Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

A recent report by the Rowntree Trust iirc gave a high figure for children living in poverty. That figure was derived by the number of single parent and double parent families living on incomes after costs of housing have been covered if £260 or £360 per week. This being something like 60% of the national average salary.

My first thought was how those figures didn't seem that low to me. Is this really a poverty level considering it's really only to clothe and feed the family?

Obviously not relevant to UC but if there's inflation if the poverty figure does that distract from concentrating on real poverty or does it help fighting poverty?

I am sure this is something Brown brought in that I really don't understand. How can you reduce poverty when you define it as being under 60%?

How about this for an idea ? - set the income tax allowance at the poverty level

Narrow the gap between the lowest and the average. Statistically, if you have 9 people earning £20K, and one earning £11k, the average is £19.1k. 60% of that is £11.46k. Increase the lowest earner to £11.5k without changing the others, the average is now £19.15k, and they are over the 60% which is now £11.49k.

I applaud your carefully chosen numbers (I really do, I even checked them) but in the real world with 30 million data points your target is moving away from you.

Surely a definition like we have for fuel poverty makes more sense.

Your target is not moving away from you if you are enacting policies that actively try to narrow the gaps. But agreed, it is a terribly crude measure. It implies that you can reduce poverty by doing nothing for the lowest earners, but reducing the earnings of the highest paid.

Above is why this measure should be ditched. You can't have a basic calculation of poverty when actual measures are more important. Can you pay for housing, can you get your kids educated, can you feed yourself etc. are more measures of poverty. But then you get the ridiculous claims that not having sky TV means you are in poverty and no one can agree on the criteria. It is a mess whichever way we look at it and we miss the bigger picture to get equality of opportunity for all and not equality of outcome.

It was. THREE YEARS AGO.

tangled_metal

Yesterday actually I think. I heard about the Rowntree report just published on radio 4 this week. It used this 60% measure for poverty.

I assume you meant that they used to use this measure 3 years back but not now. Seems they still use it in some organisations.

rjsterry

It was replaced as an official government measure in 2015. Obviously, as an easy number to calculate, people will still use it as a short cut like BMI (with similar problems). Bit odd that Rowntree are still using it in publications.

tangled_metal

Perhaps it offers benefits based on political outcomes desired by those using it? I assume there was a good reason it has been dropped?

BTW there's talk of RPI needing to be dropped as a measure. How many similar government measures don't stand up to scrutiny? How many others could be replaced with better?

rick_chasey

Enjoying the nerdy technocratic chat )take a look st Chris Giles from the FT; measures of inflation etc are his hobby horse), but inherent in it is an assumption that growing the inequality gap is not politically motivated in some way and, plainly, it is.

No one, no one, is surprised the UC introduction has been a disaster with the hardest up suffering the most, and the Tories did it anyway.

More homelessness, more use of charity food - this is a political choice.

tangled_metal

Isn't the UC aimed at the hardest up, indeed it's purpose is to support those people? So that would 100% affect the hardest up surely? Whether that's completely bad for all in such position is another matter.

Is this pedantry?

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

Perhaps it offers benefits based on political outcomes desired by those using it? I assume there was a good reason it has been dropped?

BTW there's talk of RPI needing to be dropped as a measure. How many similar government measures don't stand up to scrutiny? How many others could be replaced with better?

From what I have read it was dropped because of the problems already discussed, but the new measure, while being a more holistic assessment, produced a similar overall number of people 'below the line'.

Stevo_666

Looks like McDonnell wanted to remove any lingering doubts as to whether he is a total t***:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47233605

I quite like the retort from Churchill's grandson, Nicholas Soames:"I think my grandfather's reputation can withstand a publicity-seeking assault from a third-rate, Poundland Lenin. I don't think it will shake the world."

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Looks like McDonnell wanted to remove any lingering doubts as to whether he is a total t***:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47233605

I quite like the retort from Churchill's grandson, Nicholas Soames:"I think my grandfather's reputation can withstand a publicity-seeking assault from a third-rate, Poundland Lenin. I don't think it will shake the world."

Criticism of Churchill makes you a t***? The question JM was asked was hero or villain. Clearly Churchill had both bases covered. Not sure why Soames is resorting to name calling over a fairly uncontroversial view.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Looks like McDonnell wanted to remove any lingering doubts as to whether he is a total t***:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47233605

I quite like the retort from Churchill's grandson, Nicholas Soames:"I think my grandfather's reputation can withstand a publicity-seeking assault from a third-rate, Poundland Lenin. I don't think it will shake the world."

Criticism of Churchill makes you a t***? The question JM was asked was hero or villain. Clearly Churchill had both bases covered. Not sure why Soames is resorting to name calling over a fairly uncontroversial view.

Yep it does. We owe Winston a massive debt and McDonnell appears to be publicity seeking/pandering to other leftietwats.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Looks like McDonnell wanted to remove any lingering doubts as to whether he is a total t***:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47233605

I quite like the retort from Churchill's grandson, Nicholas Soames:"I think my grandfather's reputation can withstand a publicity-seeking assault from a third-rate, Poundland Lenin. I don't think it will shake the world."

Criticism of Churchill makes you a t***? The question JM was asked was hero or villain. Clearly Churchill had both bases covered. Not sure why Soames is resorting to name calling over a fairly uncontroversial view.

Yep it does. We owe Winston a massive debt and McDonnell appears to be publicity seeking/pandering to other leftietwats.

I am a huge admirer of Churchill but would have to admit that he made many mistakes many due to his impulsive nature. Whilst I would not call him a villain he is not immune from criticism.

I liked the Soames insult and hope it sticks.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Looks like McDonnell wanted to remove any lingering doubts as to whether he is a total t***:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47233605

I quite like the retort from Churchill's grandson, Nicholas Soames:"I think my grandfather's reputation can withstand a publicity-seeking assault from a third-rate, Poundland Lenin. I don't think it will shake the world."

Criticism of Churchill makes you a t***? The question JM was asked was hero or villain. Clearly Churchill had both bases covered. Not sure why Soames is resorting to name calling over a fairly uncontroversial view.

Yep it does. We owe Winston a massive debt and McDonnell appears to be publicity seeking/pandering to other leftietwats.

Sure; for the 1940s bit in particular. But he wasn't flawless. How do you feel about his involvement with Black and Tans, for instance?

tangled_metal

I knew nothing about Tonypandy so googled it. Wikipedia came up with the fact that the army read considered not as bad as the local constabulary. Basically the police were heavy handed wasn't the 1 death was at the hands of the police not the army?

Of Wikipedia is right at the time they were less bothered by the army than the police. However 109 years later some cut price Lenin is pee'd off by the army going in and the guy who sent them. Let it go!

Sorry but someone who wasn't there or alive at the time or lives there or had family that comes from there is commenting on it like that? He's a prize tawt for sure. He's a joke.

I wonder if he's as pi$$ed off over Blair's dossier and subsequent invasion of Iraq? A much more heinous crime surely? Or do Leftie tawts only criticise their main opponents politically and forget about their party's crimes?

bompington

Tangled Metal wrote:

I wonder if he's as pi$$ed off over Blair's dossier and subsequent invasion of Iraq? A much more heinous crime surely? Or do Leftie tawts only criticise their main opponents politically and forget about their party's crimes?

You obviously don't get how it works with the Labout Left - Churchill may be a villain, but it's evil traitors to the cause like Blair who they really hate.

shortfall

I don't mind McDonnell criticising Churchill (a great man indeed but with many indisputable flaws) but why does he remain tight lipped on the bloodstained left wing tyrants who have slaughtered millions in the name of his beloved Marxist ideology?

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I wonder if he's as pi$$ed off over Blair's dossier and subsequent invasion of Iraq? A much more heinous crime surely? Or do Leftie tawts only criticise their main opponents politically and forget about their party's crimes?

You obviously don't get how it works with the Labout Left - Churchill may be a villain, but it's evil traitors to the cause like Blair who they really hate.

Hating itterants of your own ‘side’ more is super common and not exclusive to politics as a whole, let alone left v right.


It’s rather pathetic that a whole bunch of MPs get so animated over this when it’s less than 50 days till Brexit, though presumably that’s why.

On the specific case of Churchill’s towering place in British collective memory; his electoral record hints to a rather more ambivalent attitude at the time, and was never as popular as Blair for example.

Most people would also not even be aware of his 50s premiership or if they do, what his achievements were.

I’ve not studied it but I have a suspicion he has such an enormous position in collective memory more because of his role rather than him.

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

I knew nothing about Tonypandy so googled it. Wikipedia came up with the fact that the army read considered not as bad as the local constabulary. Basically the police were heavy handed wasn't the 1 death was at the hands of the police not the army?

Of Wikipedia is right at the time they were less bothered by the army than the police. However 109 years later some cut price Lenin is pee'd off by the army going in and the guy who sent them. Let it go!

Sorry but someone who wasn't there or alive at the time or lives there or had family that comes from there is commenting on it like that? He's a prize tawt for sure. He's a joke.

I wonder if he's as pi$$ed off over Blair's dossier and subsequent invasion of Iraq? A much more heinous crime surely? Or do Leftie tawts only criticise their main opponents politically and forget about their party's crimes?

For context, the Churchill point came up as one of a series of "hero or villain?" quickfire questions to JM at the end of a wider discussion. The sight of various people losing their sh*t as though someone has dissed their mum, over one mildly provocative suggestion that maybe everything WC did wasn't universally magnificent, is just embarrassing. Don't be such a bunch of snowflakes. The idea that you shouldn't criticise any actions of some historical figure because of some great service they did for the nation doesn't sound like the sort of thing the man himself would support.

Here's a summary of WC's other controversial positions. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-2970176

tangled_metal

bompington wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I wonder if he's as pi$$ed off over Blair's dossier and subsequent invasion of Iraq? A much more heinous crime surely? Or do Leftie tawts only criticise their main opponents politically and forget about their party's crimes?

You obviously don't get how it works with the Labout Left - Churchill may be a villain, but it's evil traitors to the cause like Blair who they really hate.

Yes I realised that was a bad example after posting. Perhaps Kinnock would have been a better choice for the way he led the expulsion of the militant group commonly named militant tendency thus slowing the class war / Leftie madness until Corbyn came along to slowly restart it. We're not there yet, not quite at the level of Leftie madness as Liverpool in the 80s.

bompington

Shortfall wrote:

I don't mind McDonnell criticising Churchill (a great man indeed but with many indisputable flaws) but why does he remain tight lipped on the bloodstained left wing tyrants who have slaughtered millions in the name of his beloved Marxist ideology?

Oh, I don't know about tight lipped:

McDonnell wrote:

Asked to name the “most significant” influences on his thought, McDonnell (who was then standing for the Labour leadership) replied: “The fundamental Marxist writers of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, basically.”

rick_chasey

Keen socialist in loving Marx shocker.

Next you’ll be telling me members of the Tory right loved Thatcher.

rjsterry

bompington wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

I don't mind McDonnell criticising Churchill (a great man indeed but with many indisputable flaws) but why does he remain tight lipped on the bloodstained left wing tyrants who have slaughtered millions in the name of his beloved Marxist ideology?

Oh, I don't know about tight lipped:

McDonnell wrote:

Asked to name the “most significant” influences on his thought, McDonnell (who was then standing for the Labour leadership) replied: “The fundamental Marxist writers of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, basically.”

Holding Marx responsible for Stalin's crimes is a bit of a stretch.

tangled_metal

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I knew nothing about Tonypandy so googled it. Wikipedia came up with the fact that the army read considered not as bad as the local constabulary. Basically the police were heavy handed wasn't the 1 death was at the hands of the police not the army?

Of Wikipedia is right at the time they were less bothered by the army than the police. However 109 years later some cut price Lenin is pee'd off by the army going in and the guy who sent them. Let it go!

Sorry but someone who wasn't there or alive at the time or lives there or had family that comes from there is commenting on it like that? He's a prize tawt for sure. He's a joke.

I wonder if he's as pi$$ed off over Blair's dossier and subsequent invasion of Iraq? A much more heinous crime surely? Or do Leftie tawts only criticise their main opponents politically and forget about their party's crimes?

For context, the Churchill point came up as one of a series of "hero or villain?" quickfire questions to JM at the end of a wider discussion. The sight of various people losing their sh*t as though someone has dissed their mum, over one mildly provocative suggestion that maybe everything WC did wasn't universally magnificent, is just embarrassing. Don't be such a bunch of snowflakes. The idea that you shouldn't criticise any actions of some historical figure because of some great service they did for the nation doesn't sound like the sort of thing the man himself would support.

I actually never lost my sh*t over it. I didn't comment on Churchill but posted about the Tonypandy riots the guy brought up 109 years after the events. I have no idea if Wikipedia is remotely correct in what is up there any Tonypandy riots but if it's true it would seem that the local and neighbouring constabularies were as much the villains as the thugs rampaging through Tonypandy the day before WC's instructions to send in the army in support. By contrast after the event it seems the locals there, at the time not 109 years later, were having better treatment at the hands of the army who were led it seems with great restraint.

So looking back with the view of someone who really doesn't give a sh*t about it that it could have been the best option for calming the violence on all sides. Whilst the real issue was the mining cartel who kept wages artificially low in the area. This violent striking had no effect on that real issue user WC was not responsible for.

I'm no historian and am basing my comments on a questionable source, Wikipedia, so I will stand to be corrected. However my take on it is that the violence was getting worse on all sides. The police weren't managing it. What other solution was there? The home secretary has a responsibility to maintain law and order, keep the peace. If the police can't do it just who should do it?

IMHO I don't see WC as a villain in that case. His real villainy was more a product of the racism prevalent in those times. The idea British are superior and India should not have independence. If he'd said villain for any of those I would agree completely. He's an all out nothing kind of persona. His actions and views have been at both ends of the spectrum by modern standards.

I'm sure there's a few historians to educate me on this matter and correct me over this view. I would welcome that. Not least because I'm not a snowflake who's lost my sh*t over this. I only gave my views based on the Tonypandy riots McD dragged up from the past to bolster his Leftie creds to a Leftie audience no doubt. A political comment that read cynically done to appeal to the target audience. It's done him no harm among his base support.

My cynical mind sees it as something similar to a Trump style action. "Lock her up!" for example. The trumpistas love that sort of thing. Corbynistas love McD's kind of thing. Personally I see McD as having more chance of getting into number 10 than Corbyn. It's the way he can come up with these seemingly throw away comments to his target audience of Lefties but in mainstream outlets such as news interviews he's sounding very level headed even if you don't agree with his views / politics. He's a very smooth operator. A class act in that way. Very clever.

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

I knew nothing about Tonypandy so googled it. Wikipedia came up with the fact that the army read considered not as bad as the local constabulary. Basically the police were heavy handed wasn't the 1 death was at the hands of the police not the army?

Of Wikipedia is right at the time they were less bothered by the army than the police. However 109 years later some cut price Lenin is pee'd off by the army going in and the guy who sent them. Let it go!

Sorry but someone who wasn't there or alive at the time or lives there or had family that comes from there is commenting on it like that? He's a prize tawt for sure. He's a joke.

I wonder if he's as pi$$ed off over Blair's dossier and subsequent invasion of Iraq? A much more heinous crime surely? Or do Leftie tawts only criticise their main opponents politically and forget about their party's crimes?

For context, the Churchill point came up as one of a series of "hero or villain?" quickfire questions to JM at the end of a wider discussion. The sight of various people losing their sh*t as though someone has dissed their mum, over one mildly provocative suggestion that maybe everything WC did wasn't universally magnificent, is just embarrassing. Don't be such a bunch of snowflakes. The idea that you shouldn't criticise any actions of some historical figure because of some great service they did for the nation doesn't sound like the sort of thing the man himself would support.

I actually never lost my sh*t over it. I didn't comment on Churchill but posted about the Tonypandy riots the guy brought up 109 years after the events. I have no idea if Wikipedia is remotely correct in what is up there any Tonypandy riots but if it's true it would seem that the local and neighbouring constabularies were as much the villains as the thugs rampaging through Tonypandy the day before WC's instructions to send in the army in support. By contrast after the event it seems the locals there, at the time not 109 years later, were having better treatment at the hands of the army who were led it seems with great restraint.

So looking back with the view of someone who really doesn't give a sh*t about it that it could have been the best option for calming the violence on all sides. Whilst the real issue was the mining cartel who kept wages artificially low in the area. This violent striking had no effect on that real issue user WC was not responsible for.

I'm no historian and am basing my comments on a questionable source, Wikipedia, so I will stand to be corrected. However my take on it is that the violence was getting worse on all sides. The police weren't managing it. What other solution was there? The home secretary has a responsibility to maintain law and order, keep the peace. If the police can't do it just who should do it?

IMHO I don't see WC as a villain in that case. His real villainy was more a product of the racism prevalent in those times. The idea British are superior and India should not have independence. If he'd said villain for any of those I would agree completely. He's an all out nothing kind of persona. His actions and views have been at both ends of the spectrum by modern standards.

I'm sure there's a few historians to educate me on this matter and correct me over this view. I would welcome that. Not least because I'm not a snowflake who's lost my sh*t over this. I only gave my views based on the Tonypandy riots McD dragged up from the past to bolster his Leftie creds to a Leftie audience no doubt. A political comment that read cynically done to appeal to the target audience. It's done him no harm among his base support.

My cynical mind sees it as something similar to a Trump style action. "Lock her up!" for example. The trumpistas love that sort of thing. Corbynistas love McD's kind of thing. Personally I see McD as having more chance of getting into number 10 than Corbyn. It's the way he can come up with these seemingly throw away comments to his target audience of Lefties but in mainstream outlets such as news interviews he's sounding very level headed even if you don't agree with his views / politics. He's a very smooth operator. A class act in that way. Very clever.

Sorry, TM. Should have clarified that I was referring to Soames, etc. with the 'losing their sh*t' comment. Agree that JM has very good media skills.

bompington

rjsterry wrote:

bompington wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

I don't mind McDonnell criticising Churchill (a great man indeed but with many indisputable flaws) but why does he remain tight lipped on the bloodstained left wing tyrants who have slaughtered millions in the name of his beloved Marxist ideology?

Oh, I don't know about tight lipped:

McDonnell wrote:

Asked to name the “most significant” influences on his thought, McDonnell (who was then standing for the Labour leadership) replied: “The fundamental Marxist writers of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, basically.”

Holding Marx responsible for Stalin's crimes is a bit of a stretch.

No, it's not.

Marxist ideology is meaningless without a) treating people according to their class, not as individuals and b) the compulsion that is necessary to bring about the new order.
Once you have these in place, the sufficient and necessary conditions are in place for any amount of oppression and murder.

rick_chasey

Err by that logic you’d hold Darwin responsible for a whole host of atrocities...

rjsterry

bompington wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

bompington wrote:

Shortfall wrote:

I don't mind McDonnell criticising Churchill (a great man indeed but with many indisputable flaws) but why does he remain tight lipped on the bloodstained left wing tyrants who have slaughtered millions in the name of his beloved Marxist ideology?

Oh, I don't know about tight lipped:

McDonnell wrote:

Asked to name the “most significant” influences on his thought, McDonnell (who was then standing for the Labour leadership) replied: “The fundamental Marxist writers of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, basically.”

Holding Marx responsible for Stalin's crimes is a bit of a stretch.

No, it's not.

Marxist ideology is meaningless without a) treating people according to their class, not as individuals and b) the compulsion that is necessary to bring about the new order.
Once you have these in place, the sufficient and necessary conditions are in place for any amount of oppression and murder.

Ooh, fun game! Which other philosophers would you like to put in the dock?

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

Err by that logic you’d hold Darwin responsible for a whole host of atrocities...

Darwin developed a theory to explain the evidence he saw. Marx wasn't just dreaming up economic hypotheses, he was quite clearly proposing a course of action: a course of action that was predicated on forcibly removing resources, power and liberty from anyone who got in its way.

Ben6899

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Looks like McDonnell wanted to remove any lingering doubts as to whether he is a total t***:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47233605

I quite like the retort from Churchill's grandson, Nicholas Soames:"I think my grandfather's reputation can withstand a publicity-seeking assault from a third-rate, Poundland Lenin. I don't think it will shake the world."

Criticism of Churchill makes you a t***? The question JM was asked was hero or villain. Clearly Churchill had both bases covered. Not sure why Soames is resorting to name calling over a fairly uncontroversial view.

Yep it does. We owe Winston a massive debt and McDonnell appears to be publicity seeking/pandering to other leftietwats.

I thought we were all smarter than this in here. Owing a massive debt to someone shouldn't cloud our judgment when looking at their wider impact and actions.

Churchill was far from perfect. Anyway. Carry on.

robert88

The fundamental question is whether owners of capital have any responsibility for those who can offer only their labour?

The direction of thought in today's politics is that they don't, or at least as little as they can get away with. (Believe it or not some people actually employ specialists to help them pay as little tax as they can.)

The Tory party represents capitalists and the Labour party, yes you've guessed it, represents those who labour (if they get the chance).

Both parties are making a pig's ear of it and Churchill is a very long-past-its-sell-by-date red herring.

tangled_metal

rjsterry wrote:

Sorry, TM. Should have clarified that I was referring to Soames, etc. with the 'losing their sh*t' comment. Agree that JM has very good media skills.

I thought that you wouldn't direct that comment at me.

Personally I don't think it's media skills alone. That Tandy mp is a good media act but she's not in McD's political league. IMHO McD's skills aren't just presentation of an argument. He has the whole package politically even if you don't agree with him. Grudging respect from this right winger. A threat indeed.