Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Kopfkino]

On 06/11/2017 at 17:30, Kopfkino said:

 

What I am saying is your median figures do not account for people entering or leaving the workforce. Whereas if you look at people in work over both years in a two year period you find that wage growth hasn't been so bad (stronger than following previous recessions). It could equally be that those higher up the earnings scale are leaving the labour market (as happens because income and age correlate) and younger folk are joining the labour market at the bottom end. 

 

What you're actually saying is on average, the jobs held in 2016 do not pay very much better than those in 2008. But they are different jobs, held by different people. Fewer low-paying jobs could have been created so median real earnings would be higher and you'd not be moaning but more people would be unemployed or economically inactive but GDP per capita would be the same and those in work would be supporting more out of work. 

 

So I asked for proof that people are actually worse off and you can't give me proof because your median figures don't show that. Those that have maintained continuous employment are better off (by your measure) and those that have moved into employment are presumably better off. I am yet to see proof that individuals are actually worse but there is proof that those in continuous employment (80% of FT workers) are better off. 

 

 

18 hours ago, toddybad said:

 

I thought webbo might have something to say on the ons opinion on wages given how sure he is that they're not falling.

 

Found this today. It's pretty much exactly as I speculated might be the case. Granted it's US-based but it's entirely possible the situation is similar given that the ONS has suggested this to be the case previously.

http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/thirteen_facts_about_wage_growth 

 

In normal times, entrants to full-time employment have lower wages than those exiting, which tends to depress measured wage growth. During the Great Recession this effect diminished substantially when an unusual number of low-wage workers exited full-time employment and few were entering. After the Great Recession ended, the recovering economy began to pull workers back into full-time employment from part-time employment ... and nonemployment, while higher-paid, older workers left the labor force. Wage growth in the middle and later parts of the recovery fell short of the growth experienced by continuously employed workers, reflecting both the retirements of relatively high-wage workers and the reentry of workers with relatively low wages. In 2017 the effect of this shifting composition of employment remains large, at more than 1.5 percentage points. If and when growth in full-time employment slows, we can expect this effect to diminish somewhat, providing a boost to measured wage growth. There is reason to believe that the wage statistics since the Great Recession is picking up a change in the composition of the workforce that tends to make wage growth look slower.

 

In fact it also adds that people in the middle have suffered worse growth with the bottom and the top doing the best which is again entirely consistent with median figures being unimpressive. 

 

I'm liking this drive towards using actual facts and genuine studies rather than Guardian articles 24/7. Maybe someone will finally be able to show me that people are worse off rather than banging a drum that tells half the story.

Edited 17 November 2017 by Kopfkino

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

The tories of the 80s left the north of England an industrial wasteland, rapidly increased the share of national wealth in the hands of ever decreasing percentages of the wealthy and gave is unemployment of over 3 million. The Tory's of the 90s brought about a recession that led to huge numbers of repossessions. 

 

The tories are always good for the wealth. I fail to see where they have governed for the ordinary man.

Since the 1980s everyone has become richer. You know that is fact, I challenge you to provide evidence to suggest otherwise. This should make interesting reading:

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2016

 

Labour have done what exactly for the North in the 13 years they were in power? Labour councils have run the North for decades most of it is still shit. Stoke on Trent has seen its biggest changes/improvements in the last 5 years as they have moved away from a Labour to independent run council. No land that has been vacant for years is being developed.

 

Labour brought about the worst financial meltdown ever and collapse of the banks on their watch, and a record deficit. They think the solution is to spend more money we don't have. Of course that was someone else's fault though.

 

I fail to see how they have governed for the ordinary man.

[Rogstanley]

58 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

 

Found this today. It's pretty much exactly as I speculated might be the case. Granted it's US-based but it's entirely possible the situation is similar given that the ONS has suggested this to be the case previously.

http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/thirteen_facts_about_wage_growth 

 

In normal times, entrants to full-time employment have lower wages than those exiting, which tends to depress measured wage growth. During the Great Recession this effect diminished substantially when an unusual number of low-wage workers exited full-time employment and few were entering. After the Great Recession ended, the recovering economy began to pull workers back into full-time employment from part-time employment ... and nonemployment, while higher-paid, older workers left the labor force. Wage growth in the middle and later parts of the recovery fell short of the growth experienced by continuously employed workers, reflecting both the retirements of relatively high-wage workers and the reentry of workers with relatively low wages. In 2017 the effect of this shifting composition of employment remains large, at more than 1.5 percentage points. If and when growth in full-time employment slows, we can expect this effect to diminish somewhat, providing a boost to measured wage growth. There is reason to believe that the wage statistics since the Great Recession is picking up a change in the composition of the workforce that tends to make wage growth look slower.

 

In fact it also adds that people in the middle have suffered worse growth with the bottom and the top doing the best which is again entirely consistent with median figures being unimpressive. 

 

I'm liking this drive towards using actual facts and genuine studies rather than Guardian articles 24/7. Maybe someone will finally be able to show me that people are worse off rather than banging a drum that tells half the story.

People entering the workforce, people moving up the pay scale via professional development, and people retiring should more or less balance out. In any case that effect has always been there so it not a reason not to compare different periods of time.

 

Unemployment is at about the same level now as it was circa 2006, so there has been no increase in the proportion of people in work since then and yet wages have fallen significantly. 

 

You may well be able to partially explain it by saying that in 2006 there were more well paid jobs and in 2017 more jobs are lower paid. That’s not really something to celebrate though, is it?

 

It wouldn’t fully explain it, either, because the stats show that wages across most industry sectors have fallen as well and many of those sectors won’t have provided an increase in naturally lower paid jobs.

 

Take for example the sector “water supply, sewage, waste management and remediation activities”. The vast majority of jobs in that sector are going to be fairly technical and demand fairly steady, with little prospect of a sudden increase in lower skilled/lower paid jobs to drive down the average wage. So why have wages in that sector fallen? Likewise wages for “Professional, scientific and technical activities” have fallen significantly while obviously there can’t have been a surge in the number of low paid, unskilled professional jobs because they don’t exist.

Edited 17 November 2017 by Rogstanley

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

 

No tbf, it's true, it comes from a Stanford sociology professor called Cristobal Young, he has just released a book on it.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122416639625

https://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/pdf/pathways/summer_2014/Pathways_Summer_2014_YoungVarner.pdf

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Myth-Millionaire-Tax-Flight-Inequality-ebook/dp/B0755H3M4G

 

Of course, it makes sense, home is where the heart is. 

 

However, he does note they only evaluated small tax increases of 1-3% and much of the research was conducted with taxes remaining the same. It might be that movements in tax are more important for mobility rather than just the level. There's also the exception of Florida for which their explanation is because its Florida and people want to live there which is a bit flimsy. 

 

1 hour ago, Rogstanley said:

 

You gave me an article that speculated based on incomplete data. Here’s one of many articles looking at the US studies:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/05/26/do-high-state-taxes-drive-away-millionaires-not-really/amp/

 

“Financial catastrophe and unemployment like you’ve never seen” would probably cause more people to leave, but a small increase in the tax rate would not.

 

Regards brexit, that’s such a significant change to the landscape that of course businesses with a base in the uk that operate internationally and businesses whose work involves the EU are going to rethink their location. That’s totally different to asking the wealthy to pay a small amount of additional tax.

 

I must admit I can’t really fathom the mindset that seeks the defend the interests of the super rich at all costs. Is there a point at all at which you would admit that inequality has gone too far? 

Fair enough I think maybe that nothing is conclusive on this but I still believe the impact of a Corbyn led government maybe different, I for one would be terrified of losing everything I have worked so hard to get. Yes I am conformable living in the North Midlands but my income and wealth is nothing compared to the average Londoner. But the Corbynistas would no doubt hate me and want to tax and redistribute my wealth.

 

With Brexit what is going to change? Its a myth Britain is still one of the biggest consumer markets on earth, people will still want to sell us stuff and we still produce products people want to buy. There is no reason why a successful outcome can not be negotiated if both sides are willing. Its not ideal but we can make it work. Now a Corbyn left wing socialist government like nothing ever seen in the west now that is a massive significant change in the landscape........it would decimate the city and service industry, there would be jobless figures to make you eyes water. Still Corbyn could always employ a few tax inspectors to get the nasty rich men.

 

I must admit I cant really fathom the mind-set that seeks to attack the super rich as all costs, the bile and vitriol that is spread about them when we don't know them or what donations, volunteering, philanthropy they do. Surely its better to rely on peoples common decency than whack people with socialist sticks, which might overall have a negative effect on their willingness to be charitable and overall reduce the amount of kindness that exists in society. There will always be good and bad people, you are never going to make bad people good you are better off keeping the good people doing what they do that hitting everyone with the same stick. I note this article seems to counteract your claims inequality is growing, obviously if you swallowed a guardian you may have been misled.

 

"There has been a gradual decline in income inequality in the last 10 years, with levels similar to those seen in the mid to late 1980s."

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2016

 

So there has been a decline in income inequality in the past 10 years, similar to levels in the 80s. Why wasn't the best period during the 13 years rule of the peoples Labour party? Could it be they were making everyone poorer?

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

The only thing that will save is from the impending credit crunch is attempting to alleviate the problem through expenditure. If we don't start spending we're rapidly getting to the point where we'll go over the cliff AGAIN due to personal credit.

Shall I use the laughing man gif.....erm no

 

So the best way to stop the credit crunch is to borrow more money.....ok then!

 

The best way to stop a credit crunch is to stop credit and make sure it is paid down at all levels, banks should only led to those who can afford it.

 

 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Shall I use the laughing man gif.....erm no

 

So the best way to stop the credit crunch is to borrow more money.....ok then!

 

The best way to stop a credit crunch is to stop credit and make sure it is paid down at all levels, banks should only led to those who can afford it.

 

 

Austerity and QE are together causing the personal credit crisis.

 

To point out, in the 70s it was inflation that caused societies issues. Inflation that began before labour were elected. And it wasn't necessarily all the Tories fault either. In 1973 oil prices spiralled which played a hugely significant factor.

 

Inflation peaked in 1975 and then fell back again during Labour's time in government. The budget deficit also fell throughout the second half of the 1970s. The winter of discontent was caused by labour refusing to give the wage increases the unions wanted. low inflation, low budget deficits and a refusal to bend to unions are all things you support.

 

What is never mentioned is that despite all this living standards actually rose throughout the 70s. All very different to the picture you paint.

 

 

 

Edited 17 November 2017 by Guest

[Guest Foxin_mad]

15 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

People entering the workforce, people moving up the pay scale via professional development, and people retiring should more or less balance out. In any case that effect has always been there so it not a reason not to compare different periods of time.

 

Unemployment is at about the same level now as it was circa 2006, so there has been no increase in the proportion of people in work since then and yet wages have fallen significantly. 

 

You may well be able to partially explain it by saying that in 2006 there were more well paid jobs and in 2017 more jobs are lower paid. That’s not really something to celebrate though, is it?

 

It wouldn’t fully explain it, either, because the stats show that wages across most industry sectors have fallen as well and many of those sectors won’t have provided an increase in naturally lower paid jobs.

 

Take for example the sector “water supply, sewage, waste management and remediation activities”. The vast majority of jobs in that sector are going to be fairly technical and demand fairly steady, with little prospect of a sudden increase in lower skilled/lower paid jobs to drive down the average wage. So why have wages in that sector fallen? Likewise wages for “Professional, scientific and technical activities” have fallen significantly while obviously there can’t have been a surge in the number of low paid, unskilled professional jobs because they don’t exist.

There is one factually inaccuracy here. Wages at no point have fallen so we need to stop using this inaccuracy. Most people are getting paid considerably more now that they were in 2010. Even public sector workers are getting 7% extra. The minimum wage has risen significantly, Personal allowances have increased significantly.

 

Living costs have increased and wages have not in all cases increased at the same rate. My theory on low pay is that it is a supply and demand scenario, if there are people willing to do a job for a price then a company will pay it. If you put a job advert in for way below the market rate you get no applications or very low quality candidates, if you pay whatever the going rate is you fill the position. We have a situation where people can freely come from countries with lower living standards and do the job they have trained in for 2 or 3 times the wage they would get back home even if it is low by our standards of course they will fill the position often with very good quality foreign graduates. Now of course the left will never admit this is an issue but no business is going to pay more if there are people queuing up to do a job, no matter where they come from. Its arguable the free movement between economically vastly different countries in terms of wealth equality have had a negative impact on us.

 

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/labour-should-not-be-the-champion-of-eu-free-movement/

[Rogstanley]

9 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

There is one factually inaccuracy here. Wages at no point have fallen so we need to stop using this inaccuracy. Most people are getting paid considerably more now that they were in 2010. Even public sector workers are getting 7% extra. The minimum wage has risen significantly, Personal allowances have increased significantly.

 

Living costs have increased and wages have not in all cases increased at the same rate. My theory on low pay is that it is a supply and demand scenario, if there are people willing to do a job for a price then a company will pay it. If you put a job advert in for way below the market rate you get no applications or very low quality candidates, if you pay whatever the going rate is you fill the position. We have a situation where people can freely come from countries with lower living standards and do the job they have trained in for 2 or 3 times the wage they would get back home even if it is low by our standards of course they will fill the position often with very good quality foreign graduates. Now of course the left will never admit this is an issue but no business is going to pay more if there are people queuing up to do a job, no matter where they come from. Its arguable the free movement between economically vastly different countries in terms of wealth equality have had a negative impact on us.

 

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/labour-should-not-be-the-champion-of-eu-free-movement/

I think we’ve already established in this thread that when referring to wage growth we are by default talking about growth after inflation. Ignoring inflation makes discussing wage growth completely meaningless.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Austerity and QE are together causing the personal credit crisis.

 

To point out, in the 70s it was inflation that caused societies issues. Inflation that began before labour were elected. And it wasn't necessarily all the Tories fault either. In 1973 oil prices spiralled which played a hugely significant factor. Inflation peaked in 1975 and was then falling again by the end of their time in government. The budget deficit also fell throughout the second half of the 1970s. The winter of discontent was caused by labour refusing to give the wage increases the unions wanted. What is never mentioned is that despite all this living standards actually rose throughout the 70s. All very different to the picture you paint.

 

 

 

Austerity is a myth. We are still spending beyond our means 7 years on. I agree QE and rate cuts were a bad choice but the 'independent' Bank of England decided that.

 

The 1970s in an example of what giving the Unions too much power can do which Corbyn wants to do again. Id argue Britain was on its knees during that period, we were an out dated nation producing out dated stuff we were fast going down the tubes. The Austin Allegro is a prime example of the kind of shite we as a nation were churning out. The Unions during the 70s made the UK a very bad place to make stuff.

 

We used to be a revolutionary country we made the first jet airliner, the finest cars, concorde by the 70s we were know as a nation of strikers, you could order a product from a British company and it may not be delivered on time, if it was it would probably fall apart. The unions held back production advancements and quality.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Austerity is a myth. We are still spending beyond our means 7 years on. I agree QE and rate cuts were a bad choice but the 'independent' Bank of England decided that.

 

The 1970s in an example of what giving the Unions too much power can do which Corbyn wants to do again. Id argue Britain was on its knees during that period, we were an out dated nation producing out dated stuff we were fast going down the tubes. The Austin Allegro is a prime example of the kind of shite we as a nation were churning out. The Unions during the 70s made the UK a very bad place to make stuff.

 

We used to be a revolutionary country we made the first jet airliner, the finest cars, concorde by the 70s we were know as a nation of strikers, you could order a product from a British company and it may not be delivered on time, if it was it would probably fall apart. The unions held back production advancements and quality.

But the Tories have gone too far the other way.

Corbyn isn't the only one with a say if labour win. I'd personally like to see union powers restored to at least where they were in the 90s, not necessarily the 70s. But we made the first items with the same union powers as the second. The only difference was inflation. The unions rightly wanted staff not to fall too far behind inflation. Labour rightly said it couldn't afford it. The tories had the same thing with the miners strikes before labour took office it's just that didn't involve binbags in the street.

[Rogstanley]

38 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

 

Fair enough I think maybe that nothing is conclusive on this but I still believe the impact of a Corbyn led government maybe different, I for one would be terrified of losing everything I have worked so hard to get. Yes I am conformable living in the North Midlands but my income and wealth is nothing compared to the average Londoner. But the Corbynistas would no doubt hate me and want to tax and redistribute my wealth.

 

With Brexit what is going to change? Its a myth Britain is still one of the biggest consumer markets on earth, people will still want to sell us stuff and we still produce products people want to buy. There is no reason why a successful outcome can not be negotiated if both sides are willing. Its not ideal but we can make it work. Now a Corbyn left wing socialist government like nothing ever seen in the west now that is a massive significant change in the landscape........it would decimate the city and service industry, there would be jobless figures to make you eyes water. Still Corbyn could always employ a few tax inspectors to get the nasty rich men.

 

I must admit I cant really fathom the mind-set that seeks to attack the super rich as all costs, the bile and vitriol that is spread about them when we don't know them or what donations, volunteering, philanthropy they do. Surely its better to rely on peoples common decency than whack people with socialist sticks, which might overall have a negative effect on their willingness to be charitable and overall reduce the amount of kindness that exists in society. There will always be good and bad people, you are never going to make bad people good you are better off keeping the good people doing what they do that hitting everyone with the same stick. I note this article seems to counteract your claims inequality is growing, obviously if you swallowed a guardian you may have been misled.

 

"There has been a gradual decline in income inequality in the last 10 years, with levels similar to those seen in the mid to late 1980s."

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2016

 

So there has been a decline in income inequality in the past 10 years, similar to levels in the 80s. Why wasn't the best period during the 13 years rule of the peoples Labour party? Could it be they were making everyone poorer?

Labour said they would not increase tax on anyone earning less than £80k and corporation tax increases I believe were only for companies turning over more than £300k. If you’re in either of those brackets then fair play, you’ve done very well for yourself. Unfortunately Corbyn has to my knowledge never said exactly how much he plans to increase taxes on the highest earners, but I doubt it would represent a sudden redistribution of their wealth. I’d describe it more as a slightly higher contribution to the continued health of the economy and society from which they have and are benefitting. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

3 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

I think we’ve already established in this thread that when referring to wage growth we are by default talking about growth after inflation. Ignoring inflation makes discussing wage growth completely meaningless.

I know its semantics but its not really falling wages. Obviously when the Guardian violin is play it sounds good to say wages are falling but actually they are not falling. An article saying 'WAGES NOT GROWING AS FAST COST OF LIVING' Doesn't quite sell as many papers.

 

I agree that is a problem which need to be addressed but taxing people more and a socialist government are not going to solve that problem. Interestingly between 2005 and 2010 income growth for the bottom half of earners increased 1% under the nasty evil Cameron government in increased 4%.

 

The best solution for me is to limit migration from countries with significantly different living standards within the EU, obviously that ship has sailed now. If someone can come here from Romania and earn 3 times the wage for the same job its a no brainer. They can work here for 6 months and live a life of luxury back home for a year or so.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

16 minutes ago, toddybad said:

But the Tories have gone too far the other way.

Corbyn isn't the only one with a say if labour win. I'd personally like to see union powers restored to at least where they were in the 90s, not necessarily the 70s. But we made the first items with the same union powers as the second. The only difference was inflation. The unions rightly wanted staff not to fall too far behind inflation. Labour rightly said it couldn't afford it. The tories had the same thing with the miners strikes before labour took office it's just that didn't involve binbags in the street.

I would say we had gone to far if we were running a 10bn surplus but we are not. Our Interest payments are c 50 billion per year, we could much better spend that.

 

Corbyn is the leader though he set the agenda, McDonnell the Shadow Chancellor, The front bench is horrendous. Its a shame as Labour have some vastly talented politicians in their ranks, unfortunately no one is the Shadow cabinet falls into the category. That is why they are dangerous.

 

If Labour had someone sensible like Benn in charge I would seriously consider voting for them but Corbyn is a dangerous militant, he could run a piss up in a brewery let alone a country.

 

13 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Labour said they would not increase tax on anyone earning less than £80k and corporation tax increases I believe were only for companies turning over more than £300k. If you’re in either of those brackets then fair play, you’ve done very well for yourself. Unfortunately Corbyn has to my knowledge never said exactly how much he plans to increase taxes on the highest earners, but I doubt it would represent a sudden redistribution of their wealth. I’d describe it more as a slightly higher contribution to the continued health of the economy and society from which they have and are benefitting. 

I personally feel increasing taxation is unnecessary and we just need to keep be an attractive place for the best people and businesses to come globally, there is a lot more we can do to attract the best.  It is a balancing act obviously to provide a good country to live in with the best system for all as Fox U Like said early we are a well educated, relatively safe, clean, country with world renowned universities, free healthcare for all, its not perfect but its not bad. There are issues that need to be tackled, yes but a Corbyn led Labour Government will not mike life better for very many, I feel pretty sure of that. Unfortunately I am in neither of those categories although I do fear he may requisition my property that I have purchased for my retirement.

Edited 17 November 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, Rogstanley said:

People entering the workforce, people moving up the pay scale via professional development, and people retiring should more or less balance out. In any case that effect has always been there so it not a reason not to compare different periods of time.

 

Unemployment is at about the same level now as it was circa 2006, so there has been no increase in the proportion of people in work since then and yet wages have fallen significantly. 

 

You may well be able to partially explain it by saying that in 2006 there were more well paid jobs and in 2017 more jobs are lower paid. That’s not really something to celebrate though, is it?

 

It wouldn’t fully explain it, either, because the stats show that wages across most industry sectors have fallen as well and many of those sectors won’t have provided an increase in naturally lower paid jobs.

 

Take for example the sector “water supply, sewage, waste management and remediation activities”. The vast majority of jobs in that sector are going to be fairly technical and demand fairly steady, with little prospect of a sudden increase in lower skilled/lower paid jobs to drive down the average wage. So why have wages in that sector fallen? Likewise wages for “Professional, scientific and technical activities” have fallen significantly while obviously there can’t have been a surge in the number of low paid, unskilled professional jobs because they don’t exist.

 

I actually can't see the figures for water supply blah on the ONS site, if you'd be so kind as to show me so I can have a look and actually reply properly either later or tomorrow, then that'd be cool. 

[Rogstanley]

26 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I actually can't see the figures for water supply blah on the ONS site, if you'd be so kind as to show me so I can have a look and actually reply properly either later or tomorrow, then that'd be cool. 

It’s called something like ‘selected figures from 1997-2017’ on the ons site

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I would say we had gone to far if we were running a 10bn surplus but we are not. Our Interest payments are c 50 billion per year, we could much better spend that.

 

Corbyn is the leader though he set the agenda, McDonnell the Shadow Chancellor, The front bench is horrendous. Its a shame as Labour have some vastly talented politicians in their ranks, unfortunately no one is the Shadow cabinet falls into the category. That is why they are dangerous.

 

If Labour had someone sensible like Benn in charge I would seriously consider voting for them but Corbyn is a dangerous militant, he could run a piss up in a brewery let alone a country.

 

I personally feel increasing taxation is unnecessary and we just need to keep be an attractive place for the best people and businesses to come globally, there is a lot more we can do to attract the best.  It is a balancing act obviously to provide a good country to live in with the best system for all as Fox U Like said early we are a well educated, relatively safe, clean, country with world renowned universities, free healthcare for all, its not perfect but its not bad. There are issues that need to be tackled, yes but a Corbyn led Labour Government will not mike life better for very many, I feel pretty sure of that. Unfortunately I am in neither of those categories although I do fear he may requisition my property that I have purchased for my retirement.

It's stupid sentences like that last one which ruin your reputation with us left wingers. Every time you post you have to stick in a ridiculous barb. Just stick to the normal stuff 

[Webbo]

5 hours ago, toddybad said:

Webbo does not get it for being a decorator. I've referred to his job once in saying do I listen to an expert or a decorator from Leicester. That isn't a dig at his profession, he could have been anything other than a noted expert on international affairs or economist and I would have said the same. The same could be said of any of us in honesty.

 

Webbo and Foxin get grief because they usually provide make evidence-less arguments and refuse to even accept the existence of evidence to the contrary of their opinions. In fairness to fox he has ended up making the point the tory option is crap today.

 

What I find frustrating is the idea that every argument can be countered by the idea labour will take us back to the 70s which was all their fault. The facts of the 70s are rather different than the common belief would suggest. People use it as an argument for things it isn't actually an argument for. It does my head in.

Quoting Owen Jones isn't evidence.

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Quoting Owen Jones isn't evidence.

He knew you would say that.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Quoting Owen Jones isn't evidence.

Well no it wouldn't be. Owen Jones probably annoys me as much as you. He spent years slagging off Corbyn as out of touch then put out one "I was wrong" article following the election and became his biggest supporter. 

 

 

[Rogstanley]

Owen Jones talks a lot of shit but he’s just as credible as the Daily Mail, which seems to be where the majority of right wing arguments on here come from.

[Webbo]

9 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Owen Jones talks a lot of shit but he’s just as credible as the Daily Mail, which seems to be where the majority of right wing arguments on here come from.

And yet nobody quotes the Daily Mail but the Guardian has 2 or 3 articles posted on here everyday? 

[Rogstanley]

Just now, Webbo said:

And yet nobody quotes the Daily Mail but the Guardian has 2 or 3 articles posted on here everyday? 

You don’t have to post a link to the daily mail for it to be obvious that’s where you’ve got your views from. 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

You don’t have to post a link to the daily mail for it to be obvious that’s where you’ve got your views from. 

And you believe everything you read in the Guardian, so you're just as thick.

[Rogstanley]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

And you believe everything you read in the Guardian, so you're just as thick.

Don’t think I’ve posted any links to the guardian on this thread. I don’t read it very often. I probably read the telegraph and the times more often than I read the guardian, but to be honest I try to avoid reading much news at all. I use the bbc to keep up with the headlines but tend to go ignore any commentary and go straight to the source documents from which I can make my own mind up.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Don’t think I’ve posted any links to the guardian on this thread. I don’t read it very often. I probably read the telegraph and the times more often than I read the guardian, but to be honest I try to avoid reading much news at all. I use the bbc to keep up with the headlines but tend to go ignore any commentary and go straight to the source documents from which I can make my own mind up.

Yeah sure mate.