Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
1. Try linking to some decent evidence that supports your points. The inequality data was last recorded around 1990. The the heart and cancer survival rates show no direct link to health spend, and also include some decidedly capitalist countries with better results than the Netherlands. The samples also look at some very specific ailments and the differences are not that great (bit like the unemployment difference that you dismiss).Good point about net pay. So we have more money in our pockets to spend on what we want, not what the state decides that we want. That's what I want and what a lot of people in the UK want, hence the current tory majority.
People want decent health, education and transport. Whether they actually want to pay for it is another matter. You might not want to pay your taxes now, but if you or your family were ever to be cursed with cancer, you'd want to be in the country with the best possible treatment. Many other countries have made that choice. The Dutch get higher gross wages for shorter working hours than the Brits, but they vote for governments which take a greater percentage of their income to make sure that they get better treatment, better education, transport or whatever.You claim that they have better public services - evidence please?
I've provided you with some evidence - look at the healthcare statistics. The Dutch do far better than us.And while we're o facts, the UK miminim wage is pretty much the same as NL at current exchange rates and soon will be higher. So on the face of less inequality, especially after tax.
https://www.government.nl/topics/minimum-wage/contents/amount-of-the-minimum-wage
No, Britain is far more unequal than Netherlands in terms of income inequality.Oh, and lower unemployment. Those damn flexible labour markets.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate
Our unemployment rates are marginally lower than the Dutch, but unemployment doesn't really tell you much about how developed a country is. Looking at that list, Vietnam, Laos, Belarus and Turkmenistan (to take just a few examples) all have lower official unemployment than any EU country. That doesn't mean that they are more developed. Also, unemployment rates are measured in different ways in different countries, so you're comparing apples and oranges unless you get unemployment rates measured using a consistent method. Organisations like the ILO usually issue a disclaimer with their data, warning users that official unemployment rates might not give the full picture.
2. Let me give you a real life example of the impact of high taxes and inflexible labour markets. More useful than theory and wiki links.
- In the group where I work, we are growing and taking on more staff - nearly all well paid, skilled and professional jobs: in countries including UK, South Africa, Middle East, Eastern Europe. Some are strongly growing markets: the UK growth is down to a number of factors including well educated and skilled workforce, competitive and reasonably flexible employment conditions and the performance of the economy driving market growth.
- Unfortunately in others, including France, Germany and Sweden we have had to cut back in order to turn loss making businesses around: this has been due to a number of factors including weak economic growth, high labour costs (including tax) and inflexible/unionised labour. Netherlands has struggled a bit but not as much as France or Germany - while the pro-business attitude has driven them forward in the past, the rather left wing approach to labour is now holding them back. These countries are losing jobs and losing tax revenues, which are being picked up in more business friendly environments.
- Ultimately this sort of loss will make it progressively more difficult for these countries to be prosperous. The poor growth rates, high unemployment etc in the EU zone is on-going evidence of the issues with this superficially 'fairer' model.
There is a clear pattern there. Unfortunately the high tax and high regulation model you favour is having the opposite effect to that intended in a real life situation.
3. If there is anything that is holding back the UK it is the negative attitude of people like you. You put a lot of energy into doing this country down, as evidenced by your posts in threads like this where you seem to be desperate to show other countries are better. I find this attitude very disappointing."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
1. Try linking to some decent evidence that supports your points. The inequality data was last recorded around 1990. The the heart and cancer survival rates show no direct link to health spend, and also include some decidedly capitalist countries with better results than the Netherlands. The samples also look at some very specific ailments and the differences are not that great (bit like the unemployment difference that you dismiss).
OK, here's some data from 2008. Netherlands still does better than the UK. And we were discussing the difference between Netherlands and Britain, not the entire world. The illnesses are common killers and I just chose that page as an example. You say that the differences are not that great, but it would be if you were the patient, would you not prefer to be treated in a country in which you had a greater chance of survival? And I don't dismiss unemployment differences, I just say that until countries come up with one common measure, not only are comparisons useless between two countries with such a small difference, but they tell us nothing about the overall levels of development. Of course, all else being equal, lower unemployment is better than higher unemployment, but to be honest, it's not my number 1 concern.2. Let me give you a real life example of the impact of high taxes and inflexible labour markets. More useful than theory and wiki links. In the group where I work, we are growing and taking on more staff - nearly all well paid, skilled and professional jobs - in countries including UK, South Africa, Middle East, Eastern Europe. Some are strongly growing markets: the UK growth is down to a number of factors including well educated and skilled workforce, competitive and reasonably flexible employment conditions and the performance of the economy driving market growth. Unfortunately in others, including France, Germany and Sweden we have had to cut back in order to turn loss making businesses around: this has been due to a number of factors including weak economic growth, high labour costs (including tax) and inflexible/unionised labour. Netherlands has struggled a bit but not as much as France or Germany - while the pro-business attitude has driven them forward in the past, the rather left wing approach to labour is now holding them back. These countries are losing jobs and losing tax revenues, which are being picked up in more business friendly environments. Ultimately this sort of loss will make it progressively more difficult for these countries to be prosperous. The poor growth rates, high unemployment etc in the EU zone is on-going evidence of the issues with this superficially 'fairer' model.
There is a clear pattern there. Unfortunately the high tax and high regulation model you favour is having the opposite effect to that intended in a real life situation.
And yet all of those countries are doing better than Britain by many measures. Whichever sector you're working in might be investing in Britain, but our balance of trade figures are appalling, so I would say that your experience might not be typical, or a sign of long-term prosperity.3. If there is anything that is holding back the UK it is the negative attitude of people like you. You pit a lot of energy into doing this country down, as evidenced by your posts in threads like this where you seem to be desperate to show other countries are better. I find this attitude very disappointing.
It's nothing to do with putting Britain down. This is my home, it's where I'm probably going to spend the rest of my life and where my children will grow up. I want a better country. To do that, we've got to shed our insular attitudes, look around at what other countries do better than us (or worse than us) and decide what we need to change and what we should maintain. I wouldn't swap our universities for continental universities, for example, but apart from that, I really struggle to think of ways in which we have a better quality of life than other highly developed nations. I do like our parks and urban green spaces, they tend to be a lot nicer and more numerous than you'd find in, say, France. And our television is better (thanks mainly to BBC and C4). Besides those, hmmmm, restaurants are pretty good here and I find British people to be friendlier in general. That's a bit of a short list.
Negativity does not mean saying "we should do better and I think we can do better". Negativity is saying "we can't do better". I'm a firm believer in the potential of our nation, I want to see us fulfil that potential. I've made many posts in Cake Stop in the past about the ways in which I think we can improve and I fail to see what's negative about that.
Also, I don't put a lot of energy into my posts. Most of what I post is pre-existing knowledge and I can find evidence within a few seconds, I don't need to trawl the Internet looking for information.0 -
Stevo, have you every lived rather than just visted a so called left wing euro country?
as finch says, we can learn from health care, housing and education systems in other countries rather than just the same old thing "we are the best at this that ot the other"
other countries dont have right to buy, i wonder why? and many councils are not replacing houses sold, since 2012, despite what Cameron told us would happen, more toryb0ll0x.0 -
And just to add to my list of things we do well in Britain - road safety. Definitely, definitely road safety.0
-
To be fair, the users are more to blame than laws or infrastructure.And just to add to my list of things we do well in Britain - road safety. Definitely, definitely road safety.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
To be fair, the users are more to blame than laws or infrastructure.And just to add to my list of things we do well in Britain - road safety. Definitely, definitely road safety.
0 -
To be fair, the users are more to blame than laws or infrastructure.And just to add to my list of things we do well in Britain - road safety. Definitely, definitely road safety.
I agree to a point, but law enforcement can make a massive difference. For example, when I first went to Slovakia, the roads were absolutely terrifying. There's one stretch of road, about 8 miles long that runs through my wife's village, and there are 11 memorials along there to people who have died in accidents, all in the space of a few years and all due to speeding. At some point, the Slovak police did a massive anti-speeding operation and maintained decent traffic enforcement afterwards. While it still isn't as good as Britain, it just feels so much safer than ten years ago.0 -
I think some people drive and cycle like this from what I see on the road.
To be fair, the users are more to blame than laws or infrastructure.And just to add to my list of things we do well in Britain - road safety. Definitely, definitely road safety.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
How quick we are to polarise either side of the argument.
Sadly we are all blind to fact both sides are effectively educated in roughly the same places and coming out with the same thoughts.
Sadly few people with jobs of running/building/researching in the real world are in parliament (Not talking George Clinton here). So we get few leaders/politicians with any empathy with people doing jobs, sadly this is spreading to large infra structure projects with the same results; HS2 will have a toady appointed with totally predictable results. People without ability and unable to make decisions in positions of power they cannot comprehend.+++++++++++++++++++++
we are the proud, the few, Descendents.
Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.0 -
i see that well known left wing organisation, the bank of england, is warning that buy to let has the potential to under mine this countries financial security and is looking at ways to, heaven forbide "regulate it"
whatever next? :shock:0 -
i see that well known left wing organisation, the bank of england, is warning that buy to let has the potential to under mine this countries financial security and is looking at ways to, heaven forbide "regulate it"
whatever next? :shock:
Bloody communists.0 -
Link please? Couldnt see anything about regulation or financial armageddon, just something about amplifying house price movements.i see that well known left wing organisation, the bank of england, is warning that buy to let has the potential to under mine this countries financial security and is looking at ways to, heaven forbide "regulate it"
whatever next? :shock:"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
...but keeping this thread on topic, you should be more worried about JC's abysmal poll ratings:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11888380/Jeremy-Corbyn-becomes-first-Labour-leader-ever-to-score-negative-debut-poll-rating.html
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-honest-but-poor-leader-and-cameron-better-in-a-crisis-poll-shows-a2954801.html
Although the leftie messiah is seen as 'more honest than most politicians'. If that's not a case of being damned with faint praise, I don't know what is
Still a loser."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
OTOH, months of media attacks and lies and there seems to be a slight improvement in Labour's polling figures since Corbyn became leader. It'll be interesting to see what happens to these numbers once people actually get a chance to hear his real opinions, not the Daily Heil/Mailegraph's er, "spin" on them.0
-
Stevo, trading insults aside, no one knows, not even you, know how popular or not labour will be come 2020, i recall thatcher needed a war to lift her up from being the uk's most umpopular pm ever.
Labour lost all their scotish seats and 2 elections under more centralist leaders, continuing with the same would lead to a 3rd, so i am still surprised you voted for corbyn, oh i would laugh (at you) if he and/or labour won in 2020.
the BoE stuff was in the minutes of their july monetary policy meeting and arent they also writing up a report on same subject for the government?0 -
a picture paints 1000 words !
http://veloviewer.com/SigImage.php?a=3370a&r=3&c=5&u=M&g=p&f=abcdefghij&z=a.png
Wiliers: Cento Uno/Superleggera R and Zero 7. Bianchi Infinito CV and Oltre XR20 -
Is he allowed to fondle labour voters?a picture paints 1000 words ! "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The polls I shoeed were of the starting position fot Labour leaders and he is behind even surefire losers likè Foot and Kinnock. So he has a lot of ground to make up. Unfortunately his appeal is to the minority hard left who already suport him, not the middle ground voters he needs to win an election.OTOH, months of media attacks and lies and there seems to be a slight improvement in Labour's polling figures since Corbyn became leader. It'll be interesting to see what happens to these numbers once people actually get a chance to hear his real opinions, not the Daily Heil/Mailegraph's er, "spin" on them.
Once his policies and the ideological agenda behind them are clear to the electorate, I cant see how he will get anywhere near enough support to win."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I cant see how he will get anywhere near enough support to win.
This is broadly true.
However, I think even Stevo would admit that the Corbyn campaign (even if they're more focussed on Corbyn as a symbol rather than as a politician ) has really energised politics on the grassroots left in a way that hasn't been seen since probably 1997 and maybe even beyond that.
He's also been the first senior politician in the UK to articulate a genuine anti-austerity position which I think is healthy for the UK and UK politics - "austerity light" is in all probability the most effective, but you won't get that if you're arguing "austerity light" against full blown austerity.0 -
It also won't help Labour when the rather unsavoury recent history of some of the Corbyn team become more widely known - of course some will claim that this is just the evil Tory press stirring things and nothing to do with what these people actually said or did :roll:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11893986/Jeremy-Corbyns-top-team-encouraged-street-riots.html
To say that these people are unfit for office is a bit of an understatement. Luckily its highly unlikely they will get the chance..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I'd agree he has energised the hard left grass roots which have seen their chance to seize control of Labour and succeeded. Most Labour suporters and politicians are probably shaking their heads and wondering how they allowed their party to commit political suicide.I cant see how he will get anywhere near enough support to win.
This is broadly true.
However, I think even Stevo would admit that the Corbyn campaign (even if they're more focussed on Corbyn as a symbol rather than as a politician ) has really energised politics on the grassroots left in a way that hasn't been seen since probably 1997 and maybe even beyond that.
He's also been the first senior politician in the UK to articulate a genuine anti-austerity position which I think is healthy for the UK and UK politics - "austerity light" is in all probability the most effective, but you won't get that if you're arguing "austerity light" against full blown austerity."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It also won't help Labour when the rather unsavoury recent history of some of the Corbyn team become more widely known - of course some will claim that this is just the evil Tory press stirring things and nothing to do with what these people actually said or did :roll:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11893986/Jeremy-Corbyns-top-team-encouraged-street-riots.html
To say that these people are unfit for office is a bit of an understatement. Luckily its highly unlikely they will get the chance...
So Stevo, what do you make of the accusations that the government has been ignoring scientists' warnings about diesel emissions? Does turning a blind eye to higher levels of lethal toxins being pumped into the air we breathe make them unfit to govern?0 -
Good attempt to change the subject away from some pretty serious issues with the shadow cabinet and Corbyns closest allies. What do you think about the point I raised?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
Good attempt to change the subject away from some pretty serious issues with the shadow cabinet and Corbyns closest allies. What do you think about the point I raised?
I think that these words are of little consequence compared to the issues that I've raised. If McDonnell's words make him unfit to govern, then a government which knowingly allows controls on dangerous emissions to be bypassed should surely also be unfit to govern.
I would like it if all politicians were whiter than white, never said anything daft and never did anything which wasn't in the best interest of the nation, but that isn't the case, so we end up with a sort of relative morality. If you're going to claim that Labour are unfit to govern due to the words and/or actions of their politicians, then I'm going to claim the Tories are unfit to govern when they do something far worse.
So what's your opinion? If it turns out the allegations are true, will the Tories be unfit to govern?0 -
I haven't read anything other than the newspaper headlines on the emission issue but here's the VW thread for a discussion about that, so you can always post up in there if you wantGood attempt to change the subject away from some pretty serious issues with the shadow cabinet and Corbyns closest allies. What do you think about the point I raised?
I think that these words are of little consequence compared to the issues that I've raised. If McDonnell's words make him unfit to govern, then a government which knowingly allows controls on dangerous emissions to be bypassed should surely also be unfit to govern.
I would like it if all politicians were whiter than white, never said anything daft and never did anything which wasn't in the best interest of the nation, but that isn't the case, so we end up with a sort of relative morality. If you're going to claim that Labour are unfit to govern due to the words and/or actions of their politicians, then I'm going to claim the Tories are unfit to govern when they do something far worse.
So what's your opinion? If it turns out the allegations are true, will the Tories be unfit to govern?
. This thread is about Corbyn and his cohorts being an utter liability to the country. So lets keep it on topic and let us know what you think.
Are McDonnell, Fisher and Ross fit for high office based on what they have said and done in the link above, in your view? Yes or no."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Two people on the internet expecting the other to admit that they are wrong.
Ha ha...........The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I haven't read anything other than the newspaper headlines on the emission issue but here's the VW thread for a discussion about that, so you can always post up in there if you wantGood attempt to change the subject away from some pretty serious issues with the shadow cabinet and Corbyns closest allies. What do you think about the point I raised?
I think that these words are of little consequence compared to the issues that I've raised. If McDonnell's words make him unfit to govern, then a government which knowingly allows controls on dangerous emissions to be bypassed should surely also be unfit to govern.
I would like it if all politicians were whiter than white, never said anything daft and never did anything which wasn't in the best interest of the nation, but that isn't the case, so we end up with a sort of relative morality. If you're going to claim that Labour are unfit to govern due to the words and/or actions of their politicians, then I'm going to claim the Tories are unfit to govern when they do something far worse.
So what's your opinion? If it turns out the allegations are true, will the Tories be unfit to govern? . This thread is about Corbyn and his cohorts being an utter liability to the country. So lets keep it on topic and let us know what you think.
Are McDonnell, Fisher and Ross fit for high office based on what they have said and done in the link above, in your view? Yes or no.
It is on topic, because the alternative to Labour is the Tories. If Labour's political opponents never said or did anything worse than Labour, then they would be unfit for office because a better alternative would be available. However, this is really pretty tame in comparison to what other politicians have done in the past, and continue to do today, so I really do put their words far down on my list of things to care about.
Similarly, I really don't care about politicians shagging dead pigs.0 -
You were very quick to dodge the original point and you continue to do so. Clearly I'm on to something here.
Yes or no. ATFQ."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You were very quick to dodge the original point and you continue to do so. Clearly I'm on to something here.
Yes or no. ATFQ.
I have answered the question. You just don't like the answer.
No, I don't think that it shows they are unfit to govern in the current British political system. If there were some other party full of the pure and the innocent, I think that some of them probably wouldn't be fit to serve. That, however, is not the case.
So there, pretty much the same as my last post. I don't agree with some of the things they say, but I'll be deciding which way to vote in 2020 based on the policies put forward by the parties and the extent to which I believe they'll abide by their promises.0
