This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
General Election 2017
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Hansy  22 May 17 5.28pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
The argument being that the breakfast was of more benefit to people who work and have to drop kids off. So they don't lose free meals, they still get one, just not lunch. Also, I was under the impression that low income families and those on benefit will still get free lunches it just wont be a blanket provision. I could be wrong though Correct, those in poorer families still get a free school meal and a breakfast for free. Taken from The Independent: The Tories said children from poorer families would continue to get free hot lunches – as well as free breakfasts – throughout their education.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 17 5.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Is that the same Chuka who doesn't believe in free speech and wants social media companies to filter and ban views? Free Speech only applies to public environments, and notably to the relationship between the citizen and the state. Social Media is private, in that its owned by a company, and as such doesn't enjoy protection. Its never applied. The exception would be social media utilised by government. Which I suspect is why government uses existing social media platforms rather than its own. Free Speech is a problematic area, because it often is viewed as Free from consequence (rather like that 'enjoyed' in the US).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 17 5.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hansy
Correct, those in poorer families still get a free school meal and a breakfast for free. Taken from The Independent: The Tories said children from poorer families would continue to get free hot lunches – as well as free breakfasts – throughout their education. Maybe I'm a radical, but I think it would be a benefit to the UK to ensure that all children were entitled to a nutritional breakfast and lunch as part of their education, even if they're in private schools. Regardless of their income. Then again, I think that companies should also provide 'free meals' for their staff (Breakfast and lunch and possibly dinner). Obviously, we'd have to pay for it in taxes.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 22 May 17 5.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I totally disagree with your equivalency. Completely disagree and I also feel pretty strongly about it so it's just another area we don't agree on. Surely murdering someone for being catholic is as bad as murdering someone for being a British solider in Hyde Park. That's to say, I don't think there is anything wrong with being a republican, a loyalist or a royalist or any persuasion - But when you're murdering people for politics, irrespective of your flavour, you have crossed the same line. Similarly, those people burn out catholics from their home, were as responsible for the terrorism, as those who would 'give shelter and assistance' to IRA men on the run. Edited by jamiemartin721 (22 May 2017 5.37pm)
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 22 May 17 5.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
I agree it needs attention. The point I'm making isn't that those with more money should pay more towards their own healthcare, but should be paying in more to the system via taxation over the course of their lives, which contributes towards everyone's care (just like how the NHS works). To only make those with certain health issues or care requirements (which don't impact everyone and are often indiscriminate) pay seems contrary to the point of a welfare state. It seems bizarre that Tory voters are saying they want less state involvement and more control over their own money, but when they're asked to fork out for their own care they scream and shout that they can't then give that money to their kids. Having their cake and eating it too springs to mind. It's almost like they're saying they only want the welfare state so far as it benefits them but not so that it benefits those who need it most... The wealthy do pay more in income tax. How much should you be expected to pay because you or your parents have made good money. That would be a tax on success and typical of the mindset of socialists.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 22 May 17 5.39pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Free Speech only applies to public environments, and notably to the relationship between the citizen and the state. Social Media is private, in that its owned by a company, and as such doesn't enjoy protection. Its never applied. The exception would be social media utilised by government. Which I suspect is why government uses existing social media platforms rather than its own. Free Speech is a problematic area, because it often is viewed as Free from consequence (rather like that 'enjoyed' in the US). Free speech laws are applied to private companies. I can remember libel and other cases involving twitter. Social media outlets like FB and Twitter previous to a few years ago had rather more healthy attitudes towards freedom of speech. Activism and then Governmental interference has altered this.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 22 May 17 5.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
The argument being that the breakfast was of more benefit to people who work and have to drop kids off. So they don't lose free meals, they still get one, just not lunch. Also, I was under the impression that low income families and those on benefit will still get free lunches it just wont be a blanket provision. I could be wrong though The argument being most kids don't have breakfast at school so it will save the government £650m pa. Whereas evidence suggests that nutrition is hugely important to both physical health and concentration in school and providing free and nutritious lunches to all students helps give kids a better start in life. However what we should all remember is infants who weren't even born yet that caused the banking crisis so it's them who should suffer.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 22 May 17 5.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Surely murdering someone for being catholic is as bad as murdering someone for being a British solider in Hyde Park. That's to say, I don't think there is anything wrong with being a republican, a loyalist or a royalist or any persuasion - But when you're murdering people for politics, irrespective of your flavour, you have crossed the same line. Similarly, those people burn out catholics from their home, were as responsible for the terrorism, as those who would 'give shelter and assistance' to IRA men on the run. Edited by jamiemartin721 (22 May 2017 5.37pm) The main difference is that the IRA were trying to subvert democracy.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hansy 22 May 17 5.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I believe a slight tax rise is needed, to gain a new revenue stream. But I wouldn't call it a hike; maybe also review the tax allowance to those on the higher bands?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
pefwin  Where you have to have an English ... 22 May 17 5.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
I agree it needs attention. The point I'm making isn't that those with more money should pay more towards their own healthcare, but should be paying in more to the system via taxation over the course of their lives, which contributes towards everyone's care (just like how the NHS works). To only make those with certain health issues or care requirements (which don't impact everyone and are often indiscriminate) pay seems contrary to the point of a welfare state. It seems bizarre that Tory voters are saying they want less state involvement and more control over their own money, but when they're asked to fork out for their own care they scream and shout that they can't then give that money to their kids. Having their cake and eating it too springs to mind. It's almost like they're saying they only want the welfare state so far as it benefits them but not so that it benefits those who need it most... I've already said that I would put 2 pence on basic rate tax. This being one of many causes that require attention.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 22 May 17 5.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Maybe I'm a radical, but I think it would be a benefit to the UK to ensure that all children were entitled to a nutritional breakfast and lunch as part of their education, even if they're in private schools. Regardless of their income. Then again, I think that companies should also provide 'free meals' for their staff (Breakfast and lunch and possibly dinner). Obviously, we'd have to pay for it in taxes. How is this 'radical'. The second most randomly used word these days after 'progressive'.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 22 May 17 5.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
The wealthy do pay more in income tax. How much should you be expected to pay because you or your parents have made good money. That would be a tax on success and typical of the mindset of socialists. How do you think the NHS works? If you increase taxes on the wealthiest by a small amount (say 5% for top income brackets) then that would seem fair to me. It's not a tax on success. The evidence actually shows that top earners in financial services are paid above what should be paid if the market was efficient and fair. Also CEO's pay has skyrocketed way above what normal people's wages in the past 30 years despite the performance of their companies by and large not warranting such ludicrous pay packages. It's the top 0.5% we're talking about who already earn a premium on their value. Also how much your parents made should be irrelevant but is actually part of the problem. Grace and favour and getting a leg up because of who your father is, are actually counterproductive if you want to argue that success and merit should be handsomely rewarded. The Tory policy on this is abhorrent, but the reason for the strong and stable "U-turn" isn't because of any qualms with the ethics or costings, it's because the papers and traditional Tories want to get free care but keep all their money and give it to their kids. So they just add smoke to the issue to make people think that they won't do what they actually will do. Edited by CambridgeEagle (22 May 2017 5.53pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.