Jane Ellison is out Post Reply

[millymoo]

Wasn't aware of previous posts.

[lk24]

Papinian
I was not commenting on the outcome of the election, the candidates or their policies! I was merely stating that it was sad to see my local Labour Party involved in such tactics. I am sure that Marsha de Cordova and her election agent Tony Belton, for whom I have a lot of respect, would not have been part of such tactics. The Battersea election, to that point, had been fought 'cleanly' as they have in the past.
By the way, thank you for your good luck wishes!!!

[dudette]

A lot of abuse for Jane Ellison here - especially about her toeing the party line. She was a government minister and therefore had to vote with the party line. Had she defied it she would have been sacked. Personally I would think it's better to have an MP with the power of being in government rather than a back bench MP who can't really do much.

[papinian]

A lot of abuse for Jane Ellison here - especially about her toeing the party line. She was a government minister and therefore had to vote with the party line. Had she defied it she would have been sacked. Personally I would think it's better to have an MP with the power of being in government rather than a back bench MP who can't really do much.

It would be great if some of the more naive posters on this site would stop labeling as abuse views which conflict with theirs, and if they could also provide some support for the statements they make.

Dudette: Looking forward to you explaining how Battersea voters benefited from Jane Ellison being a second rank government minister.

[cuqui03]

So I posted around my concern of tax increases if Labour won and was basically told that if you were lucky and affected you should shoulder the increases (sort of need to have a sense of solidarity) but some of this same people did not like Jane Ellison because of what she has done for her constituents (forget the bigger picture). To me this is quite contradictory,

[graceygirl]

''This is to me a misconception, "wealthy" for Labour would become someone making £80k which let's be honest supporting a family in London does by no means allow yourself to be considered wealthy, in fact that salary will never allow you to buy in Wandsworth any kind of property for example. I' m in fact Spanish but I honestly belive my chances of deportation are close to none in any case. ''

This is a stupid statement. The London average salary is way less than this.

It is possible to buy 'something' in Wandsworth ( yes likely to be a 1 or 2 bed).

[phigoldenspiral]

Still always the hardworking middle that has to pay ...

I'm neither a Labour nor Conservative voter but completely agree with this point. The problem is that the Conservatives are also very happy to make the hardworking middle pay. Anyone who has gone to university, or has strong vocational training, or is an entrepreneur and works hard to build a comfortable (not stinking rich, comfortable) life for themselves and their families, who tries to create a financial safety net for their children by spending and saving wisely, who puts in extra hours etc. - anyone who does this will be milked by all parties. The less well off often envy them (which I understand, and there is definitely a responsibility to help support those less fortunate), and the rich laugh as they hide their cash in offshore accounts etc. I'd love a party that recognises these middle people as strivers, encourages them, encourages others to be like them, rather than just constantly targeting them as cash cows and making them work harder and harder to achieve the same end. Unfortunately this is never going to change, because these are the people who ARE going to work harder, who won't give up, who will continue to strive even if it means 90 hour work weeks, a suffering home life, children who don't see them enough and massive financial stress. So the government loses nothing by making their lives more difficult.

And deliberately ignoring the cost of living in London when making policy decisions is going to continue.

[papinian]

phigoldenspiral: I agree with everything that you write. The issue for me was that voting Conservative for low taxes didn't stack up when under Conservative governments I have seen the following happen:
- Removal of my personal allowance, costing me an extra £8,000 in income tax a year.
- Removal of child benefit for my children, costing me £1,790 per year.
- Removal of right to 15 hours a week free nursery care for my 3 year old
- Restriction of pension tax relief to £10,000 per annum

The mood music from the Conservative campaign was extremely anti-London and generally anti-striver.

Frankly, I would rather pay higher taxes for universal benefits than the current system where benefits are restricted to lower income groups and I earn too much to receive them myself but still pay high tax for those who aren't willing to work as hard as I do.

I was also pleased about the Labour Party proposal for free university fees. The problem with the current system is that those who do useless degrees and/or choose to do lower paid jobs (or choose not work at all) end up having their university fees written off by the government. For example, on the current system Kate Middleton would have her university fees written off.

One thing that I have realised about the Conservative Party is that it doesn't favour those who work hard and earn money - it favours those who already have wealth (generally inherited).

[cuqui03]

''This is to me a misconception, "wealthy" for Labour would become someone making £80k which let's be honest supporting a family in London does by no means allow yourself to be considered wealthy, in fact that salary will never allow you to buy in Wandsworth any kind of property for example. I' m in fact Spanish but I honestly belive my chances of deportation are close to none in any case. ''

This is a stupid statement. The London average salary is way less than this.

It is possible to buy 'something' in Wandsworth ( yes likely to be a 1 or 2 bed).

So you think a sole earner with two kids at £80k is wealthy in Wandsworth or anywhwre in London? Hard to fit a family of 4 in a one bed. I don't think this earns my comment to be deemed stupid. I don't think that means you complain but to be called wealthy at that level is where I think the misconception lies. You can feel fortunate and lots ofbother things, weatlhy financially? Not sure.

[graceygirl]

I think often a lot of people not only ignore average UK earning stats but also London ones.

Whatever your child etc situation it puts you in the top 5% of the UK. I just think you sounded a little hysterical.

[graceygirl]

phigoldenspiral: I agree with everything that you write. The issue for me was that voting Conservative for low taxes didn't stack up when under Conservative governments I have seen the following happen:
- Removal of my personal allowance, costing me an extra £8,000 in income tax a year.
- Removal of child benefit for my children, costing me £1,790 per year.
- Removal of right to 15 hours a week free nursery care for my 3 year old
- Restriction of pension tax relief to £10,000 per annum

The mood music from the Conservative campaign was extremely anti-London and generally anti-striver.

Frankly, I would rather pay higher taxes for universal benefits than the current system where benefits are restricted to lower income groups and I earn too much to receive them myself but still pay high tax for those who aren't willing to work as hard as I do.

I was also pleased about the Labour Party proposal for free university fees. The problem with the current system is that those who do useless degrees and/or choose to do lower paid jobs (or choose not work at all) end up having their university fees written off by the government. For example, on the current system Kate Middleton would have her university fees written off.

One thing that I have realised about the Conservative Party is that it doesn't favour those who work hard and earn money - it favours those who already have wealth (generally inherited).

First post that I can say I have wholeheartedly agreed with.

[parsleysong]

I don't know how to do quotes, but this comment had me:
"the rich laugh as they hide their cash in offshore accounts etc."

Apparently I'm "rich" and so are most of my friends and neighbours and nobody hides anything in offshore accounts. You couldn't even if you wanted to. It's the Phillip Greens and Russian/Arab/Chinese oligarchs that need to pay their fair share that the government needs to go after, not well off people in expensive London postcodes who work their butts off to pay their own way and get taxed to the hilt to subsidise many others.

[cmf]

Out of interest, how are you being taxed to the hilt Parsley Song?

[Scottov]

It would be great if some of the more naive posters on this site would stop labeling as abuse views which conflict with theirs, and if they could also provide some support for the statements they make.

Given the intellectually thin drivel you're trying passing off as reasoned analysis, perhaps you should pause for a moments self reflection?

After all your substantive view seems to be in favour of voting for a party on a single issue where that party's manifesto is in favour of that single issue you're trying to stop

Rather extraordinary to do that and then call others naive.

[leapyearbaby]

The parsley song.

Equating having to work and pay taxes with school fees is laughable. Entitled much?

You CHOOSE to pay school fees because you CAN.

Wake up. Look around you.