All things Labour Party

[shurlock]

Its actually mathematically impossible to get rid of poverty using the lefts current way of measuring it.

 

"They effectively place all families in the UK in a line, from those with the most resources to those with the least. The family in the middle is the “median family”. Any family that has 54% or less of what that median family has is defined as being in poverty.

 

Why 54%? Actually, the SMC itself openly admits this is a “largely arbitrary” choice"

 

Why are quoting an unofficial measure of poverty and no it’s not mathematically impossible to get rid of poverty - it just means a more compressed income distribution. Dear me. If Les isn’t enough already.

[aintforever]

But it doesn't, does it? We have some of the strongest social safety nets in the world and very few people have a new luxury car or the latest iPhone. Not that the two are mutually exclusive.

 

Idiotic hyperbole like yours hinders any sort of movement that chimes with those views.

 

I’m not suggesting we do away with iPhones and range rovers, or attempt to stop poverty altogether. I just reckon we should be able to scrape together enough tax revenue so that kids don’t have to sleep on piles of clothes on hospital floors etc.

[Weston Super Saint]

I’m not suggesting we do away with iPhones and range rovers, or attempt to stop poverty altogether. I just reckon we should be able to scrape together enough tax revenue so that kids don’t have to sleep on piles of clothes on hospital floors etc.

 

Not really the definition of poverty to be fair.

[rallyboy]

My personal measure, and it may be wrong, is that when kids are going through school bins looking for food, that's poverty..

Either way, it's the season of goodwill to all men, even though who are beyond reasonable debate and would swear that black is white, so Merry Christmas.

[Lord Duckhunter]

And at what point have we "run out of money?" The national debt has been huge forever.

 

We haven’t because we didn’t elect Brown, Milliband or Corbyn.........thank god.....

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Duckhunter]

Its actually mathematically impossible to get rid of poverty using the lefts current way of measuring it.

 

"They effectively place all families in the UK in a line, from those with the most resources to those with the least. The family in the middle is the “median family”. Any family that has 54% or less of what that median family has is defined as being in poverty.

 

Why 54%? Actually, the SMC itself openly admits this is a “largely arbitrary” choice"

 

Exactly

 

You could quadruple everyone’s income and you wouldn’t reduce “poverty “. Hell, you could increase everyone’s income 10 fold and it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference.

 

Equally you could make the top 90% as poor as the bottom 10% and abolish “poverty “ altogether.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[whelk]

Exactly

 

You could quadruple everyone’s income and you wouldn’t reduce “poverty “. Hell, you could increase everyone’s income 10 fold and it wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference.

 

Equally you could make the top 90% as poor as the bottom 10% and abolish “poverty “ altogether.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It’s fine if economics isn’t your thing but try not to embarrass yourself pet

[Lord Duckhunter]

It’s fine if economics isn’t your thing but try not to embarrass yourself pet

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Batman]

Still fighting the election...

 

 

[CB Fry]

Its actually mathematically impossible to get rid of poverty using the lefts current way of measuring it.

 

"They effectively place all families in the UK in a line, from those with the most resources to those with the least. The family in the middle is the “median family”. Any family that has 54% or less of what that median family has is defined as being in poverty.

 

Why 54%? Actually, the SMC itself openly admits this is a “largely arbitrary” choice"

Who is the "they" in your quote?

[Nolan]

Why are quoting an unofficial measure of poverty and no it’s not mathematically impossible to get rid of poverty - it just means a more compressed income distribution. Dear me. If Les isn’t enough already.

Apologies, i was quoting the methodology that a lot of people on the left use. Thats the methodology showing 14 million people in the UK were in poverty, and that about 4 million children were in poverty.

 

Glad you agree that it's bull.

 

 

 

Who is the "they" in your quote?

 

The social metrics commission.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-poverty-levels-childcare-disability-ocial-metrics-commission-finances-a8540941.html

Edited 24 December, 2019 by Nolan

[shurlock]

Apologies, i was quoting the methodology that a lot of people on the left use. Thats the methodology showing 14 million people in the UK were in poverty, and that about 4 million children were in poverty.

 

Glad you agree that it's bull.

 

I expressed no opinion whether its bull or not. I just said its not the official measure used by the government. What is bull is your statement that its mathematically impossible to get rid of poverty on this type of relative poverty measure. I hope santa has got you a dummies guide to measuring poverty and mathematics.

Edited 24 December, 2019 by shurlock

[benjii]

The point is, for simple folk like yourself who need an analogy, when your mortgage gets higher (national debt) the best way to secure your future is the obtain a better paid job (growth) not just simply stop eating and cut your electricity off (austerity).

 

Most people can't just magic a "better paid job" out of thin air. If they could, that's what they would have been doing in the first place. As far as analogies go, that one's complete Corbyn mate.

 

And by the way, it is probable that I am considerably more intelligent than you.

 

Merry Christmas.

[Batman]

Jus watched an interesting video hosted by the Guardian. Essentially at grassroot level, a belief is that if Labour do not drastically change, then they are well and truly ****ed!

 

No news to many here, I assume!!!

[hypochondriac]

Jus watched an interesting video hosted by the Guardian. Essentially at grassroot level, a belief is that if Labour do not drastically change, then they are well and truly ****ed!

 

No news to many here, I assume!!!

Who is the grassroots? Its not momentum.

[sadoldgit]

There is hardly any child "poverty" in this country, the word has been abused by lefties like you.

 

You don't end food banks by chucking money around, giving free tuition fees to middle class kids, free broadband to millionaire's, thousands to rich chicks of a certain age and winter fuel allowance to Paul McCartney.

 

You can't run public services if you've run out of money.

 

"My lot" care just as much as "you lot", the difference is the market has made people wealthier than your weird Corbynonics ever will.

 

If your lot cared so much why did they let this happen in the first place? And you can’t run public services if you don’t spend enough on them, as we have found out in the last decade.

[Lord Duckhunter]

If your lot cared so much why did they let this happen in the first place? And you can’t run public services if you don’t spend enough on them, as we have found out in the last decade.

 

Pony

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sadoldgit]

Pony

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Not really an answer is it? I am assuming you have never worked in the public sector, and certainly not during the last decade.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Not really an answer is it? I am assuming you have never worked in the public sector, and certainly not during the last decade.

 

It’s not about working in the public sector , it’s about using it. Millions of people who do, up and down England, decided public services were safer in Tory hands than Steptoe & his band of extremists. The people who matter more than the lefties who work in it , overwhelmingly rejected your pony.......

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sadoldgit]

Little wonder that most of the country are anti people like you and your party. In case you have missed it, public services are on their knees and the people who use them, including people of your political persuasion, are suffering as a result. Still, if you think it helps by name calling, something another right wing poster here also relies on, then knock yourself out.

[sadoldgit]

2,965,830 people more voted against the Tory policies.

[Wes Tender]

2,965,830 people more voted against the Tory policies.

 

*yawn* . Just as a matter of interest, when a clear majority of the electorate voted on a binary decision in a referendum to leave the EU, do you think it was democratic that the two thirds of constituencies that voted leave, were represented in Parliament by two thirds of MPs who voted to remain?

 

Actually, who cares? That is all water under the bridge. Most of those MPs who thought that they knew better what was good for their electorates have now found out to their cost that they were the servants of their electorates, not their masters. Every single one of the so-called rebels lost their seat in the election, as well as many of those MPs in Labour's traditional industrial heartlands whose constituents were mainly leavers when the party had edged towards remaining in the EU.

[aintforever]

Most of those MPs who thought that they knew better what was good for their electorates have now found out to their cost that they were the servants of their electorates, not their masters. Every single one of the so-called rebels lost their seat in the election, as well as many of those MPs in Labour's traditional industrial heartlands whose constituents were mainly leavers when the party had edged towards remaining in the EU.

 

To be fair it doesn’t mean they were not right, it all depends how Brexit turns out. If it’s a disaster then they will soon be re-elected.

[Wes Tender]

To be fair it doesn’t mean they were not right, it all depends how Brexit turns out. If it’s a disaster then they will soon be re-elected.

 

No doubt it could well have been a disaster had they prevailed with the wishy-washy BRINO, inability to walk away from a bad deal negotiating strategy. But when you say that they could soon be re-elected if it's a disaster, we would then be talking five years down the road and a campaign to rejoin the EU with them setting the agenda of us having to join the Eurozone, accept that it will be a much more federal set-up, pay billions for the privilege, join the EU army, and back in the CU and SM with everything that involves. Once we are out, we will not be going back in. More likely that the EU will collapse after we become successful and others follow us out.

[aintforever]

No doubt it could well have been a disaster had they prevailed with the wishy-washy BRINO, inability to walk away from a bad deal negotiating strategy. But when you say that they could soon be re-elected if it's a disaster, we would then be talking five years down the road and a campaign to rejoin the EU with them setting the agenda of us having to join the Eurozone, accept that it will be a much more federal set-up, pay billions for the privilege, join the EU army, and back in the CU and SM with everything that involves. Once we are out, we will not be going back in. More likely that the EU will collapse after we become successful and others follow us out.

 

If it’s a disaster people will soon change their minds, the EU have made it perfectly clear we would be welcomed back in.

 

It obviously all depends how it turns out but no-one voted to be poorer.

[Wes Tender]

If it’s a disaster people will soon change their minds, the EU have made it perfectly clear we would be welcomed back in.

 

It obviously all depends how it turns out but no-one voted to be poorer.

 

No comment disputing what I said about how things will have changed by that time and the strings that the EU would attach to our rejoining? Surely you can't believe that they would be happy to let us back in on exactly the same terms? People voted to leave for myriad reasons. This "people didn't vote to be poorer" is a favourite remoaner sound bite. I suspect that for many they were happy to trade a degree of economic prosperity for an increase in our sovereignty. Anyway, no point in raking over old coals, is there? It would be years before the question arises about rejoining, if at all.

[Wes Tender]

 

Please, please, please let it be Lady Nugee.

 

She still hasn't the faintest idea why Labour lost, nor that it had a lot to do with the likes of her and her well publicised stance on Brexit. We should have had another referendum instead of a General Election she moans. But we had already had one and had not even implemented the result of that last one. And what would the question have been in this third one? Ah yes, it would have been some stitch up between accepting some deal that wasn't a proper Brexit, and remaining in the EU.

 

She really is too thick to understand that there were two main reasons why Labour wasn't elected, and one was that the electorate were fed up with the those parties and MPs who had done their best to thwart the democratic decision to leave the EU. The other reason was that Corbyn and the current Labour Party were unelectable, and yet she doesn't feel the need to purge the party of Momentum. Mind you, she couldn't really say that that was her intention, as she will be relying on the votes of the Momentum mob to become leader. It is a similar conundrum to that which the party faced over Brexit, whether to support remaining in the EU to satisfy their metropolitan members, or to honour the referendum vote to leave and keep their voters happy in their traditional industrial heartlands.

 

Labour was split down the middle, dithered and obfuscated and alienated both sides, whereas the Tories adopted a clear unambiguous position on Brexit and does not have any serious issues with any extreme element in the Party, (apart from in Gavyn's mind, that is).

[aintforever]

I suspect that for many they were happy to trade a degree of economic prosperity for an increase in our sovereignty.

 

I suspect that's true for old people but the vast majority of working people it wouldn't be. If it is a disaster and factories start closing because of Brexit that's going to be hard line to sell to someone struggling to put food on the table for their family.

 

We're supposed to be richer after Brexit so we can spend more on the NHS, that's what Boris's bus told us.

[Batman]

I suspect that's true for old people but the vast majority of working people it wouldn't be. If it is a disaster and factories start closing because of Brexit that's going to be hard line to sell to someone struggling to put food on the table for their family.

 

We're supposed to be richer after Brexit so we can spend more on the NHS, that's what Boris's bus told us.

 

Are we not about to spend more on the NHS?

[Jonnyboy]

Most people can't just magic a "better paid job" out of thin air. If they could, that's what they would have been doing in the first place. As far as analogies go, that one's complete Corbyn mate.

 

And by the way, it is probable that I am considerably more intelligent than you.

 

Merry Christmas.

 

So what is the best way to have a secure future when your mortgage payments increase? At least a promotion at work surely? Or a second job maybe?

 

Let's not get into a intellectual d*ck measuring contest, you might come out looking like Guided Missile.

[Jonnyboy]

Are we not about to spend more on the NHS?

 

There's more, and then there's the actual required more, as well you know.

[Batman]

So what is the best way to have a secure future when your mortgage payments increase? At least a promotion at work surely? Or a second job maybe?

 

Let's not get into a intellectual d*ck measuring contest, you might come out looking like Guided Missile.

 

Why would your mortgage payments increase so much that mean you have to get a new job?

[Jonnyboy]

Why would your mortgage payments increase so much that mean you have to get a new job?

 

It's an anology.

[Jonnyboy]

Strange to read of Jews leaving the UK in fear and disgust after dreaded Hitler reincarnation Jeremy Corbyn defeated in election:

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2019/12/30/while-antisemites-cheer-johnson-this-holocaust-survivors-family-is-fleeing-britain/

[Wes Tender]

I suspect that's true for old people but the vast majority of working people it wouldn't be. If it is a disaster and factories start closing because of Brexit that's going to be hard line to sell to someone struggling to put food on the table for their family.

 

We're supposed to be richer after Brexit so we can spend more on the NHS, that's what Boris's bus told us.

 

You must have been looking at the wrong bus. It didn't say that we would be richer, it said that we wouldn't be sending £350 million a week to the EU and that we could spend it on the NHS instead. Are you richer for the money we spend on the NHS already? Not unless you are employed by them, I suspect. As for the factories closing, enough damage has been done to our manufacturing industries already by our membership of the EU. Many of our industries will receive a boost when we leave. Your families struggling to put food on their tables now, will benefit from us being able to import it at cheaper prices from the rest of the World, rather than from the EU protectionist racket for their farmers, particularly the French.

[aintforever]

You must have been looking at the wrong bus. It didn't say that we would be richer, it said that we wouldn't be sending £350 million a week to the EU and that we could spend it on the NHS instead. Are you richer for the money we spend on the NHS already? Not unless you are employed by them, I suspect. As for the factories closing, enough damage has been done to our manufacturing industries already by our membership of the EU. Many of our industries will receive a boost when we leave. Your families struggling to put food on their tables now, will benefit from us being able to import it at cheaper prices from the rest of the World, rather than from the EU protectionist racket for their farmers, particularly the French.

 

You are illustrating my point perfectly. According to you geniuses, leaving the EU is supposed to make us richer by boosting industry and making food cheaper - a new golden age brought on by Brexit - ergo we didn't vote to be poorer.

[Wes Tender]

You are illustrating my point perfectly. According to you geniuses, leaving the EU is supposed to make us richer by boosting industry and making food cheaper - a new golden age brought on by Brexit - ergo we didn't vote to be poorer.

 

It doesn't illustrate your point at all. Nobody can predict the future with any certainty, but a majority of the electorate who voted in the referendum were satisfied that on the basis of our membership over the past forty seven years, we would probably be better off running our own affairs. Your argument about what people voted for works perfectly well the other way around. We voted to join a Common Market, not a Federal United States of Europe.

 

We'll just have to wait and see how it all pans out economically, but my prediction is that beyond a couple of years, we will forge ahead and by the end of this parliamentary term, we will wonder why we didn't break free years ago. All the so-called experts who predicted an economic disaster if we left, are going to be many of the same ones who previously got egg all over their faces when they predicted the same calamity if we didn't join the Eurozone.

[shurlock]

You must have been looking at the wrong bus. It didn't say that we would be richer, it said that we wouldn't be sending £350 million a week to the EU and that we could spend it on the NHS instead. Are you richer for the money we spend on the NHS already? Not unless you are employed by them, I suspect. As for the factories closing, enough damage has been done to our manufacturing industries already by our membership of the EU. Many of our industries will receive a boost when we leave. Your families struggling to put food on their tables now, will benefit from us being able to import it at cheaper prices from the rest of the World, rather than from the EU protectionist racket for their farmers, particularly the French.

 

Even by your absurdly low standards, Les, this is pig-s**t ignorant.

Edited 30 December, 2019 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

Even by your absurdly low standards, Les, this is pig-s**t ignorant.

 

Hello Gavyn. Felt the desperate need to insult somebody? Short of medication?

[shurlock]

Hello Gavyn. Felt the desperate need to insult somebody? Short of medication?

 

Just calling a spade a spade pal. Obviously responding in detail makes no difference as you’ll do your customary little trick and run off and carry on as if a conversation never took place and that you’re entitled to your own facts.

Edited 30 December, 2019 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

Just calling a spade a spade pal. Obviously responding in detail makes no difference as you’ll do your customary little trick and run off and carry on as if a conversation never took place and that you’re entitled to your own facts.

 

Fair enough, You just insult me and I'll just laugh at you. It works for me. I've read plenty of expert opinion backing up the generalisations I made, but naturally they are all idiots compared to the real experts, who are all on the remoaner side. It must rankle really badly that despite all their dire warnings, the electorate chose to ignore them.

 

In the interest of balance, here's somebody calling a spade a spade from the Brexit side. I thought that you might like the updated version:-

 

[Batman]

[buctootim]

 

Ah a variation in the champagne socialists theme. You don’t really get this altruism trait do you Jamie? The idea that someone would want a less unequal society even if they didn’t personally benefit from it is a ‘does not compute’ for you.

[benjii]

So what is the best way to have a secure future when your mortgage payments increase? At least a promotion at work surely? Or a second job maybe?

 

Let's not get into a intellectual d*ck measuring contest, you might come out looking like Guided Missile.

 

If you choose to borrow money then you need to assess whether your income or other resources will allow you to repay it. If you're borrowing more to service existing debt, you'd better be pretty sure it will, or you'll be screwed.

 

You don't just borrow what you want on the basis that you will surely have enough money coming in somehow to repay it.

 

The banal household analogy is of pretty limited value when you're talking national macroeconomics managed by transient governments, in any event. The point is that cutting expenditure is a legitimate response to unmanageable levels of expenditure. Simple as that. You can look at growth but you also need to look at spending. It's a balancing act. It's not dogmatic, like Corbynism.

 

You started the contest by calling me stupid. I agree, it is not needed. Res ipsa loquitur.

[Tamesaint]

Edit

[Tamesaint]

enough damage has been done to our manufacturing industries already by our membership of the EU. Many of our industries will receive a boost when we leave.

 

Would you care to elucidate?

[badgerx16]

*yawn* . Just as a matter of interest, when a clear majority of the electorate voted on a binary decision in a referendum to leave the EU,

*Yawn*

A majority of the electorate did not vote to leave the EU.

FACT : 17.4 million out of an electoral role of 46.5million voted leave.

[badgerx16]

Originally Posted by Wes Tender

 

enough damage has been done to our manufacturing industries already by our membership of the EU. Many of our industries will receive a boost when we leave.

 

Would you care to elucidate?

 

It's the same logic that claims the fishing industry in towns like Fleetwood will benefit from leaving; it won't because the dock no longer exists. Almost all of the dockside buildings have been knocked down and new housing built over the site.

[Batman]

Keep fighting the fight.....they did win again, afterall

 

[Wes Tender]

*Yawn*

A majority of the electorate did not vote to leave the EU.

FACT : 17.4 million out of an electoral role of 46.5million voted leave.

 

Read it again more carefully, please. A clear majority of the electorate who voted in the referendum voted for leave. Leave out the words "of the electorate" from my original statement if it helps you, but they were members of the electorate weren't they?