Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Frank the tank

PBlakeney wrote:

"The first Millennium Development Goal is to eradicate extreme poverty (halving the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day between 1990 and 2015). Here's how the proportion of people in developing countries living on less than $1.25 a day."
Ah, that's sorted then. Do without food for 2 days and celebrate with a Costa espresso.

The worlds wealth is distributed fairly
1% have just over 50% of it the other 99% have just under half of it.

See, capitalism is fair. The wealthy have half and the poor have half.

Stevo_666

Frank the tank wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

"The first Millennium Development Goal is to eradicate extreme poverty (halving the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day between 1990 and 2015). Here's how the proportion of people in developing countries living on less than $1.25 a day."
Ah, that's sorted then. Do without food for 2 days and celebrate with a Costa espresso.

The worlds wealth is distributed fairly
1% have just over 50% of it the other 99% have just under half of it.

See, capitalism is fair. The wealthy have half and the poor have half.

I see you've fallen for the leftie propaganda as well Frank. Have a look at tbe facts - global capitalism is reducing poverty at the fastest rate in history:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/what-oxfam-wont-tell-you-about-capitalism-and-poverty/
Makes uncomfortable reading for lefties. Pinno stuck his fingers in his ears when I posted a very similar link for him, but that's the way is is.

And dont try to kid yourself that socialsim would do better. The only way it would reduce inequality is by making us poorer.

pinno

All you have to do is scan down the list of articles on the right hand side of the Spectator link and you know exactly what angle they take. I doubt these people agree: http://www.unicef.org or these people:

http://www.ilo.org/ipec/Childlabourstat ... /index.htm

I didn't put my fingers in my ears as Blakey had summed it up perfectly.

PBlakeney wrote:

"The first Millennium Development Goal is to eradicate extreme poverty (halving the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day between 1990 and 2015). Here's how the proportion of people in developing countries living on less than $1.25 a day."
Ah, that's sorted then. Do without food for 2 days and celebrate with a Costa espresso.

Children sleeping on the street in Brazil

mamba80

O.B.R says low productivity is a huge prob for UK and Ossie has done nothing to actively increase that after 6 years.

Investment and training is whats needed and he s done nothing for that, Academy schools? gimmick.

Inequality was also raised as a problem by OBR too, raising tax thresholds at the bottom from 11k to 11.5k is welcome but he has raised upper tax threshold from 43k to 45k (i ll benefit from both but i dont need it) and introduced life time ISA's which, lets face it, only the relatively wealthy will be able to save into.

Meanwhile 4.5 billion to come off disability benefits by 2020, now i know there is fraud in all this but does anyone really think these cuts can be done without some serious hardship to the majority of genuine claimants?
its immoral and will probably ensure they lose the next election.

the problem Os has is he is missing his so called targets, borrowing up and growth down, he then needs to cut more from state spending, apparently another 14billion by 2019, cant believe he didnt raise petrol duty, own goal, ideology gone mad.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

All you have to do is scan down the list of articles on the right hand side of the Spectator link and you know exactly what angle they take. I doubt these people agree: http://www.unicef.org or these people:

http://www.ilo.org/ipec/Childlabourstat ... /index.htm

I didn't put my fingers in my ears as Blakey had summed it up perfectly.

PBlakeney wrote:

"The first Millennium Development Goal is to eradicate extreme poverty (halving the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day between 1990 and 2015). Here's how the proportion of people in developing countries living on less than $1.25 a day."
Ah, that's sorted then. Do without food for 2 days and celebrate with a Costa espresso.

Children sleeping on the street in Brazil

Which of the facts or info in those two links that I posted are incorrect?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

O.B.R says low productivity is a huge prob for UK and Ossie has done nothing to actively increase that after 6 years.

Investment and training is whats needed and he s done nothing for that, Academy schools? gimmick.

Inequality was also raised as a problem by OBR too, raising tax thresholds at the bottom from 11k to 11.5k is welcome but he has raised upper tax threshold from 43k to 45k (i ll benefit from both but i dont need it) and introduced life time ISA's which, lets face it, only the relatively wealthy will be able to save into.

Meanwhile 4.5 billion to come off disability benefits by 2020, now i know there is fraud in all this but does anyone really think these cuts can be done without some serious hardship to the majority of genuine claimants?
its immoral and will probably ensure they lose the next election.

the problem Os has is he is missing his so called targets, borrowing up and growth down, he then needs to cut more from state spending, apparently another 14billion by 2019, cant believe he didnt raise petrol duty, own goal, ideology gone mad.

Plenty of investment announced eg Crossrail 2, HS3. Apprentice levy already announced.

Results in academy schools speak for themselves. Its not always about chucking our money at a problem.

Disability spending. It depends how high the current levels are. Some evidence to suggest that we are way more generous than other countries:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253509/Benefits-Britain-UK-leads-world-doling-disability-cash-spending-twice-U-S-times-Japan.html

Fastest growth rate of the major developed nations. Unemployment at its lowest level in nearly 40 years IIRC.

Tax allowances - £45k is hardly rich. Is it right that teachers, policemen etc should be top rate taxpayers? The British electorate voted against a high tax regime at the last general election. But if you want to go against that, be my guest and lead by example - put your money where your mouth is and pay more tax yourself rather than expecting everyone else to do it.

Also the projections done showed that if Labour had stayed in power and carried on spending as they did, national debt would be £930 billion higher than it is now :shock: . That would be disastrous. No wonder the electorate kicked those leftie losers out in 2010.

pinno

The 'facts' are subjective. An interpretation of the figures that prove Globalisation is reducing poverty. It may be but it still leaves billions in poverty. It doesn't actually prove anything. It's an article to massage the insecurities of the wealthy. It reinforces the idea that individualism is the way forward, that anyone can get themselves out of poverty with the capitalist dream. That the very wealthy need not feel guilty about being the architects of inequality and they have the philanthropists dishing out money in a style Eva Peron would be jealous of and everything is going to be fine so, long as the masses maintain the current trajectory of 'growth', they keep becoming universally more materialistic and keep believing.
As long as there's growth there will be rainforests and pristine seas, pristine coral reefs, abundant and endless fish stocks. There will be cheap generic drugs, access to eduction for everybody, child labour will be eradicated, the global network of sweatshops will update their fire safety practises and the lovely companies like Monsanto will feed them all. In fact, I don't think the people of the world have had it so good and everybody as everybody is benefiting from the trickle down effect.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

The 'facts' are subjective. An interpretation of the figures that prove Globalisation is reducing poverty. It may be but it still leaves billions in poverty. It doesn't actually prove anything. It's an article to massage the insecurities of the wealthy. It reinforces the idea that individualism is the way forward, that anyone can get themselves out of poverty with the capitalist dream. That the very wealthy need not feel guilty about being the architects of inequality and they have the philanthropists dishing out money in a style Eva Peron would be jealous of and everything is going to be fine so, long as the masses maintain the current trajectory of 'growth', they keep becoming universally more materialistic and keep believing.
As long as there's growth there will be rainforests and pristine seas, pristine coral reefs, abundant and endless fish stocks. There will be cheap generic drugs, access to eduction for everybody, child labour will be eradicated, the global network of sweatshops will update their fire safety practises and the lovely companies like Monsanto will feed them all. In fact, I don't think the people of the world have had it so good and everybody as everybody is benefiting from the trickle down effect.

There are facts in there. Which ones are imcorrect?

Question 2. How would socialism or any other alternative system of your choice do any better? Capitalism is the mainstream global system because it is better than the alternatives. If it wasn't, dont you think everyone would be using whichever one was better? QED.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

O.B.R says low productivity is a huge prob for UK and Ossie has done nothing to actively increase that after 6 years.

Investment and training is whats needed and he s done nothing for that, Academy schools? gimmick.

Inequality was also raised as a problem by OBR too, raising tax thresholds at the bottom from 11k to 11.5k is welcome but he has raised upper tax threshold from 43k to 45k (i ll benefit from both but i dont need it) and introduced life time ISA's which, lets face it, only the relatively wealthy will be able to save into.

Meanwhile 4.5 billion to come off disability benefits by 2020, now i know there is fraud in all this but does anyone really think these cuts can be done without some serious hardship to the majority of genuine claimants?
its immoral and will probably ensure they lose the next election.

the problem Os has is he is missing his so called targets, borrowing up and growth down, he then needs to cut more from state spending, apparently another 14billion by 2019, cant believe he didnt raise petrol duty, own goal, ideology gone mad.

Plenty of investment announced eg Crossrail 2, HS3. Apprentice levy already announced.

Results in academy schools speak for themselves. Its not always about chucking our money at a problem.

Disability spending. It depends how high the current levels are. Some evidence to suggest that we are way more generous than other countries:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2253509/Benefits-Britain-UK-leads-world-doling-disability-cash-spending-twice-U-S-times-Japan.html

Fastest growth rate of the major developed nations. Unemployment at its lowest level in nearly 40 years IIRC.

Tax allowances - £45k is hardly rich. Is it right that teachers, policemen etc should be top rate taxpayers? The British electorate voted against a high tax regime at the last general election. But if you want to go against that, be my guest and lead by example - put your money where your mouth is and pay more tax yourself rather than expecting everyone else to do it.

Crossrail etc are old news, previously announced.
Apprentice levy is a waste of money, 3m appies is unrealistic and many kids are getting sub std training in how to make coffee etc or sweep the floor, this is Ofsteds view.

Local Academy in Callington is a failing school, is hi in debt.... quality leadership and teachers are what is needed not some name change and abdication of Gov responsibility - how much is this disruption going to cost???

disability... an odd one and something the UK seems to lead the world in, just why have we got so many people who are ill? as i said there is fraud and that needs to be tackled but 4.5 billion in cuts? thats huge.

OBR still say productivity is still far too low and Ossi is still missing his targets - borrowing, household debt, exports etc etc... any comment?

yes we ve fast growth but from what base and in what areas.

we should be trying to incentivise lower paid workers and with limited resources about, perhaps the lower threshold could have risen more at the expense of higher rate tax payers? what do you think?
ISA is again going to benefit the better off too.

as i said in another thread Steve0, doesnt have to be either /or - both camps can learn from each other.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

The 'facts'... effect.

There are facts in there. Which ones are imcorrect?

Question 2. How would socialism or any other alternative system of your choice do any better? Capitalism is the mainstream global system because it is better than the alternatives. If it wasn't, dont you think everyone would be using whichever one was better? QED.

You're back to the old mantra again. Ywan.

I am not saying socialism is the answer. I never did. My argument s about unfettered Capitalism and it's shortfalls.In ttrue Neo-Liberal style , you're saying a few have been lifted out of poverty and everything is all right.

Capitalism is the mainstream global system because it's all about wealth creation and not a lot else, which is very one dimensional.

Do you really think that the likes of Monsanto and Procter and Gamble are really good flagships of Global Capitalism and everybody benefits from their activities? Have yo got shares in Union Carbide? Do you think that felling and burning millions of trees in South America is just simply a mismanagement of resources?
Do you see no flaws in the current capitalist system? Or are you going to simply say ad nauseum " it's better than the alternative" ?

Stevo_666

You still haven't answered the question - which facts are incorrect? Third time of asking, stop dodging it.

Never said it was perfect, just better than the alternatives, which is why it is here. I'm saying it because it is true and demonstrated by the fact that it is the system that we use. Otherwise we would be using something else. Do you really not understand that?

The examples you cite are not the product of capitalism, they are the product of bad management. How about Chernobyl? Or North Korea?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Inequality was also raised as a problem by OBR too, raising tax thresholds at the bottom from 11k to 11.5k is welcome but he has raised upper tax threshold from 43k to 45k (i ll benefit from both but i dont need it) and introduced life time ISA's which, lets face it, only the relatively wealthy will be able to save into

Tax allowances - £45k is hardly rich. Is it right that teachers, policemen etc should be top rate taxpayers? The British electorate voted against a high tax regime at the last general election. But if you want to go against that, be my guest and lead by example - put your money where your mouth is and pay more tax yourself rather than expecting everyone else to do it.

This really does show the difference between us steve0, i would go without a tax cut so we could have more spending on social services etc or give that tax cut to lower paid workers, You on the other hand would appear to grasp at every penny you could save in tax.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

You still haven't answered the question - which facts are incorrect? Third time of asking, stop dodging it.

I have answered the question.

The examples you cite are not the product of capitalism, they are the product of bad management. How about Chernobyl? Or North Korea?

You are in cloud cuckoo land.

pinno

Should I trawl backwards and re-list all the points and questions I raised that you have failed to answer or discuss?

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

You still haven't answered the question - which facts are incorrect? Third time of asking, stop dodging it.

I don't think anyone is questioning whether the facts are true or not, they are questioning the interpretation.
So, the amount of people living (surviving) on less than $1 per day has been halved? Whoop-de-do.
That still leaves billions of starving people in poverty.

pinno

The Colombians signed up to a trade deal with the US and opened itself up to externaally lead investment. The French took over the water and electricity supply and the result was that the very poorest no longer got electricity or clean water because they could not afford it. many got sick. many died.
One of the clauses of this investment was that the Colombians signed up to an agreement to buy drugs from US but they could no longer sell generic drugs. Channel 4 covered this story and a story about a Colombian family who's son needed Fluconazole (a drug which I was on funnily enough for a number of years) but since the trade agreement, the Fluconazole was now costing $27 for a week course. Not being well off, they crossed the border on a monthly basis to buy the drug in Venezuela where it was a matter of pence for a week course. The border guards turned a blind eye to this illegal activity and to thousands doing the same. The boy was 7 years old. The Americans put pressure on the Colombian government because it was putting the brakes on the anticipated profits from the trade deal. The Columbines clamped down on this cross border activity and the family could not afford the drug and the boy died.

It's a good example of the layer cake* that is Global Capitalism and there are countless examples like the mining by the Australians in Bouganville Island to the growing of Soya on once virgin rainforest to feed the growing demand for beef, the growing and insatiable appetite for Rhino Horn and Elephant Tusks and the Bhopal disaster but nothing to do with Capitalism, just 'mismanagement'.

* Detect the irony?

tangled_metal

Another Labour mouthpiece spewing out the latest mantra to counter Tory policies. Investment for growth, cutting waste and something about fairer policies. No hard choices only nice sounding choices. Nothing much there to be against but then opposition works by making the hard decisions of government look really bad without offering ideas that solve our nation's problems. In some ways posters on here operate in the same way. Criticise not solve problems. Not that I think Stevo has the answers neither.

It would be good for someone other than the government committing to difficult decisions. I'd like Labour to come up with real hard hitting policies that makes real differences even though they'll push voters away from them. Easy to oppose hard to propose solutions since they'll divide. Platitudes don't divide like solutions do.

mamba80

the Tories run the country, its not Labours job to give them all the ideas is it?

Though having listened to Corbyn and McDonald, they ve told them where the priorities should be.

when you ve the 'Mail saying the figures dont really add up and that its a great budget for middle england, we can all see that the Tories are just helping their own core vote ahead of the EU referendum, this isnt leadership and its not good the country either.

Productivity and shocking low educational funding/standards (the 2 go hand in hand) need to be urgently addressed.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Inequality was also raised as a problem by OBR too, raising tax thresholds at the bottom from 11k to 11.5k is welcome but he has raised upper tax threshold from 43k to 45k (i ll benefit from both but i dont need it) and introduced life time ISA's which, lets face it, only the relatively wealthy will be able to save into

Tax allowances - £45k is hardly rich. Is it right that teachers, policemen etc should be top rate taxpayers? The British electorate voted against a high tax regime at the last general election. But if you want to go against that, be my guest and lead by example - put your money where your mouth is and pay more tax yourself rather than expecting everyone else to do it.

This really does show the difference between us steve0, i would go without a tax cut so we could have more spending on social services etc or give that tax cut to lower paid workers, You on the other hand would appear to grasp at every penny you could save in tax.

You make too many assumptions about my personal taxes. And lets not go into who actually contributes more...

I'm just asking you to put your money where your mouth is, starting with your next tax return. Lead by example, its something that Labour has been famously short of.

Stevo_666

Oh yes,

Pinno wrote:

Should I trawl backwards and re-list all the points and questions I raised that you have failed to answer or discuss?

Feel free to requite your list where you try to carpet bomb me with 20 questions, each of which need time and research to answer, knowing fine well that I don't have loads of time on my hands. And then kick up when I don't have time to reply? Similar to that 31 page theoretical article on neo liberalism that you moaned I didn't read :roll:

Sorry but that is either disingenuous tactics or just poor debating style.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

I'm just asking you to put your money where your mouth is, starting with your next tax return. Lead by example, its something that Labour has been famously short of.

Do you really think that giving the Government more money will directly improve anything?
I give my extra contributions directly. Cuts out the (self-serving) middle man.

Stevo_666

You

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You still haven't answered the question - which facts are incorrect? Third time of asking, stop dodging it.

I don't think anyone is questioning whether the facts are true or not, they are questioning the interpretation.
So, the amount of people living (surviving) on less than $1 per day has been halved? Whoop-de-do.
That still leaves billions of starving people in poverty.

You've managed to complain about a reduction in poverty. Depressingly glass half empty mentality. Classic leftie whingeing with no alternative solution put forward.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You still haven't answered the question - which facts are incorrect? Third time of asking, stop dodging it.

I have answered the question.

The examples you cite are not the product of capitalism, they are the product of bad management. How about Chernobyl? Or North Korea?

You are in cloud cuckoo land.

The wealth capitalism creates is here for all to see. You have been unable to contest the facts I posted showing that global poverty has materially reduced under global capitalism.

So who's really in cloud cuckoo land?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Inequality was also raised as a problem by OBR too, raising tax thresholds at the bottom from 11k to 11.5k is welcome but he has raised upper tax threshold from 43k to 45k (i ll benefit from both but i dont need it) and introduced life time ISA's which, lets face it, only the relatively wealthy will be able to save into

Tax allowances - £45k is hardly rich. Is it right that teachers, policemen etc should be top rate taxpayers? The British electorate voted against a high tax regime at the last general election. But if you want to go against that, be my guest and lead by example - put your money where your mouth is and pay more tax yourself rather than expecting everyone else to do it.

This really does show the difference between us steve0, i would go without a tax cut so we could have more spending on social services etc or give that tax cut to lower paid workers, You on the other hand would appear to grasp at every penny you could save in tax.

You make too many assumptions about my personal taxes. And lets not go into who actually contributes more...

I'm just asking you to put your money where your mouth is, starting with your next tax return. Lead by example, its something that Labour has been famously short of.

aggressive? on the back foot.... again

as you are aware, i fall into the current 40% tax bracket, i dont want further tax cuts and would rather that money went to other more deserving causes, you on the other hand???? whats your view? more for Steve0 or more for the common good?
i dont do tax returns anymore - PAYE only for me, thought you d realise that not everyone does a TR, so quite likely i might even pay more than you :shock:

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

You've managed to complain about a reduction in poverty. Depressingly glass half empty mentality. Classic leftie whingeing with no alternative solution put forward.

I see a problem, I do what I can to help. I am part of the solution.
Funny thing is, I am not a left winger.

Frank the tank

Stevo 666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

"The first Millennium Development Goal is to eradicate extreme poverty (halving the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day between 1990 and 2015). Here's how the proportion of people in developing countries living on less than $1.25 a day."
Ah, that's sorted then. Do without food for 2 days and celebrate with a Costa espresso.

The worlds wealth is distributed fairly
1% have just over 50% of it the other 99% have just under half of it.

See, capitalism is fair. The wealthy have half and the poor have half.

I see you've fallen for the leftie propaganda as well Frank. Have a look at tbe facts - global capitalism is reducing poverty at the fastest rate in history:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/what-oxfam-wont-tell-you-about-capitalism-and-poverty/
Makes uncomfortable reading for lefties. Pinno stuck his fingers in his ears when I posted a very similar link for him, but that's the way is is.

And dont try to kid yourself that socialsim would do better. The only way it would reduce inequality is by making us poorer.

Typical rightwing statement.

Who is us?

tangled_metal

So back to the start of the thread. Have you saved the country yet Stevo?

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You've managed to complain about a reduction in poverty. Depressingly glass half empty mentality. Classic leftie whingeing with no alternative solution put forward.

I see a problem, I do what I can to help. I am part of the solution.
Funny thing is, I am not a left winger.

So what's the answer? No point moaning if you present no viable alternative to the incumbent system.

Stevo_666

Frank the tank wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

"The first Millennium Development Goal is to eradicate extreme poverty (halving the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day between 1990 and 2015). Here's how the proportion of people in developing countries living on less than $1.25 a day."
Ah, that's sorted then. Do without food for 2 days and celebrate with a Costa espresso.

The worlds wealth is distributed fairly
1% have just over 50% of it the other 99% have just under half of it.

See, capitalism is fair. The wealthy have half and the poor have half.

I see you've fallen for the leftie propaganda as well Frank. Have a look at tbe facts - global capitalism is reducing poverty at the fastest rate in history:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/what-oxfam-wont-tell-you-about-capitalism-and-poverty/
Makes uncomfortable reading for lefties. Pinno stuck his fingers in his ears when I posted a very similar link for him, but that's the way is is.

And dont try to kid yourself that socialsim would do better. The only way it would reduce inequality is by making us poorer.

Typical rightwing statement.

Who is us?

It's the uncomfortable truth, Frank. Unless you can tell me what in that link is factually incorrect. Pinno couldn't.

Us = most of us. Name a few countries that has grown up being socialist from the get go and produced a prosperous and equal society - as opposed to one where free trade builds the wealth and socialist administrations then take over and start dishing it out. Nordics don't count as they are just free traders but with higher income tax and VAT than average.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You've managed to complain about a reduction in poverty. Depressingly glass half empty mentality. Classic leftie whingeing with no alternative solution put forward.

I see a problem, I do what I can to help. I am part of the solution.
Funny thing is, I am not a left winger.

So what's the answer? No point moaning if you present no viable alternative to the incumbent system.

He had a Choice, cut taxes etc for middle earners or cut disability benefits? Cut Corp tax or spend money on education.... N h s...... He has done what he s done because of e vote