General election? June 8th?

[buctootim]

Really doesn't matter that it's the worst decade for pay growth, as inflation has been so low.

 

Let's pluck a decade out if the air.... The 1970s when inflation hit 25%+... Rather have today's inflation and wages growth than that.

 

Why dont you pluck facts out of the air instead?

 

 

 

Average earnings after RPI. The current period is the worst in 70 years, possibly 100 according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies.

Edited 14 May, 2017 by buctootim

[Lord Duckhunter]

So what's your prediction, fanboy? Corbyn going to sweep into No10 with all those shy socialist votes?

 

The only hope Corbyns got of not being completely & utterly destroyed is if some Labour voters who intend to vote Tory, just can't bring themselves to do so on the day IF the switch from Labour to Tory is "soft", Corbyn may get away with a 80-100 majority. If not I can honestly see Labour losing in areas they never dreamed they could & massive massive May win.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nolan]

Why dont you pluck facts out of the air instead?

 

Sorry for those facts...

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Jesus wept, Nolan. You're not the brightest bulb in the intellectual chandelier, are you?

 

Please explain how plotting RPI against output gap mismeasurement (degree of measurement error in estimating the amount of spare capacity in the economy) supports your point on earnings and wage growth during the 1970s. I didn't take a module in that at school.

 

Clue: it might help your point on wages, if you included, you know, some data on wages (whether adjusted or unadjusted for inflation)?

Edited 15 May, 2017 by shurlock

[Nolan]

It's supporting the fact that inflation was 25%. That is the number that was questioned. that is the number in my previous post.

 

I take it you are aware that if inflation is 25 % wage increases have to be a lot higher than when inflation is at a record low?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

It's supporting the fact that inflation was 25%. That is the number that was questioned. that is the number in my previous post.

 

I take it you are aware that if inflation is 25 % wage increases have to be a lot higher than when inflation is at a record low?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

No that is not the number being questioned. We're discussing whether wage growth, adjusted for inflation, was lower in the 1970s vs. the recent period. The evidence you've presented cannot settle that question. Perhaps you want to try again and actually substantiate your claim.

[Nolan]

But I haven't argued that it wasn't higher. I'm saying there is no need for it to be high. It's a false Arguement.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

But I haven't argued that it wasn't higher. I'm saying there is no need for it to be high. It's a false Arguement.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

Eh?

 

You've explicitly stated that you would rather have today's real wage growth -or in your words 'inflation and wages growth'; presumably because you think it is higher than the 1970s; yet have provided no evidence to that effect.

 

You do know what real wage growth is...

[Nolan]

Eh?

 

You've explicitly stated that you would rather have today's real wage growth -or in your words 'inflation and wages growth'; presumably because you think it is higher than the 1970s; yet have provided no evidence to that effect.

 

You do know what real wage growth is...

Well we haven't had winter off discontent have we.

 

Yes id rather have the last decades economics than the 70s

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Well we haven't had winter off discontent have we.

 

Yes id rather have the last decades economics than the 70s

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

Thats not the subject. So no evidence to support your claim that real wage growth has been higher in the recent period than the 1970s. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Nolan]

Thats not the subject. So no evidence to support your claim that real wage growth has been higher in the recent period than the 1970s. Thanks for clearing that up.

Where did I say it was higher now?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

Where did I say it was higher now?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

You said you'd rather have today's wage growth and inflation - presumably because you believe real wage growth is higher. It is rather simple.

[Nolan]

So you're being presumptuous. I'd rather have today's wage growth as individual years, around our IMF bailout due to the country's economic, conditions was ludicrous.

 

With one year real wage growth was around - 8

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

So you're being presumptuous. I'd rather have today's wage growth as individual years, around our IMF bailout due to the country's economic, conditions was ludicrous.

 

With one year real wage growth was around - 8

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

Individual years? No you didn't. You compared an entire decade -the 1970s with the 2010s. It's clear as day above.

[Nolan]

Were going in circles...

 

Let's instead marvel at the words of the Communist running Corbyns campaign now.

 

https://order-order.com/2017/05/15/andrew-murrays-greatest-hits/

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Verbal]

Were going in circles...

 

Let's instead marvel at the words of the Communist running Corbyns campaign now.

 

https://order-order.com/2017/05/15/andrew-murrays-greatest-hits/

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

This is the wrong circle to suddenly divert to. The number of doe-eyed Corbynists on here is limited to fanboy.

 

Corbyn's appointment of Murray is exactly the kind of thing many in the Labour party deeply resent. He only joined the party in November 2016 after resigning his Communist party membership. It's just another sign of the utter uselessness of Corbyn that he would offer such an easy target for the Tories to attack.

 

Just to be clear about how repulsive Murray is, he has argued that the deluded backing of Stalinism by British communists was defensible - even through the Great Terror of the 1930s and the show trials of the 1950s (many against 'Zionist' - i.e. Jewish - opponents). The real value of Murray to Corbyn is that Murray is a senior figure at UNITE, Corbyn's main financial backer - Murray doesn't even work for Labour, despite being in charge of the election; he's merely on secondment from the union. Again, it's an easy target for the Tories in their narrative that the party is being led by the nose by union bosses.

 

So back to those wages...

[buctootim]

Were going in circles...

tbf, you are. Here's a BBC article to make it simple for you.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38090977

[Nolan]

Again the argument isn't that growth is low. Its that stability has led to it so it's almost inconsequential.

 

Anyway... Once we've left Europe wages will rise

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12181385/Wages-for-British-workers-will-rise-in-the-event-of-a-Brexit-head-of-in-campaign-says.html

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[buctootim]

Again the argument isn't that growth is low. Its that stability has led to it so it's almost inconsequential.

 

Anyway... Once we've left Europe wages will rise

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12181385/Wages-for-British-workers-will-rise-in-the-event-of-a-Brexit-head-of-in-campaign-says.html

 

This what I find so astounding about many dyed in the wool Tories, especially on this board. The near total and absolute absence of facts or grasp of the issues - replaced instead with myths they want to be true to justify their views.

 

What you have posted up is nonsense because it doesn't relate to the point being made. There are a number of valid points you could have made instead - but you don't do the reading, presumably because you don't want the cognitive dissonance and possibly be forced to change the views you want to hold. You could have said that:

 

1. UK wages as a share of national GDP has remained more constant in recent decades than most other developed countries, especially the US or

2. Flatter wages is a small price to pay for low unemployment (though you'd have to work out how that is linked) or

3. A transfer of wealth from young to the old is a good thing (though you'd need to justify that thought)

 

But no, instead there is just dust thrown into the air. Like Lord D and Trousers on the NHS. Firm, formed and definite opinions on what is wrong with the NHS without, literally, the first idea on how its run or that private hospitals are wildly more expensive / less efficient.

Edited 15 May, 2017 by buctootim

[trousers]

But no, instead you just get dust thrown into the air. Like Lord D and Trousers on the NHS. Firm, formed and definite opinions on what is wrong with the NHS without, literally, the first idea on how its run

 

Buctootim in putting words into peoples' mouth shocker. All I've ever done is reflect the views of two family members that work in the NHS. I've always caveated my posts with the fact that I'm not qualified enough to know what's right and wrong about the NHS and made it clear that they are second hand observations. But if it floats your boat to incorrectly and/or selectively paraphrase people then fill your boots

[buctootim]

Buctootim in putting words into peoples' mouth shocker. All I've ever done is reflect the views of two family members that work in the NHS. I've always caveated my posts with the fact that I'm not qualified enough to know what's right and wrong about the NHS and made it clear that they are second hand observations. But if it floats your boat to incorrectly paraphrase people then fill your boots

 

And that is your schtick. To say something negative, usually about public services, without providing any evidence, facts or links. When challenged you simply say "just repeating what I was told". Surely there must be something more substantial to your beliefs? you cant have a world view based on hearsay and smilies can you? Dont you ever check anything you're told? Coming next: Trousers' appraisal of prospects for the British Motor Industry, evidenced by a neighbours reports of a Rover 200 he used to own.

Edited 15 May, 2017 by buctootim

[trousers]

And that is your schtick. To say something negative, usually about public services, without providing any evidence, facts or links. When challenged you simply say "just repeating what I was told". Surely there must be something more substantial to your beliefs? you cant have a world view based on hearsay and smilies can you? Dont you ever check anything you're told?

 

You're starting to lose me now, but that's probably just me being a bit thick (for once).

 

First of all, you're selectively paraphrasing me again. I've been both positive and critical about the NHS, but feel free to focus on the less positive stuff if that suits your character assassination mission better. Regarding the NHS, I happen to trust what my missus and her sister-in-law tell me. I rather suspect my marriage wouldn't have lasted 27 years if I was to question everything Lady Trousers told me with a: "That's all very well and good my petal, but I'm going to have to check what you've just told me as it may not be true" retort. Now, if I was being told something by the self proclaimed intelligentsia on this forum, then of course I would go away and check it first rather than trusting them at face value.... #insert winky smilie thing just to annoy Buctootim #

[Lord Duckhunter]

Buctootim in putting words into peoples' mouth shocker. All I've ever done is reflect the views of two family members that work in the NHS. I've always caveated my posts with the fact that I'm not qualified enough to know what's right and wrong about the NHS and made it clear that they are second hand observations. But if it floats your boat to incorrectly and/or selectively paraphrase people then fill your boots

 

My Mrs works in the NHS, as do countless of her friends. However, instead of listening to them and then forming an opinion , I'm now going to just read Guardian articles and other opinion pieces from "experts" and copy their views. That way I'll be as clever and knowing as Timmy.

 

Regarding the NHS, if labour are standing on a platform of save "our" (pass the sick bucket) NHS , and are totally routed, doesn't that indicate that people don't agree it needs saving or it's not as an important issue as lefties make out

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[buctootim]

You're starting to lose me now, but that's probably just me being a bit thick (for once).

 

First of all, you're selectively paraphrasing me again. I've been both positive and critical about the NHS, but feel free to focus on the less positive stuff if that suits your character assassination mission better. Regarding the NHS, I happen to trust what my missus and her sister-in-law tell me. I rather suspect my marriage wouldn't have lasted 27 years if I was to question everything Lady Trousers told me with a: "That's all very well and good my petal, but I'm going to have to check what you've just told me as it may not be true" retort. Now, if I was being told something by the self proclaimed intelligentsia on this forum, then of course I would go away and check it first rather than trusting them at face value.... #insert winky smilie thing just to annoy Buctootim #

 

Your missus' experience is her truth of the unit she works in. Why do you think you can extrapolate that out to a service which employs 1,400,000 people and 243 million patient 'episodes'? Which will give you a more reliable indicator of the effectiveness of the service? Your wife or comparing performance of the NHS against private UK and international competitors?

 

They say people vote with their feet. Telling that both your and Duckhunters wives prefer to continue working at the NHS than for the private hospitals (although to fair to Lord D he didnt know they existed till last week). Some people like to ******, but I wouldnt design public policy on it.

Edited 15 May, 2017 by buctootim

[trousers]

Your missus' experience is her truth of the unit she works in. Why do you think you can extrapolate that out to a service which employs 1,400,000 people and 243 million patient 'episodes'? Which will give you a more reliable indicator of the effectiveness of the service? Your wife or comparing performance of the NHS against private UK and international competitors?

 

Which is precisely why I've always caveated my posts with "I'm not qualified to comment on this but I'm just passing on the observations of my two family members that work in the NHS". There's only one person who's trying to "extrapolate" here, and its not me....

 

Your turn...

 

[shurlock]

Which is precisely why I've always caveated my posts with "I'm not qualified to comment on this but I'm just passing on the observations of my two family members that work in the NHS". There's only one person who's trying to "extrapolate" here, and its not me....

 

Your turn...

 

 

Don't undersell yourself.

 

Sweeping statements such as "it's better to pour additional money into a system that's been fixed first" and "one problem with providing a "free" service is that human nature kicks in and it gets abused" (and that's barely half a page) don't strike me as the views of someone who's keenly aware of the fallibility of their own position and expertise.

 

Your M.O. seems to be:

I) Make grand statement without a whiff of self-doubt or qualification;

II) Get challenged and backtrack;

III) Claim it was based all along on a few observations from friends and family, thereby impossible to falsify;

IV) Persist with general statement, notwithstanding homespun, local anecdote.

 

An old family favourite.

 

 

#textbook

Edited 15 May, 2017 by shurlock

[trousers]

Don't undersell yourself.

 

Sweeping statements such as "it's better to pour additional money into a system that's been fixed first" and "one problem with providing a "free" service is that human nature kicks in and it gets abused" (and that's barely half a page) don't strike me as the views of someone who's keenly aware of the fallibility of their own position and expertise.

 

Your M.O. seems to be:

I) Make grand statement without a whiff of self-doubt or qualification;

II) Get challenged and backtrack;

III) Claim it was based all along on a few observations from friends and family, thereby impossible to falsify;

IV) Persist with general statement, notwithstanding homespun, local anecdote.

 

An old family favourite.

 

 

#textbook

 

Damn. Outwitted by some clever bloke on an internet football forum. Trousers' "M.O." has been found out at last. Some fine detective work there sir

Edited 15 May, 2017 by trousers

[shurlock]

Damn. Outwitted by some clever bloke on an internet football forum. Trousers' "M.O." has been found out at last. Some fine detective work there sir

 

V) Throw in some bumbling, self-deprecating humour and give with one hand;

VI) Qualify preceding statement, emphasising it's an internet football forum and immediately take back with the other.

 

#textbook

[trousers]

Good effort, but you forgot...

 

VII) Make light of the situation by throwing a Bobby Davro quip into the conversation

[trousers]

And the old favourite...

 

VIII)

 

[shurlock]

And the old favourite...

 

VIII)

 

 

Technically they fall under V).

 

But I'll give them to you - it's an internet football forum, after all

[trousers]

It's a jolly fine internet forum though with lots of spiffing contributors. Long may it continue say I.

[buctootim]

I do like you trousers. Nothing personal. More to do with the combined weight of ****wittery in one place than you in isolation.

 

[Nolan]

Presented without comment.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[trousers]

I do like you trousers. Nothing personal. More to do with the combined weight of ****wittery in one place than you in isolation.

 

[Verbal]

Today's YouGov poll makes grim reading. It breaks down Tory vs Labour support by region - and Labour is ahead in only two of those, London and the north east. The map is basically blue with just two tiny patches of red.

 

Corbynists remain convinced of two things: that no one has ever been given a chance to vote on a proper socialist manifesto (forgetting 1983, and the disaster that followed); and that the polls are always wrong (forgetting that when they are they always over-estimate the Labour vote).

 

I honestly don't know why May bothers leaving home during the election - it's that easy.

 

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/voting-intention-regional-breakdown-apr-24-may-5/

[Jonnyboy]

Today's YouGov poll makes grim reading. It breaks down Tory vs Labour support by region - and Labour is ahead in only two of those, London and the north east. The map is basically blue with just two tiny patches of red.

 

Corbynists remain convinced of two things: that no one has ever been given a chance to vote on a proper socialist manifesto (forgetting 1983, and the disaster that followed); and that the polls are always wrong (forgetting that when they are they always over-estimate the Labour vote).

 

I honestly don't know why May bothers leaving home during the election - it's that easy.

 

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/voting-intention-regional-breakdown-apr-24-may-5/

 

Especially when true Labour voters like yourself will be voting for her.

[buctootim]

Presented without comment.

 

Post up a link to that table. I'd be interested to see the context as it looks suspect to me.

 

These are OECD figures for changes in per capita healthcare spending for Britain

 

United Kingdom 2009/10 until 2012/13: -1.3%, -0.1%, 0.3%, 0.6%

https://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/Focus-Health-Spending-2015.pdf

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SHA

 

Edited 15 May, 2017 by buctootim

[Batman]

The NHS probably has plenty of money to function properly if it gets serious reform

sadly, that is never going to happen as anyone in power who goes near it causes riotous protest from the other side.

 

just skirting around the edges and throwing more money at it is only kicking the can down the road

[buctootim]

The NHS probably has plenty of money to function properly if it gets serious reform

sadly, that is never going to happen as anyone in power who goes near it causes riotous protest from the other side.

 

just skirting around the edges and throwing more money at it is only kicking the can down the road

 

Why do you think GPs don't use private hospitals more Batman? Could cut waiting times, private sector efficiency etc. Whats not to like? Why don't they do it?

[Winnersaint]

The NHS probably has plenty of money to function properly if it gets serious reform

sadly, that is never going to happen as anyone in power who goes near it causes riotous protest from the other side.

 

just skirting around the edges and throwing more money at it is only kicking the can down the road

 

With regards to the NHS, two very close family members are currently receiving brilliant care from our beleaguered health service. That said, I have a certain level of second hand inside knowledge as my wife worked in the NHS. Her experience to that point had been in the private sector, in retail and in financial services. During her time in the NHS she was determined to bring in levels of practice she was familiar with from the private sector but was pretty much universally blocked from doing so by existing non-clinical managers. The wastage of resources both human and financial in the NHS bordered on the criminal. It is easy to put a headline in a right-wing rag bemoaning the bloated managerial structure and outdated practices but that was a reality I'm afraid in her experience. There are people that can see right through it, but they are effectively bullied and discredited by the NHS 'lifers' in the back office.

Edited 16 May, 2017 by Winnersaint

[trousers]

With regards to the NHS, two very close family members are currently receiving brilliant care from our beleaguered health service. That said, I have a certain level of second hand inside knowledge as my wife worked for a local NHS Foundation Trust for the best part of a decade and a half. Her experience to that point had been in the private sector, in retail and in financial services. Prior to the NHS she was working as a Learning and Development Manager for a 'blue chip' company which was at the time the biggest employer in the town. During her time in the NHS she was determined to bring in levels of practice she was familiar with from the private sector but was pretty much universally blocked from doing so by existing non-clinical managers. The wastage of resources both human and financial in the NHS borders on the criminal. It is easy to put a headline in a right-wing rag bemoaning the bloated managerial structure and outdated practices but that is a reality I'm afraid. there are people that can see right through it, but they are effectively bullied and discredited by the NHS 'lifers' in the back office.

Careful with posting anecdotal stuff on here sir. I'd recommend checking that the same thing happens in every other hospital in the country first, just in case it's unrepresentative of the NHS as a whole.

[buctootim]

Careful with posting anecdotal stuff on here sir. I'd recommend checking that the same thing happens in every other hospital in the country first, just in case it's unrepresentative of the NHS as a whole.

 

Super private sector efficiencies she wanted to bring. Blocked at every turn she was. Bullied and discredited. Barely lasted 15 years.

Edited 15 May, 2017 by buctootim

[Winnersaint]

Careful with posting anecdotal stuff on here sir. I'd recommend checking that the same thing happens in every other hospital in the country first, just in case it's unrepresentative of the NHS as a whole.

 

Just giving one person's experience tbh. Hopefully it doesn't mirror the elsewhere in the NHS, but it does have a 'culture' issue.

[Winnersaint]

Super private sector efficiencies she wanted to bring. Blocked at every turn she was. Bullied and discredited. Barely lasted 15 years.

 

I suspect Timmy you and and I are very politically very close. Just giving a viewpoint of a small part of the NHS. No politics involved, so don't be t-oss-er!

[Lord Duckhunter]

so don't be t-oss-er!

 

More chance of Corbyn winning the election than that happening

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hypochondriac]

So "free" childcare is currently woefully underfunded with talk of nurseries closing following the introduction of 30 free hours from September yet Labour wants to extend this to two year olds and one year olds and:

 

Our colleague in BBC Radio Leeds says the document doesn't say how it would be paid for.

 

Absolute genius.

[benjii]

It's simple, they'll just raise billions of tax off of the "rich" folk.

[benjii]

To be honest, I'm surprised no one has thought of that before.

[aintforever]

To be fair, there is plenty of wealthy people who could pay more.

 

I'm not rich but both me and my other half are above average earners and this austerity stuff is just something we see on the news. Fact is if you have a half decent income and own your own property low interest rates and low inflation has made these 'hard times' a piece of ****.

 

Eouldn't even notice a few pence on tax - problem is the usual swivel-eyed, greedy Tories squeal like a baby at the thought of helping out.

Edited 16 May, 2017 by aintforever