New Labour were not the major cause of the debt crisis. They were not the only government to fail to control the wild and irresponsible gambling of the banking sector. They did not cause the widespread corruption in the US subprime mortgage market nor it's other problems. They should have been more cautious about needing reserves in case of a markets bust.

We are in the same early retirement position but cannot afford to move anywhere abroad. The Evening Standard, I think it was, was complaining that some working families have been reduced to having only £160 per week left after paying their bills. If only! They are so lucky to have so much left post-bill-paying. I have not encountered anyone on benefits who has actually bought a car, only a few who bought them when working but then lost their jobs. Most people I know who live on benefits cannot even afford a second-hand bike. Those gadgets etc are probably either bought on the never-never, or the black economy is involved, or better-off relatives have given them as Christmas etc presents. This does happen quite a lot.

I really don't understand this obsession with having to have so much more money than is needed for a reasonably good life. A very narrow measure of self-value. And given that Labour is almost identical to Tory, what's the difference?

Try Mayfair next door to Hyde Park - plenty of non-doms and company owned residential properties, I should think. Hence the recent well publicised squatting.

You know perfectly well that the 'leeches' being referred to are the people who evade paying significant amounts of tax by using tax law loopholes, not those using vehicles designed to encourage the less well-off to save for their futures when retired or when fallen upon hard times instead of becoming dependent on the state.

History continues to show that the rich will ever be with us. The taking is currently not excessive as no rich are left homeless or hungry, or even have to give up what are actually quite luxurious lifestyles. The justification is that a civilised society values all the members of the society, intrinsically, and does not leave them in grinding poverty without healthcare or reasonably OK housing just because they were born without the wherewithal to become well-off or rich. What that wherewithal is depends on the society and the degree to which it decides to enable a fair chance at success for people with disabilities, learning difficulties, etc, or who are born into disadvantaged situations that are very hard to overcome. Being expected, as wealthy members of a society, to fork out some extra towards ensuring that the least well-off in that society do not actually become homeless, go without a basic nutritionally adequate diet, have good conditions in their care home, whatever, is not unjustified taking. Or is the real solution to just find a way to get rid of those people you do not want to help support?

I don't understand how scrapping the relatively low 50p tax rate will benefit you in the long term. Only a minority will flee rather than contribute temporarily towards resolving the debt crisis, and anyway, others will rise to fill their places.