents who care for disabled children/adults to question his morals, as they just get shouted down, or their words twisted.

[sunflowersfollowthesun]

Morning Rosie
Re-reading your post this morning it strikes me that you are likely an economics lecturer/student of some description, and as has already been stated, I'm not. So I can't bandy statistics and theories with you ( and no bad thing to my mind, we all know what they say about statistics and theories), however DH and I have lived the life of "strivers" and self employment for the last 30 years, so I do feel our experiences can be observed as valid opinion.
It is in every citizen's interest that a country is peaceful and has good infrastructure, not just those with the initiative and drive to start new business'. Everyone needs these conditions to thrive, so I feel that is a non argument, personally.
Indeed, if the country wasn't in such a state, why on earth would anyone locate their FTSE 100 company there in the first place? They'd set up somewhere else and that country would benefit from the investment, jobs, tax etc.
A proportion of everyone's tax bill goes towards defense (sticking with your example), 7% was the figure I found. So, 7% of £2,000,000 = £140,000 compered to 7% of £26,000 (nat. average wage) = £1,820. I know these are gross rather than net figures here, but I have neither time nor inclination to work it out net. Proportionally, it illustrates my point. So the country's defenses receive a boost of £140,000 from our "imaginary" CEO whereas it only gets £1,820 from the average paid chap that works for him. Seems like the CEO is paying handsomely towards the defense of the nation that everyone needs to me. Not to mention of course that if that CEO hadn't set up his company, the defense budget would also be short of hundreds/ thousands of £1,820's because those folk wouldn't have jobs!
As regards your point about whether a "boss" deserves to be paid more than his workers I posit this:
If you have two men working on site, do you get twice the work done? NO.
If "the boss" isn't on site, does the remaining worker achieve as much as the "boss" would have? NO.
Does the worker care about client relations? NO
Would the worker stay 10mins longer to clean up the site properly? NO.
Does the worker give a toss where the jobs come from in the first place? NO.
OK, fair enough, he's paid to work set hours, is entitled to set breaks, doesn't have the vested interest a "boss" would have BUT he is always paid first and on time, doesn't have to go home, unload trailers and set them up for the following day, come in, eat tea and start working on the books, fall asleep in front of the football then wake up in the middle of the night worrying where the next jobs are coming from, spend weekends following up new enquiries, doesn't have to spend a fortune on advertising, doesn't have to maintain a business phone line, doesn't have to pay public liability insurance, doesn't have to not take any wage at all occasionally if the booking board is looking a bit ropey. I could go on.
So when things are going well and the board is full, do I think the "boss' is perfectly entitled to reap the benefits?
You're damn right I do!
CEO's of mega companies are just a scaled up version of this, our life. Someone, at some point, has had the idea, has taken the risk, put in the time, done without starting a family they weren't sure they could support, taken no holidays, run nails of cars, ensured their employees were paid before they were. And if it works and your children take over that business, are they entitled to reap the benefits? Again, you're damn right they are.
Anyone can take the self employed route. Anyone
If you don't want to take the risks and put in the time and effort, fair enough, take a regular, paid job, but don't bleat about it not being fair.
There will always be folk who play the system, at every and any level, but what really pisses me off on these boards is the consistent vilification of anyone who strives to make a go of a business and succeeds, and is then observed reaping the benefits, at whatever level.

[sunflowersfollowthesun]

Turquoise
That is the single most disgusting thing I have ever read on these boards.

[domesticgodless]

Sunflowers absolutely nothing in your encomium to CEOs justifies the vast tax evasion taking place in this country. Justify that if you will. The most brilliant life saving scientist or surgeon, the greatest teacher, the star employee who brings in more to her company than any other has to pay full tax through PAYE. So justify that. You can't. Full stop.

[sunflowersfollowthesun]

Domestic
Education is becoming a matter of privilege alone
Oh! I'd better tell my boys they're not going then.
You know very well you don't need the cash up front to pay to go to university Domestic. Every child can apply for student finance and pay it back when/if they're working. Why would you, of all people, indulge in this scaremongering?

[domesticgodless]

re Turquoises' post, she merely translates into German what is now openly said by Atos and their apologisers within government.

If you think labour camps could never happen in this country and the workhouse will never return, you are so dead wrong.

[domesticgodless]

Sunflowers, because I am seeing the type of students I am getting and 95% are middle class or above. And this is not at a 'top' university although it is a law school.

[domesticgodless]

although tbh in the new economic climate quite a few graduates will never reach the earnings threshold of 21k that a good few will never pay the loan back. Not sure how much of a gift from government that really is.

[sunflowersfollowthesun]

I have never attempted to, nor would I, justify tax evasion.

In fact, if you read my post properly, you would see I stated that:
"There will always be folk who play the system, at every and any level,"

[domesticgodless]

what I want to see is Lakshmi Mittel and his ilk paying 20% tax the way I do.

Then we can start sorting out the rest of the 'scroungers' if we still need to.

[sunflowersfollowthesun]

Domestic
There is a "class" restriction on applying for student loans then?
I hadn't noticed that. Nor had I noticed a class restriction in the companions of my two university student boys.
There are undoubtedly problems in some schools with regards to boosting the aspirations of some children. That is an entirely separate issue to university education only being available to the "privileged" few.

[domesticgodless]

Riiiight... so now it is the schools' fault....

hmm I don't think I can engage with your 'reasoning' any more. It's just so far away from my experience and way of thinking that it makes my head spin.

Conclude from that that I'm an argumentative lightweight if you wish :D but actually I've got to write a bloody article and sharpish then update the family law module outline argh :/ or else I shall be working the weekend! (Nb this frequently happens to us public sector 'shirkers' in education)

[sunflowersfollowthesun]

quite a few graduates will never reach the earnings threshold of 21k

And this has nothing to do with the ridiculous target of 50% of students going to university, leading to mindbogglingly useless courses?

There is nothing second rate about vocational training. Trade has given us an immensely rewarding (if challenging) living. Apprenticeships are what we need! Let the academically able go to university, provide excellent apprenticeships for those who prefer the trades. The only subject I would make compulsory modules for both would be common sense!

[claig]

Good posts sunflowers, and agree with you about Turquoises's post.

I am starting to agree with Xenia that there should be a limit on the tax that these super wealthy individuals pay. Why should they pay 40% of the millions that they earn, when the majority of people pay thousands as opposed to millions?

Reading up about Mittal, he provides lots of jobs and asking him to contribute millions in tax seems a bit excessive given that most of us only contribute thousands.

[sunflowersfollowthesun]

For goodness sake domestic get a grip!
Whats with the persecution complex?
Who's ever called you a shirker? (although if having to put in a couple of hours at the weekend is enough to give you the habdabs perhaps....)

Gotta go out on site for a couple of hours now but will try to catch up tonight.

[twofingerstoGideon]

sunflowers Although there is no 'class restriction' on applying for student loans, do you not think that leaving university with a debt of £45,000 may deter students from low income families from applying? My DD is almost 16 and is already questioning whether she can 'afford' to go to uni and worrying about the degree of debt she'd incur if she did. However much you say 'oh it doesn't have to be paid back until a certain income level is attained, blah blah...' the idea of a debt of that magnitude when you come from a family which survives on, say, less than £20,000/year is worrying. Conversely, if you come from a family where £45K is chicken feed, you probably won't be deterred from applying. Anyway, haven't we all had the 'debt is bad' message shoved down our collective throats? Of course, low income families are going to think twice about taking on such an enormous liability.

There is also the question of what graduates can do afterwards, now that a degree doesn't guarantee employment. Again, the middle/upper classes may be able to afford to do an internship/go and work in mummy or daddy's law practice/whatever, but lower income families do not usually have this means of entry into the job market and are probably questioning the value of an 'investment' in higher education.

Throw the removal of EMA into the equation and some promising students may not even be able to afford to go down the A Level route...

[domesticgodless]

how the heck do you know how many hours I have to put in at the weekend, sunflowers?

And don't lecture me to get a grip. I already deal with severe mental illness (which I didn't make up to get benefits, as I do not receive any), two kids (alone) and a full time job. I've got a grip, thanks. A very hard one.