Are you sure? This is a consistent trait she shows. It smacks of desperation.

In fact, it is very common amongst certain groups eg so-called socialists. They are always against something but rarely can they state what the practicalities of their alternative society might be. When faced with a counter-view they resort to mockery or personal insult because ultimately their issue is an emotional one. They "know" they are right as a crutch against emotional insecurity.

Quite a few years ago I read a book about British forces returning home. One of them said that after fighting through Holland, the thing which stuck out for him and his unit was the standard of living there. All of the houses had indoor plumbing including bathrooms and toilets. No tin bath in front of the fire once a week and boiling pans and kettles to have it. For him that was the thing which stood out in his memory. Just a simple thing like that, not the might of Empire.
That's why Quentin Hogg said "We must give them reforms or they will give us revolution." So, Labour adopted a Liberal plan and made a welfare state. Not because they wanted to, but because they had to.

What he said.

so to fight for 6 years and have no hope of reforms back home, no change in living standards, housing, health etc is normal in your opinion? you have a strange view of human behaviour!
do you not think that the people in power in this country 1939-1945 made no promises to the troops and the people back home about a bright new future where people had a chance of improvement when the war was over?
they may have been fighting to preserve a way of life but i suspect they had a vision of a better "blighty" than they ended up with.

I don't necessarily agree with the last bit - the people who were in their adult years during WWII didn't do too badly from the welfare state that was created afterwards for their benefit, its the children and grandchildren of those people who are now expected to make their own arrangements despite (probably) contributing more to the cause during their lifetime.

Listen I am totally supportive of the Social policy changes after WWII. It gave the working classes basic access to minimum levels of care and support that were badly missing previously.

I also am grateful that the Labour party was formed in the first place, the conditions of working class "workers" if you excuse the grammar, were shocking and something needed to be done.

However, that was then, this is now. Their purpose has been served.

There is a massive difference between getting legislation passed in parliament to stop some greedy mill owner from putting employees lives in danger through cost cutting, or ensuring that the people who survived firefights with the SS didn't come back to England only to die of TB in the East end of London and what happens now- i.e. providing some workshy chav with enough money to keep him in White Lightening until the next giro hits the carpet.

But you haven't said what you would do to create jobs for them to go into, we have 500,000 vacancies (your figures) and 2.68 million unemployed, now my maths isn't the best in the world but even I can see the problem.

If all you do is remove money from those without work you create massive crime problems as those without take from those with.

I think this is partly where you don't understand economics.

You don't "create" jobs. If it was that easy everyone would be doing it.

What you do is create the conditions for jobs to exist.

I understand plenty thank you.

So the government wouldn't be creating jobs by building Highspeed 2 or the new Forth Road crossing? It wouldn't be creating jobs by investing in new house builds?

So what do we do while we are waiting for those conditions to exist?

Scrap income tax which plenty of well to do people avoid anyway, raise VAT.

Not saying it's a solution, just thinking out loud

It's also pretty harsh on the poorest people who will be hit disproportionately (even allowing for the VAT hitting more well off people more).

I agree with the direction though.

Create the conditions for people to work (incentives to do so) whilst removing incentives (i.e. cutting benefits) of not working.

Carrot and stick.

It seems that you still seriously believe in "trickle down"

And how hard would that hit the lowest paid? VAT is a regressive tax that its the worst off the hardest.

You'd be better off cutting VAT and increasing Income Tax also have more tax bands even at the lower end, scrapping tax for the low paid just creates another disenfranchised underclass. Scrapping the celling for National Insurance would help too.

How on earth do you work that one out?

Just because someone pays more in VAT than another person, doesn't necessarily mean that they are "worse off".

Look at the percentage of VAT paid compared to disposable income and then tell me the rich are the harder hit by VAT.

Here's an example:

Cressida works in an investment bank and earns £120k per year

Charlene is on benefits

They each have a monthly period and need to buy tampons/sanitary towels

The VAT paid is the same.

Who feels the burden of the regressive tax more?