Oh come on... surely you saw the dry humour in my paragraph you quoted above?sgw":16qlyhk0 said:And just how effective was that as a tactic?Neil":16qlyhk0 said:And when middle England got put in the firing line, first, did Mums take to the streets overturning cars and putting shop windows through because child benefit is getting yanked from any family with a higher rate taxpayer?
No - as one of the people negatively affected by the change in child benefit, I have to say, largely, fair-play. I guess my only real criticism of that policy is the lack of consideration of family income as opposed to simply a qualifying higher-rate tax payer. I accept that were it to be more complex to factor in these aspects, may make the scheme uneconomic - but that goes into the mix as to whether it was properly thought out.sgw":16qlyhk0 said:Love em as I do, I don't think I will be taking any advice on political activism from some sort of UK version of Sarah Palin.
Do you, like the Government, support only protest that is ineffectual?
And I also believe that it's misdirection in how it's presented as effectively "taking an unnecessary benefit from the rich" - I'd argue that the rich seem currently largely unaffected, and you have those earning slightly more than average losing out, whereas the truly rich hardly seem to be doing their bit.
That said, though, I accept that universality shouldn't be unassailable, and certain sacrifices have to be made.
But my subtlety that seems to be missed in what I'm saying is that whilst middle England may not have been seen to do that much, compared with, say, the students - politically, their anger or annoyance looked to command more respect, politically...