IntenseDebate - BusterKitten

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Protecting free speech... · 0 replies · +1 points

I imagine most are like the rest of us - believing people should have the right to say what they like within the law, and that institutions should be able to apply whatever rules they like to the clubs and societies they run.

Why do we need the government to govern these things?

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Protecting free speech... · 2 replies · +1 points

On both left and right, the people who complain most about culture war are those most eager to fuel one.

Is this what we want politics to be? Just an online shouting match about things which affect a tiny minority of people?.

Most people are not at university.
Most universities have no issue with no-platforming.
Of the people at Universities that do have an issue, most do not care about any of this stuff.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Emily Carver: An onlin... · 0 replies · +1 points

It amazes me that voices like the IEA, which claims to fight the corner of capitalism on the basis that it believes it to be the best way for us to organise ourselves, will turn a blind eye to where capitalism fails.

If we want people to have faith that capitalism is better than the alternatives, then advocates should call out when companies distort markets and cease to uphold their side of the bargain - namely that they are free to make oodles of cash as long as they pay their fair share of tax, don't build monopolies and provide employment that can give normal people some level of security. If they don't do this, isn't that a rather big signal that capitalism isn't working?

Despite their clever spokespeople and pseudo-academic messages, it seems the IEA is actually interested most of all in protecting not capitalism, but the large companies which enrich themselves by distorting markets.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Responding to Rashford · 0 replies · +1 points

Are you elected? And if you're not, should we also insist that you butt out?

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Responding to Rashford · 2 replies · +1 points

Why do you say he is none to bright? What's your basis for saying that?

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Responding to Rashford · 0 replies · +1 points

The outrage is that a £30 allocation for food appears to translate into only about £5 to £10 actually being used to buy food - and the rest goes where? One assume it's swallowed by the costs and profits of the private sector contractors who supply it.

That's bad value for the taxpayer and bad value for poor people who need the food.

A new measure of child poverty is window dressing.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - "With a Cummings, a Cu... · 0 replies · +1 points

Elections are chaotic things. If a couple go your way it's easy to believe that there is some magic source at play, in this case that Cummings has a special genius for winning. But maybe it was just luck, or happenstance. We don't hear that much of Lynton Crosby these days, do we?

Cummings' interpersonal deficiencies have been known about since his days in Education. He has a track record of causing chaos and then flouncing. He is a man of science with no scientific background. He is a hero of the working class with a private education and aristocratic ties. He complains - as highlighted by Paul - of amateurs in the ruling class but is an amateur himself, and he's been found out.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Emma Revell: The tripl... · 0 replies · +1 points

'Sadly things are not handed out on a plate just because you want it now' - Well, quite. So why do you think pensioners should be handed more and more public money?

'Older people suffered hardships of different types and as others have said, with enormous mortgage payments/interest rates and hyper inflation.' - Interest rates on much lower amounts borrowed and inflation that was also reflected in pay rises.

'My father went to war in 1939 having just had a son and didn't see him or my mother again until 1945. I think that's pretty hard.' - What has your father and 1939 got to do with this? Are you trying to compare pensioners today having to put up slightly lower (but still rising) pension increases with having to fight a war?

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Emma Revell: The tripl... · 2 replies · +1 points

You seem to be against housebuilding.
Less housebuilding means house prices are more likely to rise.
Higher house prices means people buying houses need to borrow more.
More personal borrowing means the economy is less able to withstand rises in interest rates.

In other words, your opposition to housebuilding actually contributes to your savings interest being low.

3 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Emma Revell: The tripl... · 3 replies · +1 points

There's a lot of misunderstanding about the Triple Lock in these responses.

'Scrapping' the Triple Lock actually means getting rid of the 2.5% lock, but retaining the wages and inflation locks.

So pensioners would not see their State Pension frozen at all, but actually still see it rising every year by the HIGHER of average wage rises or inflation.

In other words, they would be treated no worse, and potentially slightly better, than the average working age person.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with BusterKitten

People I'm following

BusterKitten