The Politics Thread

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So Bish, you obviously didn't want to discuss that graphic any further after posting.

What do you think of the Labour Party's weird campaign on the 'Strivers' Tax'?

Apart from the fact that calling a cap on benefits at any percentage a 'tax' is completely nonsensical, does anyone see the slightly unusual word 'striver' and go 'oh yes, that's me'?

I wonder what wages are doing in the private sector, which is where the money is coming from to fund benefits. Are those in work seeing their wages rise by more than 1%? Genuine question, because I haven't seen it form part of the Labour argument.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

So Bish, you obviously didn't want to discuss that graphic any further after posting.

What do you think of the Labour Party's weird campaign on the 'Strivers' Tax'?

Apart from the fact that calling a cap on benefits at any percentage a 'tax' is completely nonsensical, does anyone see the slightly unusual word 'striver' and go 'oh yes, that's me'?

I wonder what wages are doing in the private sector, which is where the money is coming from to fund benefits. Are those in work seeing their wages rise by more than 1%? Genuine question, because I haven't seen it form part of the Labour argument.

Two things.

Firstly - my wages (private sector) are certainly going up higher than 1%. Not as high as I'd like mind, but in the last 4 years I've had 4.5%, 2%, 0%, 3%

Secondly - anybody who witters on about percentages must be fairly rich, because the low paid are much more bothered about the amount of cash increase, not percentages. As is sometimes succinctly put, 1% of feck all is still pretty much feck all. Percentage increases always favour the better off (the rich get richer etc.)

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So Bish, you obviously didn't want to discuss that graphic any further after posting.

What do you think of the Labour Party's weird campaign on the 'Strivers' Tax'?

Apart from the fact that calling a cap on benefits at any percentage a 'tax' is completely nonsensical, does anyone see the slightly unusual word 'striver' and go 'oh yes, that's me'?

I wonder what wages are doing in the private sector, which is where the money is coming from to fund benefits. Are those in work seeing their wages rise by more than 1%? Genuine question, because I haven't seen it form part of the Labour argument.

Two things.

Firstly - my wages (private sector) are certainly going up higher than 1%. Not as high as I'd like mind, but in the last 4 years I've had 4.5%, 2%, 0%, 3%

Secondly - anybody who witters on about percentages must be fairly rich, because the low paid are much more bothered about the amount of cash increase, not percentages. As is sometimes succinctly put, 1% of feck all is still pretty much feck all. Percentage increases always favour the better off (the rich get richer etc.)

Sure, but the total benefits bill is a large number and a 1% increase has to come from somewhere.

I'm pleased your wages are going up - I just wondered what the average picture is.

[BWFC_Insane]

So Bish, you obviously didn't want to discuss that graphic any further after posting.

What do you think of the Labour Party's weird campaign on the 'Strivers' Tax'?

Apart from the fact that calling a cap on benefits at any percentage a 'tax' is completely nonsensical, does anyone see the slightly unusual word 'striver' and go 'oh yes, that's me'?

I wonder what wages are doing in the private sector, which is where the money is coming from to fund benefits. Are those in work seeing their wages rise by more than 1%? Genuine question, because I haven't seen it form part of the Labour argument.

Look I know what you mean by that. But it irritates me.

1) Public sector workers pay the same tax rates as the private sector (and cannot receive benefits, or "non entitled" expenses).

2) How many "Private sector" wages exist because of funding from the public sector?

I realise its a different argument to the one you are making. But it just irritates me everytime I see a right winger try and make out that the private sector have this huge burden and are just pissed on constantly by the public sector. Its simply not true. I get irritated by it and I'm not even public sector employed, so they must be really fed up of it.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'm pleased your wages are going up - I just wondered what the average picture is.

I'm not guaranteeing it, as I don't know the official figures (if there are any), but for the last four years we've been told that our wage rises are pretty much in line with average private sector wage rises in the UK. Therefore 4.5, 2, 0, 3 in engineering, construction, transport.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So Bish, you obviously didn't want to discuss that graphic any further after posting.

What do you think of the Labour Party's weird campaign on the 'Strivers' Tax'?

Apart from the fact that calling a cap on benefits at any percentage a 'tax' is completely nonsensical, does anyone see the slightly unusual word 'striver' and go 'oh yes, that's me'?

I wonder what wages are doing in the private sector, which is where the money is coming from to fund benefits. Are those in work seeing their wages rise by more than 1%? Genuine question, because I haven't seen it form part of the Labour argument.

Look I know what you mean by that. But it irritates me.

1) Public sector workers pay the same tax rates as the private sector (and cannot receive benefits, or "non entitled" expenses).

2) How many "Private sector" wages exist because of funding from the public sector?

I realise its a different argument to the one you are making. But it just irritates me everytime I see a right winger try and make out that the private sector have this huge burden and are just pissed on constantly by the public sector. Its simply not true. I get irritated by it and I'm not even public sector employed, so they must be really fed up of it.

It's just logically obvious. I'd try to relax a bit, if I were you.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm pleased your wages are going up - I just wondered what the average picture is.

I'm not guaranteeing it, as I don't know the official figures (if there are any), but for the last four years we've been told that our wage rises are pretty much in line with average private sector wage rises in the UK. Therefore 4.5, 2, 0, 3 in engineering, construction, transport.

You could well be right.

I'm often surprised by how robust pay levels are in, say, banking, even when thousands of people are being laid off.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'm pleased your wages are going up - I just wondered what the average picture is.

I'm not guaranteeing it, as I don't know the official figures (if there are any), but for the last four years we've been told that our wage rises are pretty much in line with average private sector wage rises in the UK. Therefore 4.5, 2, 0, 3 in engineering, construction, transport.

You could well be right.

I'm often surprised by how robust pay levels are in, say, banking, even when thousands of people are being laid off.

Yeh, the default does appear to be less people on higher wages rather than more people on lower.

[Lord Kangana]

A guy on the radio (who was experiencing his first bout of unemployent in 30 years in case we get all hand-wringy about scroungers), pointed out that that meant he'd get an increase of 71p per week.

Which, to my mind, poses many more serious questions than it answers. Such as...

How in the world of f*ck is less than £50/year per unemployed person become a serious discussion point?

How bad must the jobs market be if it is a serious discussion point?

Why is no-one talking about, and tackling, the real issue of why the f*ck we're discussing a less than £50 a year rise because there aren't enough jobs?

And what the f*ck are the government doing to fuel and encourage growth, when all they seem to be doing is spending all their time and energy on creating diversions "ooh, look at him, living it up on his £71.71 a week"?

Its just preposterous how petty minded this all become. And how easily people are taken in by a good scapegoat.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

How in the world of f*ck is less than £50/year per unemployed person become a serious discussion point?

1. It's a significant number when you add them all up - if you're committed to savings, they have to come from some where. And anyway, if you are committed to saving a huge number, it is likely that this will be made up of a large number of small numbers. Each one of these will be a serious discussion point in itself.

2. It's not just about unemployed people, as the Independent and TUC have been keen to tell us, albeit in a misleading way.

[Harry Genshaw]

A guy on the radio (who was experiencing his first bout of unemployent in 30 years in case we get all hand-wringy about scroungers), pointed out that that meant he'd get an increase of 71p per week.

Which, to my mind, poses many more serious questions than it answers. Such as...

How in the world of f*ck is less than £50/year per unemployed person become a serious discussion point?

How bad must the jobs market be if it is a serious discussion point?

Why is no-one talking about, and tackling, the real issue of why the f*ck we're discussing a less than £50 a year rise because there aren't enough jobs?

And what the f*ck are the government doing to fuel and encourage growth, when all they seem to be doing is spending all their time and energy on creating diversions "ooh, look at him, living it up on his £71.71 a week"?

Its just preposterous how petty minded this all become. And how easily people are taken in by a good scapegoat.

Do we have a post of the year on here? This is the winner for 2013 imo

[thebish]

So Bish, you obviously didn't want to discuss that graphic any further after posting.

What do you think of the Labour Party's weird campaign on the 'Strivers' Tax'?

Apart from the fact that calling a cap on benefits at any percentage a 'tax' is completely nonsensical, does anyone see the slightly unusual word 'striver' and go 'oh yes, that's me'?

I wonder what wages are doing in the private sector, which is where the money is coming from to fund benefits. Are those in work seeing their wages rise by more than 1%? Genuine question, because I haven't seen it form part of the Labour argument.

what was the discussion you wanted to have??

I'm not really sure why pointing out some myths means I then have to defend summat Labour are doing - how do you get there??

are you disagreeing with any of the figures in the graphic?? not really sure what your point is TBH...

and - no - I haven't been paying any attention at all to Labour's shifting-sand policies - the time to do that will be when it makes a difference - when they are in power or on the eve of an election....

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Well you posted it so I assumed you wanted a discussion of its contents?

Yes, I expressed some disagreement with it and pointed out what I think is the hypocrisy of its treatment of the subject. I thought I was pretty clear about what I thought, but you posted it without a comment either way.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

A guy on the radio (who was experiencing his first bout of unemployent in 30 years in case we get all hand-wringy about scroungers), pointed out that that meant he'd get an increase of 71p per week.

Which, to my mind, poses many more serious questions than it answers. Such as...

How in the world of f*ck is less than £50/year per unemployed person become a serious discussion point?

How bad must the jobs market be if it is a serious discussion point?

Why is no-one talking about, and tackling, the real issue of why the f*ck we're discussing a less than £50 a year rise because there aren't enough jobs?

And what the f*ck are the government doing to fuel and encourage growth, when all they seem to be doing is spending all their time and energy on creating diversions "ooh, look at him, living it up on his £71.71 a week"?

Its just preposterous how petty minded this all become. And how easily people are taken in by a good scapegoat.

And surely the unassailable logic of your position (though I know you struggle with this concept) is that those who disagree with the cap are also being petty minded because the numbers involved are so small?

Post of 2013? Do me a favour.

[thebish]

Well you posted it so I assumed you wanted a discussion of its contents?

Yes, I expressed some disagreement with it and pointed out what I think is the hypocrisy of its treatment of the subject. I thought I was pretty clear about what I thought, but you posted it without a comment either way.

did you disagree with any of the figures? not sure you did....

i just posted it cos I thought it was interesting how in some of the categories people do seem to be a long way off...

i suspect the same kind of widespread variance of reality from belief is also at play if you ask people how many immigrants there are in the country...

i wouldn't put politicians at the top of the list of prime suspects - but they are on the list - and some of it is down to deliberate misinformation.

for example... Osbornes insidious stuff about the hard-working people walking past the closed curtains of the skivers at home watching Jeremy Kyle - in association with a policy that actually affected FAR MORE working people was, I think, a deliberate attempt to play up this kind of misinformation...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Well you posted it so I assumed you wanted a discussion of its contents?

Yes, I expressed some disagreement with it and pointed out what I think is the hypocrisy of its treatment of the subject. I thought I was pretty clear about what I thought, but you posted it without a comment either way.

did you disagree with any of the figures? not sure you did....

i just posted it cos I thought it was interesting how in some of the categories people do seem to be a long way off...

i suspect the same kind of widespread variance of reality from belief is also at play if you ask people how many immigrants there are in the country...

i wouldn't put politicians at the top of the list of prime suspects - but they are on the list - and some of it is down to deliberate misinformation.

for example... Osbornes insidious stuff about the hard-working people walking past the closed curtains of the skivers at home watching Jeremy Kyle - in association with a policy that actually affected FAR MORE working people was, I think, a deliberate attempt to play up this kind of misinformation...

Yes, I doubted the validity of the 3% figure.

I also indirectly questioned the idea that there is an exacT, certain figure of how much fraud there is in the system. I think people think it's difficult to record and that we don't know the extent of it.

Yes, that is the one example the Independent suggested, and they didn't add the invented Jeremy Kyle flourish like you. Not that is actually an example of misinformation, of course.

[Prufrock]

Well you posted it so I assumed you wanted a discussion of its contents?

Yes, I expressed some disagreement with it and pointed out what I think is the hypocrisy of its treatment of the subject. I thought I was pretty clear about what I thought, but you posted it without a comment either way.

did you disagree with any of the figures? not sure you did....

i just posted it cos I thought it was interesting how in some of the categories people do seem to be a long way off...

i suspect the same kind of widespread variance of reality from belief is also at play if you ask people how many immigrants there are in the country...

i wouldn't put politicians at the top of the list of prime suspects - but they are on the list - and some of it is down to deliberate misinformation.

for example... Osbornes insidious stuff about the hard-working people walking past the closed curtains of the skivers at home watching Jeremy Kyle - in association with a policy that actually affected FAR MORE working people was, I think, a deliberate attempt to play up this kind of misinformation...

Like the post census, 'White British now a minority in London'. True, yes, still the single biggest group by some fecking way, but that isn't how 'now a minority' reads.

[Lord Kangana]

A guy on the radio (who was experiencing his first bout of unemployent in 30 years in case we get all hand-wringy about scroungers), pointed out that that meant he'd get an increase of 71p per week.

Which, to my mind, poses many more serious questions than it answers. Such as...

How in the world of f*ck is less than £50/year per unemployed person become a serious discussion point?

How bad must the jobs market be if it is a serious discussion point?

Why is no-one talking about, and tackling, the real issue of why the f*ck we're discussing a less than £50 a year rise because there aren't enough jobs?

And what the f*ck are the government doing to fuel and encourage growth, when all they seem to be doing is spending all their time and energy on creating diversions "ooh, look at him, living it up on his £71.71 a week"?

Its just preposterous how petty minded this all become. And how easily people are taken in by a good scapegoat.

And surely the unassailable logic of your position (though I know you struggle with this concept) is that those who disagree with the cap are also being petty minded because the numbers involved are so small?

Post of 2013? Do me a favour.

Its unassailable enough to have tied you up in knots. Again, why are we discussing such petty numbers?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I don't think the numbers are irrelevantly small.

I'm saying you can't have it both ways.

That's pretty straightforward isn't it?

[Lord Kangana]

I don't want it any way. These numbers, this discussion, would be irrelevant if we didn't have a chancellor fresh from his first at the Mr Micawber School of Economics. Its f*cking nonsense.