Spudulike Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 57 minutes ago, Claridge said: What a load of rubbish. Millions of people in this country live excellent lives through working for private industry.The private industry that funds the bloated public sector by the way The same public sector that keeps private industry in business by buying goods and services.
Guest Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 37 minutes ago, Sampson said: But unemployment was a short-term inevitability. She sold off the mining industry because it was cheaper to by in coal from abroad. The 70s and oil crash is what saw the world abandon Keynesian theories and protectionism in favour of globalisation and free trade.which I think almost everyone on both sides of the spectrum agrees are good things and have helped improve the lives of billions of people worldwide over the past 30 years or so. Protectionism was dead - protecting national industry in favour of free trade and not allowing for the different specialisation of nations (as per the Production Possibility Frontier) was gone. Look, I totally get it was hard for people who lost their jobs at the time, but what other options were there at the time other than to open up markets and international trade and sell off our industry? We would have had to open them up eventually. The coal mines in the UK would have to have been closed to input coal from abroad eventually - free trade was being embraced by the rest of the West and we would've been undercut on every international market had we not also embraced it. I don't think she was perfect - along way from it - but she was clearly what the country needed back in 1979 and she helped pull the country out of its slump and into the modern globalised world. It wasn't short term unemployment. It more than doubled to 3m plus. It lasted for almost 20 years. I've already said the change of emphasis was needed then. But now that ideology - no society, only greed - has also been tested and found to have failed. Falling living standards for almost a decade isn't evidence of anything else. So another fundamental change is needed. At the moment only one is offered. Public services need rebuilding and we need to see investment.
leicsmac Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 20 minutes ago, Sampson said: I absolutely do sympathise with those who lost their jobs and lives in the mining closes and in the Falklands, fuchsntf! Don't get me wrong. And I'm absolutely not overlooking the harm she did to many people, but politics is about making hard decisions and I think the decisions she made in her early years were absolutely what a country on its knees needed at the time! And we absolutely needed to embrace free trade, globalisation and free markets and change the shift of our industries at the time. I'm sure that sympathy comes as a great comfort to those who lost almost everything. I guess it comes down to whether you think the omelette justifies the egg breaking, and of course it's very easy to judge it when not directly involved. My own viewpoint is that there are very few matters where the "greater good" is justifiable, and all of them are big. 1
fuchsntf Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 2 minutes ago, Sampson said: I absolutely do sympathise with those who lost theerir jobs and lives erin the mimenzning closes and in t rbody elsehe Falklands, fuchsntf! Don't get me wrong. And I'm absolutely not overlooking the harm she did to many people, but politics is about making hard decisions and I think the decisions she made in her early years were absolutely what a country on its knees needed at the time! And we absolutely needed to embrace free trade, globalisation and free markets and change the shift of our industries at the time. The politicians let us down..the middle of the 70s, under her helm started the blame game, where It was everybody elses fault , The I guys, got too much of the stage, and internal Bank financial affairs, control were openly ignored. Both WC and C Mclasses were conned... Even making out a political and lifes fact feel dirty, that Labour are sponsored with Union funds...of course they bloody were, Thats how the Labour party was formed. Then right wing media conveniently ignored big business and dealings like Barretts, to sponsor the Conservative and open up landgrabs and useless floodpains for building developement... Openned the door for blind stock-exchange rushes, to fill undeserving purses, allowing the cr e ation Later of runs, on fonds, that again made other groups happy, but led to the collapse of good businesses, losing out on the stock-markets, but not in the normal terms of business.Unemployment out-sourcing seemed to so easily accepted, WC School-playing-fields gobbled up, and directors of Schools being allowed to tell children, competition sports is wrong and inhuman, then see Public-schoold being plauded for their Sporting efforts,...all that gave us that grievance, of not finding sportskids preparing for 2012 olympics, because the dozos were Wondering where British talent had gone...sold out by the Barratts and other land grabbers, with conservative backing, on the B-bone of the "I" generations...
Guest Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 Basically those that did well out of the 80s will support the status quo come what may.
Webbo Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 13 minutes ago, toddybad said: Basically those that did well out of the 80s will support the status quo come what may. That would be most of us then? 1
Guest Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 13 minutes ago, Webbo said: That would be most of us then? Clearly not the 1.7 extra unemployed
Webbo Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 3 minutes ago, toddybad said: Clearly not the 1.7 extra unemployed Unemployment is the lowest it's been since 75?
Guest Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 44 minutes ago, toddybad said: Basically those that did well out of the 80s will support the status quo come what may. 31 minutes ago, Webbo said: That would be most of us then? 18 minutes ago, toddybad said: Clearly not the 1.7 extra unemployed 14 minutes ago, Webbo said: Unemployment is the lowest it's been since 75? Are you just being stupid on purpose?
Webbo Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 4 minutes ago, toddybad said: Are you just being stupid on purpose? We're not all intellectual giants like yourself. Mansplain it to me. 1
Guest Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 We were talking about the 80s..... And employment is hardly helping right now given people are losing money year in year out. Explain to me how that is Britain working for ordinary people.
Strokes Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, toddybad said: We were talking about the 80s..... And employment is hardly helping right now given people are losing money year in year out. Explain to me how that is Britain working for ordinary people. Those at the bottom aren’t losing money though are they? Minimum wage has gone from £5.80 to £7.50 inflation puts that at £7.06. The poorest are 44p an hour better off and that’s without in work benefits over unemployment from the previous administration. Edited 14 October 2017 by Strokes
Guest Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 8 minutes ago, Strokes said: Those at the bottom aren’t losing money though are they? Minimum wage has gone from £5.80 to £7.50 inflation puts that at £7.06. The poorest are 44p an hour better off and that’s without in work benefits over unemployment from the previous administration. But in work benefits have been cut very substantially. I guarantee that the 44p per hour doesn't make up for the changes in benefits and tax credits. Every study I've seen since 2010 shows the poor being hit hardest by austerity.
Strokes Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 Just now, toddybad said: But in work benefits have been cut very substantially. I guarantee that the 44p per hour doesn't make up for the changes in benefits and tax credits. Every study I've seen since 2010 shows the poor being hit hardest by austerity. But there is more in work, in work benefits have been cut for those on higher pay substantially yes. You were saying we are subsidising private industry by paying in work benefits earlier, surely increasing minimum wage and reducing the in work benefits gradually is the best way to stop this?
Guest Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 35 minutes ago, Strokes said: But there is more in work, in work benefits have been cut for those on higher pay substantially yes. You were saying we are subsidising private industry by paying in work benefits earlier, surely increasing minimum wage and reducing the in work benefits gradually is the best way to stop this? I ? that you've tried to trap me there. In work benefits have been cut for all levels of pay. Those on.such benefits earn more at work, less in benefits and less overall. That isn't progress. More wages, less benefits, MORE overall is progress. You seem to have forgotten that you have a social concience.
Strokes Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, toddybad said: I ? that you've tried to trap me there. In work benefits have been cut for all levels of pay. Those on.such benefits earn more at work, less in benefits and less overall. That isn't progress. More wages, less benefits, MORE overall is progress. You seem to have forgotten that you have a social concience. If the ideology says we need to stop funding private enterprises and make them stand on their feet. Surely we are making in roads, 44p per hour on a 36hour week is £800+ more real terms a year. How much in Work benefits were they getting at the end of Gordon’s tenure? Edited 14 October 2017 by Strokes
Guest Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 10 minutes ago, Strokes said: If the ideology says we need to stop funding private enterprises and make them stand on their feet. Surely we are making in roads, 44p per hour on a 36hour week is £800+ more real terms a year. How much in Work benefits were they getting at the end of Gordon’s tenure? You're not looking at this from the right angle. Whether it's politics, economics or anything else, what's important is how it affects real people. If they're getting more wages but less benefits and are therefore poorer, that is a bad result. We're talking about the poor getting poorer.
Strokes Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 3 minutes ago, toddybad said: You're not looking at this from the right angle. Whether it's politics, economics or anything else, what's important is how it affects real people. If they're getting more wages but less benefits and are therefore poorer, that is a bad result. We're talking about the poor getting poorer. Show me the figures, how much are they losing in Work? Let’s not forget the huge margins taken out of tax altogether, I’m not sure we can be talking much here. What are the figures. If it’s a guardian link can you copy it in post pls, I won’t click it.
Webbo Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 8 minutes ago, toddybad said: You're not looking at this from the right angle. Whether it's politics, economics or anything else, what's important is how it affects real people. If they're getting more wages but less benefits and are therefore poorer, that is a bad result. We're talking about the poor getting poorer.
Strokes Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 14 minutes ago, Webbo said: Well that graph can’t be right webbo, TB has been telling us different for months. The poorest are being abused, it doesn’t matter that they are earning more and being taxed less, the point is the tories are screwing them, somehow, we are not sure how but we’ve asked them and it’s definitely happing. The guardian said so. AAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!
Guest Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 7 minutes ago, Strokes said: Well that graph can’t be right webbo, TB has been telling us different for months. The poorest are being abused, it doesn’t matter that they are earning more and being taxed less, the point is the tories are screwing them, somehow, we are not sure how but we’ve asked them and it’s definitely happing. The guardian said so. AAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!! From the IFS. Before housing costs the poor look good. After housing costs not good.
Guest Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 MPs finally getting organised to do something about this government's failure to negotiate Brexit properly MPs move to block Theresa May from signing ‘no deal’ Brexit https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/14/cross-party-group-no-deal-theresa-may-brexit-eu?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Strokes Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 12 minutes ago, toddybad said: From the IFS. Before housing costs the poor look good. After housing costs not good. That’s the whole country average, we are talking the poorest. Webbos graph rocks. Power to the poor.
Guest Posted 14 October 2017 Posted 14 October 2017 16 minutes ago, Strokes said: That’s the whole country average, we are talking the poorest. Webbos graph rocks. Power to the poor. The bottom 10% on the graph is the poorest. It's set out in exactly the same way as webbo's graph. But you're only interested in what you can see through the blue specs.
Innovindil Posted 15 October 2017 Posted 15 October 2017 29 minutes ago, toddybad said: The bottom 10% on the graph is the poorest. It's set out in exactly the same way as webbo's graph. But you're only interested in what you can see through the blue specs. Either you can't read a graph or I can't. Your graph shows the poorest 10% have had net income growth, even after housing costs, which is exactly the point? What am I missing?
Recommended Posts