All things Labour Party

I'm more worried about next years Scottish Elections . Labour will be completely wiped out up here . And it will be a total SNP country . Oh and Queen ***** is determined to have another referendum Asap .

Labour needed the Scottish seats to give them strength . Sadly that has been lost and it doesn't matter who the next labour leader will be. Pompey are more likely to be successful again unlike the Labour Party

I'm more worried about next years Scottish Elections . Labour will be completely wiped out up here . And it will be a total SNP country . Oh and Queen ***** is determined to have another referendum Asap .

Labour needed the Scottish seats to give them strength . Sadly that has been lost and it doesn't matter who the next labour leader will be. Pompey are more likely to be successful again unlike the Labour Party

See that's the thing, I think the hope is that if Labour starts to act more like Labour and an alternative to the Tories, they'll gain more traditional working class Scottish votes....that's the hope.

See that's the thing, I think the hope is that if Labour starts to act more like Labour and an alternative to the Tories, they'll gain more traditional working class Scottish votes....that's the hope.

Either that, or the "true" Labour under Corbyn if he doesn't get elected will defect and start a new, real, left wing group. Plz.

As someone who is still in education, albeit higher education now, please do not mention Gove. The man is a fool.

 

In regards to Corbyn, he seems to be doing to British politics what Saunders is doing to the Yanks. Which is shaking it up and making people have a think, and not just vote for who is the easiest option.

I think you mean Bernie Sanders. Corbyn is no Sanders. If we had someone here of Sanders' political skills and well crafted populism, he or she would be a real threat to the Tories. Instead, we have Corbyn, a bumbling Tribunite dinosaur whom the Tories are laughingly pleading us to elect, and for whom the Telegraph are running a mock election campaign, encouraging its readers to pay their £3 and vote him in. The really sad thing is that Corbyn has a much better chance of political leadership than Sanders (to put it mildly).

Here are a few snippets of Sanders on the stump:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-quotes_55a909f1e4b0c5f0322d0a59?

Compare and contrast Corbyn, wittering dim-wittedly on about the 'relevance of Karl Marx' and how communism 'is only a financial system'.

One saying for which Marx is usually credited (about the Bonaparte and Napoleon III) goes: history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. The tragedy was Michael Foot, a deeply literate man out of his political depth at a time when Thatcherism needed powerful opponents. The farce is Jeremy Corbyn, who doesn't even qualify as an opponent (!) to the Bullingdon Boys' tearing down of any notion of 'the public good' in favour of a ruthless ramping up of already mounting inequalities - of wealth, opportunity and access.

There is rich ground here for a centre-left party - one that probably folds in the slowly resurgent Liberal Democrats - that builds a political platform that will attract a vast swathe of British voters who are not died-in-the-wool Tories. The idea that Corbyn is the one to build that platform would be funny if it weren't so desperate.

My opinion, if labour go further left they become unvotable to the average person. The centre is everything whether it be slightly left or right is hopefully going to run the county how they want to, without damaging the economy, although labour last time managed to **** up... As always. Simple truth is if people are taxed to high they bugger off, government run business is not good either, and competition drives up standandards; in theory anyway.

Just saying I'm not loyal to any party, but will not vote any party who I believe will ruin the country through some crazy ideology.

I think you mean Bernie Sanders. Corbyn is no Sanders. If we had someone here of Sanders' political skills and well crafted populism, he or she would be a real threat to the Tories. Instead, we have Corbyn, a bumbling Tribunite dinosaur whom the Tories are laughingly pleading us to elect, and for whom the Telegraph are running a mock election campaign, encouraging its readers to pay their £3 and vote him in. The really sad thing is that Corbyn has a much better chance of political leadership than Sanders (to put it mildly).

 

Here are a few snippets of Sanders on the stump:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-quotes_55a909f1e4b0c5f0322d0a59?

 

Compare and contrast Corbyn, wittering dim-wittedly on about the 'relevance of Karl Marx' and how communism 'is only a financial system'.

 

One saying for which Marx is usually credited (about the Bonaparte and Napoleon III) goes: history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. The tragedy was Michael Foot, a deeply literate man out of his political depth at a time when Thatcherism needed powerful opponents. The farce is Jeremy Corbyn, who doesn't even qualify as an opponent (!) to the Bullingdon Boys' tearing down of any notion of 'the public good' in favour of a ruthless ramping up of already mounting inequalities - of wealth, opportunity and access.

 

There is rich ground here for a centre-left party - one that probably folds in the slowly resurgent Liberal Democrats - that builds a political platform that will attract a vast swathe of British voters who are not died-in-the-wool Tories. The idea that Corbyn is the one to build that platform would be funny if it weren't so desperate.

When you say "centre-left" we all know what you mean. Dead right wing you are, just like Stalin and that.

My opinion, if labour go further left they become unvotable to the average person. The centre is everything whether it be slightly left or right is hopefully going to run the county how they want to, without damaging the economy, although labour last time managed to **** up... As always. Simple truth is if people are taxed to high they bugger off, government run business is not good either, and competition drives up standandards; in theory anyway.

 

Just saying I'm not loyal to any party, but will not vote any party who I believe will ruin the country through some crazy ideology.

Nothing to do with a global economic crash then....although we've been through this a hundred times there is a myriad of evidence to prove the conservatives can no more be trusted with the economy than Labour....look at the current deficit level...and borrowing one.

Nothing to do with a global economic crash then....although we've been through this a hundred times there is a myriad of evidence to prove the conservatives can no more be trusted with the economy than Labour....look at the current deficit level...and borrowing one.

Labour historically are poor with the economy. Agree about current dept / deficit, it must come down with public spending, the public sector must shrink and unions like those representing tube drivers need to be curbed as they are ripping off the country. Not sure labour going further left is going to sort out these problems! I will only consider voting labour if they are honest about cuts, and cut red tape for business.

At a time when Thatcher was calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist and a young David Cameron was living it up on all expenses paid tours around apartheid South Africa, Jeremy Corbyn was being roughed up and arrested for blockading the South African embassy in London.

From Occupy London......Corbyn is one of the good guys.

Labour historically are poor with the economy. Agree about current dept / deficit, it must come down with public spending, the public sector must shrink and unions like those representing tube drivers need to be curbed as they are ripping off the country. Not sure labour going further left is going to sort out these problems! I will only consider voting labour if they are honest about cuts, and cut red tape for business.

I think you are right, if they went further left the unions would have more power. I'm not old enough to remember what it was like in the 70's when the country was hamstrung by them but the workers of those industries certainly paid for that in the 80's and 90's to the point we have no industry any more.

I think both parties need to be more aggressive about tax avoidance too but I have as much difficulty believing the tories would be tough on their mates in big business and the banks as I do of Labour on the unions so it's a problem.

He can see Woolston from his Dad's penthouse in Ocean Village...

You f*cking cheeky c*nt.

I think you are right, if they went further left the unions would have more power. I'm not old enough to remember what it was like in the 70's when the country was hamstrung by them but the workers of those industries certainly paid for that in the 80's and 90's to the point we have no industry any more.

 

I think both parties need to be more aggressive about tax avoidance too but I have as much difficulty believing the tories would be tough on their mates in big business and the banks as I do of Labour on the unions so it's a problem.

I don't think we will ever go back to the 1970s, for that to happen we would have to manufacture a lot more of what we use, rekindle the coal industry, the steel industry. The country is a victim of globalisation and neo liberal economics....hence the £1.5 trillion national debt. If we could get back to a time of full employment, free education for all I would put up with powerful unions.

You f*cking cheeky c*nt.

My opinion, if labour go further left they become unvotable to the average person. The centre is everything whether it be slightly left or right is hopefully going to run the county how they want to, without damaging the economy, although labour last time managed to **** up... As always. Simple truth is if people are taxed to high they bugger off, government run business is not good either, and competition drives up standandards; in theory anyway.

 

Just saying I'm not loyal to any party, but will not vote any party who I believe will ruin the country through some crazy ideology.

It's not as if he's suggested collectivisation. Public ownership of public services works very well in much of Europe, unlike here where the private rail industry is a mess.

And if the rich want to bugger off, then I'd say let them bugger off and don't let them operate in the country, their shoes would soon be filled with someone else with a moral compass. Might start to see some social mobility.

It's not as if he's suggested collectivisation. Public ownership of public services works very well in much of Europe, unlike here where the private rail industry is a mess.

 

And if the rich want to bugger off, then I'd say let them bugger off and don't let them operate in the country, their shoes would soon be filled with someone else with a moral compass. Might start to see some social mobility.

it all sounds good. But there is no way the UK will elect some old duffer as leader of this country.

Just wont happen

See that's the thing, I think the hope is that if Labour starts to act more like Labour and an alternative to the Tories, they'll gain more traditional working class Scottish votes....that's the hope.

Considering that the most successful period the Labour Party has had during the last 50 years was under the stewardship of that old Tory-lite chap Blair, some bleary-eyed harking back to golden era of socialist values in wholly misplaced. The Labour Party have never governed through a solid socialist agenda in the modern world, and never will. "Traditional" Labour may have worked when the vast majority of workers had minimal rights, there was no NHS or welfare state and the masses were denied the basics of life. And whilst isolated incidents of injustice still exist (and cause "traditional value" lefties to boil their own p!ss) the majority of people simply do not have to worry about a roof over their head, being killed at work and having no grub on the table.

The Labour Party need to win / claw back from others about 2 and a half million votes. They won't get that from the Kippers, or the Picts who will don their facepaint and bang their drums until they get their freedom. They have to do it from the Tories and they can't get that with a set of "principles" that deny those voters the rewards from their hard graft. Electing Corbyn will see them in freefall for the next 10 years.

Considering that the most successful period the Labour Party has had during the last 50 years was under the stewardship of that old Tory-lite chap Blair, some bleary-eyed harking back to golden era of socialist values in wholly misplaced. The Labour Party have never governed through a solid socialist agenda in the modern world, and never will. "Traditional" Labour may have worked when the vast majority of workers had minimal rights, there was no NHS or welfare state and the masses were denied the basics of life. And whilst isolated incidents of injustice still exist (and cause "traditional value" lefties to boil their own p!ss) the majority of people simply do not have to worry about a roof over their head, being killed at work and having no grub on the table.

 

The Labour Party need to win / claw back from others about 2 and a half million votes. They won't get that from the Kippers, or the Picts who will don their facepaint and bang their drums until they get their freedom. They have to do it from the Tories and they can't get that with a set of "principles" that deny those voters the rewards from their hard graft. Electing Corbyn will see them in freefall for the next 10 years.

This...

It's not as if he's suggested collectivisation. Public ownership of public services works very well in much of Europe, unlike here where the private rail industry is a mess.

 

And if the rich want to bugger off, then I'd say let them bugger off and don't let them operate in the country, their shoes would soon be filled with someone else with a moral compass. Might start to see some social mobility.

It's the rich that pay for a large part of government spending. You won't get that from a moral compass and you'd have even less social mobility.

I agree about the railways, privatisation is a stupid idea.

Considering that the most successful period the Labour Party has had during the last 50 years was under the stewardship of that old Tory-lite chap Blair, some bleary-eyed harking back to golden era of socialist values in wholly misplaced. The Labour Party have never governed through a solid socialist agenda in the modern world, and never will. "Traditional" Labour may have worked when the vast majority of workers had minimal rights, there was no NHS or welfare state and the masses were denied the basics of life. And whilst isolated incidents of injustice still exist (and cause "traditional value" lefties to boil their own p!ss) the majority of people simply do not have to worry about a roof over their head, being killed at work and having no grub on the table.

 

The Labour Party need to win / claw back from others about 2 and a half million votes. They won't get that from the Kippers, or the Picts who will don their facepaint and bang their drums until they get their freedom. They have to do it from the Tories and they can't get that with a set of "principles" that deny those voters the rewards from their hard graft. Electing Corbyn will see them in freefall for the next 10 years.

I agree, Labour needs to move to the centre left to have any chance. And I think a Labour with Blair style policies and a credible leader will be more popular than the Tories all day long.

Oh, and read this, as well...

Thanks for the link GM, some interesting observations and comparisons in that piece. Certainly, it's true that both the main parties have acted to squash any genuine alternatives emerging (even when Ross Perot was throwing Jack Walker style amounts at it and going further back, Ralph Nader). Going back to your OP, I did hear on local radio (so it probably isn't true!) that Labour were considering re-running the ballot due to an unusual number of new joiners to vote for Corbyn. Can't see how they'll be able do that personally and not look daft. Not sure what Beckett was thinking of in the first place!

Wes - the reason I don't like Fox is because he just bangs on about re-regulation endlessly as if he's some sort of standard-bearer in his party and also he is hypocrite on defence spending - whining about cuts when he left this country's forces dangerously short when he was responsible for that portfolio. We won't even go into his exit from government.

Osborne tried to shut him up with the Beecroft review which in effect offered companies and their workers the chance to trade/buy core employment rights for shares in the company - e.g. No Fault dismissals like they have in the USA. The take up was practically zero yet even though he's been proven wrong he still bangs on about it, the country has rather more important priorities. Anyway, aren't we already one of the most de-regulated economies in the world? Thatcher was operating in a totally different environment in the 1980s - TUs out of control, Soviet infiltration - so the rhetoric from the time reflected that, and many of the reforms, such as the stopping of secondary picketing and abolition of closed shops, were much needed and long overdue. Labour should have supported Castle in implementing In Place of Strife but blew/bottled it at the end of the 60s. People like Fox don't realise that Thatcher was a political pragmatist and knew how far she could take the public down the neoconservative path - hence the 'NHS is safe with us' - and she should have listened to her first instincts on the poll tax which was that it was uncollectable and some kind of utopian fantasy for a small number of dogmatic loons in the DoE. They just repeat the same mantras they've learned.

Redwood at least abolished the Poll Tax but many of his views aren't very practical - very fine intellect I don't doubt - but doesn't really understand the needs of the electorate.

I think you mean Bernie Sanders. Corbyn is no Sanders. If we had someone here of Sanders' political skills and well crafted populism, he or she would be a real threat to the Tories. Instead, we have Corbyn, a bumbling Tribunite dinosaur whom the Tories are laughingly pleading us to elect, and for whom the Telegraph are running a mock election campaign, encouraging its readers to pay their £3 and vote him in. The really sad thing is that Corbyn has a much better chance of political leadership than Sanders (to put it mildly).

 

Here are a few snippets of Sanders on the stump:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-quotes_55a909f1e4b0c5f0322d0a59?

 

Compare and contrast Corbyn, wittering dim-wittedly on about the 'relevance of Karl Marx' and how communism 'is only a financial system'.

 

One saying for which Marx is usually credited (about the Bonaparte and Napoleon III) goes: history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. The tragedy was Michael Foot, a deeply literate man out of his political depth at a time when Thatcherism needed powerful opponents. The farce is Jeremy Corbyn, who doesn't even qualify as an opponent (!) to the Bullingdon Boys' tearing down of any notion of 'the public good' in favour of a ruthless ramping up of already mounting inequalities - of wealth, opportunity and access.

 

There is rich ground here for a centre-left party - one that probably folds in the slowly resurgent Liberal Democrats - that builds a political platform that will attract a vast swathe of British voters who are not died-in-the-wool Tories. The idea that Corbyn is the one to build that platform would be funny if it weren't so desperate.

Is that all you took from Corbyn....I am impressed with his ideas of re-nationalising power companies (bringing them in from foreign ownership)and railways...the guy is not beholden to big business!!!

Redwood at least abolished the Poll Tax but many of his views aren't very practical - very fine intellect I don't doubt - but doesn't really understand the needs of the electorate.

So he's in the good company with most of our MPs. They all live in their own ivory towers nowadays, career politicians, ex-legal eagles, ex-lecturers, hardly any of them having any knowledge of the real world or what the majority of their electorate do in their everyday lives and what their concerns and needs are.

People like Fox don't realise that Thatcher was a political pragmatist and knew how far she could take the public down the neoconservative path - hence the 'NHS is safe with us' -

Thatcher was pragmatist driven by a deregulation doctrine - and she was largely right, sour medicine at a time when Britain had real problems. Cameron is an empty vessel by comparison, he is trying to apply what he think are Thatcherite policies in a totally changed situation. Modern politics is less about left and right but about old versus young. Cameron reprents the old because thats where most Tory votes are. The young are getting screwed.

Despite what your average Ukipper and less sharp Tory think there is comparatively little benefit fraud or scrounging. Where money hemorrhages out of the economy is keeping house prices artificially high so tens of millions of mostly young working people struggle to pay rent, and in a totally unresolved approach to end of life care. The massive tax bill is in healthcare and pensions, not unemployment benefit.

Modern medicine can extend the number of years we live, but mostly not the number of years we live in good health. Health spending is flat in real terms but demand continues to increase as people live longer with more chronic conditions, draw pensions longer and require expensive home or residential care. Three of of my family, all over 80 currently have cancer. Two are being treated aggressively with the object of 'curing' the cancer at a cost of tens of thousands of pounds in a hideous quality of life ruining regimen, for what? so they can die of something else next year? None of us is going to live forever so why struggle to squeeze out another few gasps on crap quality of life when you'd be better off with good palliative care and a more pleasant end - many, the luckier ones, actually die of a heroin overdose.

We need to have a grown up debate on how we use nearly £300bn a year for healthcare, pensions and home care and on the real economic costs of not building 2million new homes. Demonising benefits claimants is a deliberate red herring.

I agree, Labour needs to move to the centre left to have any chance. And I think a Labour with Blair style policies and a credible leader will be more popular than the Tories all day long.

Agree with that. Once you discount the rabid left and the reactionary right, the vast majority of what's left are mainly decent people who value fairness and justice and will naturally gravitate to a more left-leaning, politically centre Party as long as they don't get lectured or have their aspirations trampled over.

Agree with that. Once you discount the rabid left and the reactionary right, the vast majority of what's left are mainly decent people who value fairness and justice and will naturally gravitate to a more left-leaning, politically centre Party as long as they don't get lectured or have their aspirations trampled over.

A comforting thought for the liberal minded maybe, but the evidence does not support this claimed 'left of centre' bias among the British electorate. The record shows quite conclusively that since 1945 (under our FPTP system) we elect the Conservative Party into power significantly more often than Labour.

Therefore the evidence suggests that the British people are rather more inclined to what we might call a 'right of centre' viewpoint - or at least they tend to trust the Tory party more with the management of our economy perhaps.

A comforting thought for the liberal minded maybe, but the evidence does not support this claimed 'left of centre' bias among the British electorate. The record shows quite conclusively that since 1945 (under our FPTP system) we elect the Conservative Party into power significantly more often than Labour.

 

Therefore the evidence suggests that the British people are rather more inclined to what we might call a 'right of centre' viewpoint - or at least they tend to trust the Tory party more with the management of our economy perhaps.

You have a very good point there. It certainly aligns itself to a lot of external views of the British...

Anyhow, for a chuckle, I found this (funny though because it seems like this would mean our current government would face a term in nick.)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/27/france-discrimination-poor-poverty-illegal

No, everyone wants to be rich,

Do they? It certainly doesn't buy happiness as evidenced by pretty much every one of your posts on this thread.

Not sure how you've managed to get to your age and remain so vitriolic and antagonistic. It's actually sad.

Not sure how you've managed to get to your age and remain so vitriolic and antagonistic.

If I can antagonise just a few people in this crazy old world and help bring some vitriol into their lives, then I've done my job and that makes me happy.

Thatcher was pragmatist driven by a deregulation doctrine - and she was largely right, sour medicine at a time when Britain had real problems. Cameron is an empty vessel by comparison, he is trying to apply what he think are Thatcherite policies in a totally changed situation. Modern politics is less about left and right but about old versus young. Cameron reprents the old because thats where most Tory votes are. The young are getting screwed.

 

Despite what your average Ukipper and less sharp Tory think there is comparatively little benefit fraud or scrounging. Where money hemorrhages out of the economy is keeping house prices artificially high so tens of millions of mostly young working people struggle to pay rent, and in a totally unresolved approach to end of life care. The massive tax bill is in healthcare and pensions, not unemployment benefit.

 

Modern medicine can extend the number of years we live, but mostly not the number of years we live in good health. Health spending is flat in real terms but demand continues to increase as people live longer with more chronic conditions, draw pensions longer and require expensive home or residential care. Three of of my family, all over 80 currently have cancer. Two are being treated aggressively with the object of 'curing' the cancer at a cost of tens of thousands of pounds in a hideous quality of life ruining regimen, for what? so they can die of something else next year? None of us is going to live forever so why struggle to squeeze out another few gasps on crap quality of life when you'd be better off with good palliative care and a more pleasant end - many, the luckier ones, actually die of a heroin overdose.

 

We need to have a grown up debate on how we use nearly £300bn a year for healthcare, pensions and home care and on the real economic costs of not building 2million new homes. Demonising benefits claimants is a deliberate red herring.

I agree with most of that, there are some huge societal issues to address but the press love red herrings I'm afraid.

Wes - I broadly agree, most of them haven't taken a clue about everyday life or having a real career but to be fair I've met a few decent politicians from the different parties as well. They're usually the ones to realise that ideology - right, left, etc - doesn't put bread on the nation's tables.

Chapel End Charlie - A lot of the regular polls - bit wary of their reliability after 2015 election but hey ho - indicate that 60%+ of the public would like see the railway network back in public hands etc and many left of centre answers but as you say a large turnout usually means a Conservative victory. Think this comes down to Labour's percieved - and often real - reputation for mishandling the economy which they need to address. Been reading Sambrook's White Heat book which covers the Wilson era and they were no better then. Where I disagree with some people on the Thatcher right is this mono insistence that spending is the only issue (although it is a big issue) - if you look at the banking crisis, public sector spending was dwarfed many times over by bailing out private sector debt. Don't get me wrong, some of Labour's huge waste on the NHS IT system and tax credits makes me sick and they must learn from that if they are to seriously be considered again. The bigger issue seems to be decision-making - Wilson holding off devaluation with horrible impact, misjudgemenyt over the real debt on IMF, banking regulation and self-certification of mortgages. If you don't get the economy stable, with commercial growth enabled, good wages and good job security, you won't have money to spend, public or otherwise and that's a gritty reality Labour members must consider when deciding on a left or right wing leader.

i,m not bothered by corbyn but i admire the guy for having different views from the other three people standing for labour leadership even thow i don,t agree with some of his views. its about time the party had people who our free thinkers and discuss policy and future direction and how to deal with problems and issues of today and plan for the future and how to deal with the increasing gap between the poor and richest in our society and social mobility so everyone has a share in society rather than a few .

i,m not bothered by corbyn but i admire the guy for having different views from the other three people standing for labour leadership even thow i don,t agree with some of his views. its about time the party had people who our free thinkers and discuss policy and future direction and how to deal with problems and issues of today and plan for the future and how to deal with the increasing gap between the poor and richest in our society and social mobility so everyone has a share in society rather than a few .

I admire his honesty and his aspirations but his ideas about running the country are la-la.

I admire his honesty and his aspirations but his ideas about running the country are la-la.

I've found his matter of fact, direct approach really refreshing, as I suspect many others have too. He has that 'trustworthy' aura about him and has echos of years ago when you had politicians you believed in. I suspect that rather than his policies will enable him to do well.

I've found his matter of fact, direct approach really refreshing, as I suspect many others have too. He has that 'trustworthy' aura about him and has echos of years ago when you had politicians you believed in. I suspect that rather than his policies will enable him to do well.

Personally I respect all 'conviction' politicians whether I agree with them or not ! Tony Benn was one and so was Maggie Thatcher as they were consistent in their views and didn't say one thing and do another ! It is the 'meally mouthed' reptiles who get on my wick, those that blow in the wind of perceived public opinion just to get into power and then muddle about trying to stay popular rather than taking tough decisions for the good of the country !

I disagree with most of Corbyn's views but I certainly give him credit for being his own man !!

I think this article sums up the situation quite nicely...

Iain Martin ‏@iainmartin1

Why Jeremy Corbyn is winning the Labour leadership race. (My latest for @CapX) http://www.capx.co/why-jeremy-corbyn-is-winning-the-labour-leadership-race/ …

Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones84

@iainmartin1 We don't agree on much but this is a brilliantly thoughtful piece.

i,m not bothered by corbyn but i admire the guy for having different views from the other three people standing for labour leadership even thow i don,t agree with some of his views. its about time the party had people who our free thinkers and discuss policy and future direction and how to deal with problems and issues of today and plan for the future and how to deal with the increasing gap between the poor and richest in our society and social mobility so everyone has a share in society rather than a few .

I'd be interested to hear why you say the gap between the poor and the richest in our society is increasing.

I'd be interested to hear why you say the gap between the poor and the richest in our society is increasing.

This might help you

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2866675/Growing-gap-rich-poor-Britain-two-decades-means-economy-9-smaller.html

This might help you

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2866675/Growing-gap-rich-poor-Britain-two-decades-means-economy-9-smaller.html

Much as I admire your unique ability to recycle other people's propaganda, I was asking the poster why he (or she) thought that.

Much as I admire your unique ability to recycle other people's propaganda, I was asking the poster why he (or she) thought that.

1. In case you hadn't noticed, the link was to the Daily Mail - that well known bastion of left-wing propaganda.

2. Maybe the poster read the same (copious number) of articles on the subject as I did?

Where does my post mention wings? I start with an open mind and asked a genuine question. You chose to jump in with your bigotted claptrap.

Where does my post mention wings? I start with an open mind and asked a genuine question. You chose to jump in with your bigotted claptrap.

You're right of course. How silly of me to forget that the Daily Mail is bigoted

Much as I admire your unique ability to recycle other people's propaganda, I was asking the poster why he (or she) thought that.

Err because the facts, statistics and figures show it is. It has been for 30 years and continues to be. The most recent budget continued that trend.

Where does my post mention wings? I start with an open mind and asked a genuine question. You chose to jump in with your bigotted claptrap.

You're not coming across as someone prepared to listen to anyone's opinion about anything.

This might help you

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2866675/Growing-gap-rich-poor-Britain-two-decades-means-economy-9-smaller.html

I've only skim read it but that report appears to be saying the the gap between 'the rich' and 'the poor' is skewed somewhat by virtue of the fact that the top 1% are getting richer at a higher rate than everyone else.

If my relatively modest salary goes up by, say, 5% per annum, it doesn't make me any more or less happy with that rise if Richard Branson adds another £10m onto his wealth. Yes, the wealth gap between me and Branson grows but its a meaningless measure because I'm happy with my rise in the context of my earning potential.

Of course, if it can be proven that the top 1% of people getting richer makes 'the poor' poorer then that is wrong and my back of fag packet philosophy is perhaps open to ridicule. Fire away...

Bigoted claptrap.

Cheers - can't read that very well on my phone but that seems to suggest that 'the rich' getting richer doesn't make the less rich poorer?

Cheers - can't read that very well on my phone but that seems to suggest that 'the rich' getting richer doesn't make the less rich poorer?

The top 20% who are getting wealthier and the bottom 20% who are getting screwed. The middle is comparatively unaffected. You may be happy for the Top 1% to take ever increasing slices of national wealth at the expense of everyone else, but personally Im not. The wealth maker getting their rewards argument doesnt work either, the stats are legion.

Even that is pretty tepid. Far more important is wealth inequality.