Join the Labour Party and save your country!

pinno

Ballysmate wrote:

Pinno wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/29/labour-government-not-responsible-crash-bank-england-governor-mervyn-king

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ba ... ot-4891142

Heath, Thatcher, Major - all fell foul when it came to Europe and the Europeans are dragging their feet over Cameroons 5 point plan so maybe he will follow in the footsteps of his predecessors.

Perhaps they are. But a Brexit doesn't suit EU either. There WILL be a referendum and the less Cameron achieves, the more likely an OUT vote.

Which is ironic given that DC is a Europhile.

Have you posted a picture yet? Urry tf up.

Lookyhere

Thats the whole point, a OUT vote will spilt the Tories, as will an IN vote UNLESS cameron can come back with substantial concessions, he has not asked for any so wont get any

His flip fopping on migration isnt doing him any favours either.

slowmart

Since Corbyn was elected leader of the opposition there seems to a distinct lack of leadership shown by DC.

There is no coherent or potent opposition to galvanise the wafer thin majority of the Tories which is the fundamental if it's to keep power and minimise the inevitable fracture lines as we head towards the referendum.

DC did state he wasn't going for a third term which leaves the succession which will take place after the referendum as if DC loses he's a busted thrush and the new incumbent will be facing massive upheaval.

pinno

Busted thrush? Has he got an STD?

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

My bet is safe Steve0, because people will eventually see through the Tories for what they are

Oh yeah our bet. The tories have been around for a long time in their current form, you think people would have seen through them by now if they were as you say they are. I mean, we only had a GE 8 month s ago and the tories won decisively. What am I missing here?

They didnt win decisively, you r a figures man? even you can work out the % of the vote they won and that was on a low turn out too but a win is a win.

But i certainly wouldnt bet on a Labour victory but i d not be so smug Steve0 either.

with an economic down turn around the corner, it might well look as if we had all this austerity for nothing, stale bread today, promise of rotten bread tomo!

With an out euro vote and economic uncertainty that will bring, things could look very bad for the Tories

An absoute majority is pretty decisive. Let me just spell this out for you - they got more votes than Labour and more seats than all other parties combined. You are in denial.

And regardless of what happens on Europe and the economy, the alternative is voting for Corbyn and his band of far left Trots. Most people simply will not go there.

We've already had the discussion about who is likely to win next time and my offer still stands - happy to put £100 on the conservatives winning the next election. Do you want to put your money where your mouth is?

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

People on the whole are intelligent to distinguish between an economic problem that is largely driven by external factors such a the China slowdown of the lack of growth in EU, and one that is largely driven by government balls ups - such as the last Labour government overspending (and even leaving a note to tell us that there's no money left).

As I have argued before, it's not just about the party in charge, it's about our entire system and the real centres of power. I want to see our country become more like our northern European neighbours, not keep plodding on with the same old economic policies..

You say that Labour overspent, but how do you quantify that? Their spending was lower than many other countries that are doing fine and the UK did need investment at the time (and still does). It's all well and good to say that cutting tax is the recipe for success, but if you don't spend enough, things fall to pieces, you don't have a decent health or education system, etc.

Stevo 666 wrote:

Anyway, sanity check time as you seem to be so keen to defend the current Labour party and Corbyn on a number of different issues. Given the policies that the parties currently have and the people in charge of each party, if there was a general election tomorrow - who would you vote for?

Of the major parties in England, I'd go for Lib Dems, then Labour, then Tories, then UKIP. As I'm a believer in PR, I'd prefer a Lib Dem-Lab-SNP-PC-Green coalition to one party governing alone.

Basically, I think that the Tories are doing nothing to defuse the ticking time bombs that both of the major parties have contributed to setting. I don't trust them for a minute on education, health, environment, public transport, foreign affairs, energy... you know, all those things upon which we can base our future well-being. I don't have that much more faith in Labour, but of the 2 major parties, they are for me the lesser of 2 evils.

One at a time:
- Our Northern European neighbours, presumably the Scandies. Essentially free market economies with higher rates of VAT and income tax and higher social welfare payments. Only one of them in the Eurozone and the richest of the four only in the EEA. Not exactly a fundamental departure from the model. Expect those who have lived in Scandanavia and got cheap rent to weigh in any time now singing their praises...

- Labour oversepend. There is factual evidence for evidence for Labour overspend, but most tellingly Labour themselves have apologised for it:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/13/andy-burnham-apologises-labour-overspending

Your voting intentions. You've contradicted yourself massively - I've highlighted the two bits that are totally incompatible above The Lib Dems have the same number of seats as the DUP in Northern Ireland, who I don't recall ever being described a 'major party'...so I guess that means you're a Corbyn supporter by default?

When I say our northern neighbours, I'm talking culturally as much as geographically. So Benelux countries, Germany, Austria and Switzerland as well. Look at factors such as income inequality, etc. and there is a massive difference between them and us.

Labour have to play the game of apologising for their record, but can you tell us how much they should have spent? Obviously there were some fairly disastrous wastes of money (the NHS IT system, for example), but look at what our public infrastructure was like when they came in - crap. Obsolescent trains and buses, schools that were full of portakabins that cost a ton to heat in winter and then roasted in summers, etc. It's easy for the Tories to underspend and then criticise Labour for being profligate, but there's a reason that people were sick of the Tories by 1997 - they could see what the result of not spending was. I think we're probably going to learn that the hard way once again.

Lib Dems may only have the same number of seats as DUP, but they 7.9% of the vote. It'll take them a long time to recover, but I'd still trust them over Labour or the Tories.

People bang on about income inequality, which in the end is a fact of life - people earn different amounts according to their market value, effort put in etc and that's life. If you think your income is too unequal - retrain, work harder, change jobs etc. Dont expect the state to do it all for you.

But anyway, show me some stats and explain how it is measured. The obvious exp,anation is that in a prosperous country where there are a large number of successful people and high paying industries, the gap between top and bottom will always be large because the top end are doing well. Which of course be exploited by leftie statisticians as 'proof' that it is all so unfair. See if you can change my mind as I'm sceptical on this.

pinno

Statistically, the gap in earnings between the top and the bottom cannot be measured taking into consideration the top 10% and the bottom 10% as it skews the figures. So looking up the earning ratios, you need to look at how the data was gathered.

In 1997, the ratio in the UK was 7-1 and the US 14-1. In the UK, it's now 17-1.

If you don't believe me, read 'Haralambos and Holborn - Sociology Themes and Perspectives'.

The ratio's in Europe are no where near as big. You may argue that we are attracting the very rich and there is an increasing number and we benefit from their presence blah blah trickle down sh1t blah but we are yet to cross the bridge form low wage high cost society to a high wage high cost society. In that way, we are unique. The rest of Europe has HH (Germany, Denmark Norway, Sweden etc) and LL (Portugal, Spain Greece etc).

Labour is not addressing inequality in their spiel, however the Tories pay lipservice. It's as shallow as a shallow puddle.

pinno

Like this: Misleading unfortunately when they could print stories using much better collated stats.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablo ... years-data

finchy

Here's some stats. The 10% and 20% don't really need much explanation. If you can look at the list, when ordered by income inequality and then, with a straight face, tell us that income inequality is just some sort of result of being in a more prosperous society, then you have lost all contact with reality.

Personally, I am retraining, and should be qualifying as a geologist later this year, but just putting all the emphasis on the individual is wrong. Completely wrong. The nation benefits from a better qualified population, companies benefit from better qualified workforce, yet the trend in this country is more and more towards placing the entire burden of post-18 education on the individual.

As for income inequality not being a problem, are you really unable to see what problems it might bring, both for society and for the individual?

finchy

Here you go Stevo, just for a start, here's a report written by those commies the OECD about income inequality, educational outcomes and social mobility

pinno

I've already mentioned the 'voluntarist approach' to further and higher education and the lack of a cohesive national plan in an earlier post but no one reads them.

finchy

To be fair, this thread is 70 pages long, so I'm sure we've all skipped over a few posts.

pinno

finchy wrote:

To be fair, this thread is 70 pages long, so I'm sure we've all skipped over a few posts.

Some have done more skipping than others

finchy

World Bank report on violent crime and income inequality. Not surprisingly, you're more likely to fall victim to violent crime in more unequal societies.

pblakeney

It's easier to resort to crime when you have nothing to lose.

finchy

More from those communists at OECD. Higher income inequality slows economic growth. The report recommends reducing income inequality to promote long-term economic growth.

pinno

You're talking to a brick wall Finchy. Certain Tories do not see the complexity of these issues, only the bottom line and the black and white figures. ^ That is an interesting link regarding the income inequality.

finchy

Pinno wrote:

You're talking to a brick wall Finchy.

That could be the new avatar. :idea:

pinno

Stevo's new avatar:

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Stevo's new avatar:

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle...

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

Here you go Stevo, just for a start, here's a report written by those commies the OECD about income inequality, educational outcomes and social mobility

No big issues with the OECD overall, although it is worth pointing out that the data in this is now 5 years old and the two G20 countries with the highest growth rates currently are UK and USA, so the real life situation has obviously changed somewhat from the GFC period.

- Inequality here is a relative measure - based on percentages rather than absolute, so in say UK and UK where there is a good entrepreneurial culture and financial sector, the inequality as measured will always be higher due to those who are successful through hard work, being entrepreneurial etc.
- The UK level on inequality in table 1 is not far off those for say Germany and in line with USA, Australia, Japan, Italy.
- The conclusion states that inequality at the top does not impact growth - backing up my point above.
- Inequality at the bottom they say is relevant but there is no specific mention that it is an issue for the UK. Also it is not in line with our superior current growth rate and our longer term growth rate over the 20 year period 1990 - 2010: see table 3 (only Ireland is higher).

So we can both take what we want from that.

And BTW your point about you retraining - exactly the right thing to do IMO. Unfortunately there are too many who don't bother and expect to be provided for.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Stevo's new avatar:

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle...

Nah, your just unreasonable Steve0, the tories can do no wrong in your eyes.

florerider

Can someone explain to me how high income inequality leads to low growth in China please?

It is, after all, the exception that proves the rule.

finchy

Stevo 666 wrote:

No big issues with the OECD overall, although it is worth pointing out that the data in this is now 5 years old

It won't have changed that much over such a short period.

Stevo 666 wrote:

and the two G20 countries with the highest growth rates currently are UK and USA, so the real life situation has obviously changed somewhat from the GFC period.

This is a very short-term situation and can be indicative of demographic changes in a country, circumstances beyond the control of the government, etc. and it's pretty much swings and roundabouts - for example, Germany had a couple of years of higher growth than us, now we've got high growth than them. In a couple of years it may have swung round and Germany will again be growing faster than us (in terms of GDP per capita, because I think that with Germany's ageing population, we will close the gap on them until they've got over that particular demographic bump in the road and we are faced with it).

Stevo 666 wrote:

- Inequality here is a relative measure - based on percentages rather than absolute, so in say UK and UK where there is a good entrepreneurial culture and financial sector, the inequality as measured will always be higher due to those who are successful through hard work, being entrepreneurial etc.

Of course inequality is a relative measure, how can it be anything but relative? :?

Stevo 666 wrote:

- The UK level on inequality in table 1 is not far off those for say Germany and in line with USA, Australia, Japan, Italy.

Have a look at the figures quoted above and the 10% and 20% ratios in my other links. Inequality in the UK is much higher than most other western European nations. I don't want to see US levels of inequality in this country, have you seen the problems that brings them?

Stevo 666 wrote:

- The conclusion states that inequality at the top does not impact growth - backing up my point above.

And how would you reduce that inequality at the bottom? I would do it by better training for workers so they can claim better wages, but if lower paid workers get paid a greater share, that means less for people at the top.

Stevo 666 wrote:

- Inequality at the bottom they say is relevant but there is no specific mention that it is an issue for the UK. Also it is not in line with our superior current growth rate and our longer term growth rate over the 20 year period 1990 - 2010: see table 3 (only Ireland is higher).

Why would they mention our country specifically? It's a general report on developed countries, and it shows income inequality acting as a drag on our economy and that of most of our competitors.

Stevo 666 wrote:

And BTW your point about you retraining - exactly the right thing to do IMO. Unfortunately there are too many who don't bother and expect to be provided for.

And many people are having those opportunities taken away. For example, I am studying at the Open University, and will be paying about £5k for my degree. In the future, OU students will have to pay £15k for the same qualification. Just about every form of education is becoming more and more expensive. All of society benefits from a well-educated population, so education should be supported out of taxation (but only for those who are actually capable of undertaking whichever course they want to do. I'm not in favour of letting people study for courses for which they have no aptitude, all funded by the taxpayer).

finchy

florerider wrote:

Can someone explain to me how high income inequality leads to low growth in China please?

It is, after all, the exception that proves the rule.

Less developed countries grow more quickly as they have far more spare capacity. Once you have an educated workforce, modern infrastructure, etc. then there's less room for improvement, especially as developing countries tend to have younger populations. If, on the other hand, you can get literacy rates to go from 30% to 90%, then obviously that's going to be an example of massively increasing a poorer country's potential for economic growth.

pinno

As wage expectations and cost of living rise in China, growth will naturally slow down. They will get top the same point as developed countries pretty soon and the ability to provide cheap labour will slowly be displaced to other countries. In fact, it is already happening. A friend of mine (cyclist) has been long back and forward to China, he's a production manager and has mainly worked in shoe making factories. He used to return for a week here and there but has been back for 6 months continuously as it is difficult to get work in his field for the same remuneration. The work is available in Pakistan and Afghanistan but he's not prepared to go there.
China is not a good example of inequality and growth. It is quite feasible that the heavily (and over) subsidised industry in China is now unsustainable and is contributing to the slow down. It is odd that the ethic of communist state sponsored industry is being held up by Stevo and subsidising our own industry is an anathema. It's also odd that China's meteoric growth has been in part because of this state sponsorship. Regardless of these facts, despite the meteoric growth in the Chinese economy, there are millions still in poverty in China. So much for the 'trickle down effect'.

Back to education. The term 'Voluntarist approach' is not referring to just the responsibility of the individual, it is also referring to how the state views this. A capitalist system in world where low and semi-skilled skilled work gets displaced to developing countries, requires a skills base so that the skilled work that we can do is possible. Skilled work is also not exclusive to manufacturing. It is contrary to capitalistic aspirations to depress (by default - lack of planning, strategy, financial restrictions etc) the promotion of skills in the workforce.

This is what I wrote in another post:

Education. What a mine field. For too long we have been behind and simply fire-fighting. It's ad-hoc and it's voluntary. It's also a fire-fighting exercise - being lead rather than leading. We educate poorly to current market needs. We don't take a lateral approach and start training people to high technical standards which will in turn create it's own momentum and it's own markets. If people get the technical skills required, they often go abroad. It's pointless training people up to what they think are going to be future skill requirements because that is based on a subjective economic supposition. That tactic lacks vision.

The above paragraph regarding education, if you note Stevo, is not leftie bollox, I think it is reasonably pragmatic.

mamba80

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And BTW your point about you retraining - exactly the right thing to do IMO. Unfortunately there are too many who don't bother and expect to be provided for.

And many people are having those opportunities taken away. For example, I am studying at the Open University, and will be paying about £5k for my degree. In the future, OU students will have to pay £15k for the same qualification. Just about every form of education is becoming more and more expensive. All of society benefits from a well-educated population, so education should be supported out of taxation (but only for those who are actually capable of undertaking whichever course they want to do. I'm not in favour of letting people study for courses for which they have no aptitude, all funded by the taxpayer).

As well as the point finchy makes, we cant all be accountants or s/w developers, we need people to do low skilled tasks and they should be rewarded - you say you dont like it that people expect to be provided for, well i agree and i think its an absolute disgrace that wealthy cash rich companies pay peanuts to their staff, knowing full well the only way they can survive is by welfare hand outs- WTC and HB - what do you think?

So, steve0, is Corbyn right that companies should pay the living wage before handing share divends OR should the tax payer carry on with this subsidy?

finchy

mamba80 wrote:

As well as the point finchy makes, we cant all be accountants or s/w developers, we need people to do low skilled tasks and they should be rewarded

Fair point, but I've always worked on the assumptions that 1) one of the main problems in this country is that there is a vast pool of people with low skills and that by helping them develop better skills, there would be some upward pressure on lower skilled workers' wages due to firms competing for these people's labour and 2) increasing productivity would give the government more leeway to raise the minimum wage.

If I were to be proved wrong on those 2 assumptions, then obviously other measures would need to be taken to ensure that workers with fewer qualifications can also share in the wealth that we all create.

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

No big issues with the OECD overall, although it is worth pointing out that the data in this is now 5 years old

It won't have changed that much over such a short period. 5 years isn't a short period

Stevo 666 wrote:

and the two G20 countries with the highest growth rates currently are UK and USA, so the real life situation has obviously changed somewhat from the GFC period.

This is a very short-term situation and can be indicative of demographic changes in a country, circumstances beyond the control of the government, etc. and it's pretty much swings and roundabouts - for example, Germany had a couple of years of higher growth than us, now we've got high growth than them. In a couple of years it may have swung round and Germany will again be growing faster than us (in terms of GDP per capita, because I think that with Germany's ageing population, we will close the gap on them until they've got over that particular demographic bump in the road and we are faced with it). The other barriers to growth in countries such as Germany include high regulation and the Euro itself.

Stevo 666 wrote:

- Inequality here is a relative measure - based on percentages rather than absolute, so in say UK and UK where there is a good entrepreneurial culture and financial sector, the inequality as measured will always be higher due to those who are successful through hard work, being entrepreneurial etc.

Of course inequality is a relative measure, how can it be anything but relative? :? If you are measuring inequality in a country like the UK compared to somewhere like say Brazil or India, these are very different things. The people at the bottom of the pile in the latter two are in genuine poverty which is really not the case here. A combination of high benefits and wage levels in the UK see to that.

Stevo 666 wrote:

- The UK level on inequality in table 1 is not far off those for say Germany and in line with USA, Australia, Japan, Italy.

Have a look at the figures quoted above and the 10% and 20% ratios in my other links. Inequality in the UK is much higher than most other western European nations. I don't want to see US levels of inequality in this country, have you seen the problems that brings them? I think we strike a reasonable balance here

Stevo 666 wrote:

- The conclusion states that inequality at the top does not impact growth - backing up my point above.

And how would you reduce that inequality at the bottom? I would do it by better training for workers so they can claim better wages, but if lower paid workers get paid a greater share, that means less for people at the top. Agree. Better skills and training also create new markets and enable more value add as Pinno says so it is not necessarily a different slice of the same pie. The question is whether the state should be responsible for all of this and how much business is involved - as they are the ones who have the specific needs.

Stevo 666 wrote:

- Inequality at the bottom they say is relevant but there is no specific mention that it is an issue for the UK. Also it is not in line with our superior current growth rate and our longer term growth rate over the 20 year period 1990 - 2010: see table 3 (only Ireland is higher).

Why would they mention our country specifically? It's a general report on developed countries, and it shows income inequality acting as a drag on our economy and that of most of our competitors. No reason why they would. Just pointing out there is no evidence there that it is an issue for the UK

Stevo 666 wrote:

And BTW your point about you retraining - exactly the right thing to do IMO. Unfortunately there are too many who don't bother and expect to be provided for.

And many people are having those opportunities taken away. For example, I am studying at the Open University, and will be paying about £5k for my degree. In the future, OU students will have to pay £15k for the same qualification. Just about every form of education is becoming more and more expensive. All of society benefits from a well-educated population, so education should be supported out of taxation (but only for those who are actually capable of undertaking whichever course they want to do. I'm not in favour of letting people study for courses for which they have no aptitude, all funded by the taxpayer).

I'm in favour of costs and benefits being matched but again there is a balance to be struck. Whole new area of debate and I haven't really thought that one through fully.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

As well as the point finchy makes, we cant all be accountants or s/w developers, we need people to do low skilled tasks and they should be rewarded - you say you dont like it that people expect to be provided for, well i agree and i think its an absolute disgrace that wealthy cash rich companies pay peanuts to their staff, knowing full well the only way they can survive is by welfare hand outs- WTC and HB - what do you think?

So, steve0, is Corbyn right that companies should pay the living wage before handing share divends OR should the tax payer carry on with this subsidy?

We have a legally enforceable minimum wage that is about to go up significantly. If you put the price of employing low value people up too much, less employment of those people will be the result. There is a balance needed.

However if Corbyn wants to enforce the living wage (legally unenforceable recommendation), why doesn't he just make it the minimum wage and legally enforceable? Save all this posturing about hitting shareholders, which seems to me to be trying to appeal to his core vote who assume that all shareholders are rich.

As for the rule itself, you are assuming that the majority of large multinationals pay peanuts. Not my experience from 20+ years working in multinationals so can you produce some evidence to back this up?

Apart from that, it won't work. There are too many ways around it for those who genuinely don't want to play ball (I thought of three different ones by time I'd read the first article I saw on it). And the other gaping hole here is that it can't be enforced for foreign headquartered companies whose 'top' company is non-UK and outside UK government jurisdiction. If the UK becomes a dividend block, foreign headquartered groups will simply pull dividends out of their subsidiaries in other countries.