Britain - The Official Thread

[TenEightyOne]

Of course. Then another election, and another, and another.

That shouldn't trigger an election though - the party leader is chosen by the party, the majority party send their leader to the Palace.

 

[UKMikey]

More knives for the Tory chiefs of staff:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-fiona-hill-nick-timothy-monsters-sunk-party

According to the article however insiders say Australian adviser Lynton Crosby was the one responsible for the personality-centric negative campaigning.

 

[Famine]

Okay, let's dissect this then.

Sure, but if you're just going to repeat back slogans and generalisations, it's not going to clarify anything.

What you said was that 'Corbyn at least has some awareness of what it's like to be a normal person in this country', and I'm looking for evidence that he does (even if 'normal' is redefined to poor, common or average). Not knowing him personally, all I have to go on is what he's said and done to show that he, in any way, is aware of what it's like to be a normal person in this country. Policies about university tuition fees, pensions and grammar schools don't do that.

His entire campaign and manifesto is based around the slogan "For the many, not the few"

And that's literally a platitude. Blair used it in 2004. And 2001. And 1996. And it's in the Labour party constitution. And Churchill used it the other way about. And Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote it in 1819.

Unless we're going to suggest that privately educated Oxbridge lawyer Tony Blair had some awareness of what it's like to be a normal person in this country, I think we can ignore that.

it is specifically aimed at trying to end austerity

Another platitude, but an interesting one. I'm not really convinced that your ordinary man in the street knows what 'austerity' means beyond 'it's bad'. I'm curious why they understand that it's bad though. After all, austerity is just strictness. In this sense it's strictness over what is paid for from the public purse. Isn't having a more strict approach to what taxpayer money is spent on a good thing? Do we not want controls, measures and oversight on who's spending what from money taken from people who are working? Do we want it to be more loose?

I'd think that, whatever party you vote for, everyone can agree that when taxes are used to pay for something, the result should be about getting as much as possible for the least amount spent.

and give a helping hand to those at the bottom of the societal ladder.

And another platitude - but at least there's something to work with there.

What helping hand is he offering to give? To whom and why? What do people at the bottom of the societal ladder need or want from a government?

Although I'd dispute that the bottom of the societal ladder (how far bottom? 1%? 2%? 5%? 10%? 50%? 99%?) is the normal, average, most common person in the UK, answering these questions with Corbyn's answers might help show he has some awareness of what it's like to be them.

For a start, do they need or want to stop being at the bottom of the societal ladder? If so then what can government do to achieve this and what has Corbyn pledged to do to make it happen (and surely when they are helped that just changes the level on where the bottom is and creates a new bottom, with different needs and wants that Corbyn will then have to be aware of and address)? Is existing government not doing this? Is existing government making their lives harder and keeping them at the bottom of the ladder. What aspects of their day-to-day lives is government affecting for the worse but could affect for the better and what has Corbyn pledged to make that change?

If you could provide answers to these from Corbyn's own statements, it would start to address why you think Corbyn is aware of what it's like to be a normal person in this country. As you've self-identified as normal/poor/bottom of the ladder, it should be easy - what is government doing to keep you normal/poor/bottom of the ladder right now, and what has Corbyn said that makes you think he understands what it's like to be you and how he will help you stop being you?

He himself doesn't necessarily have to have grown up and lived in this situation to realise it's happening and affecting a lot of people

You don't have to be in a wheelchair to realise that a lot of places aren't suitable for wheelchairs, but to be aware of what life is like for someone in a wheelchair, you kinda do.

There's an old phrase that Corbyn's probably aware of - he's quite well-read - that suggests walking a mile in another man's shoes (or wheeling a mile in his wheelchair, in this case) to understand them. I'm not convinced that he has done this - although perhaps being a trade union official in London in the early 1970s wasn't quite as lucrative as it is these days - but I'm open to any evidence.

in fact I think it's all the more remarkable that someone who is wealthy/powerful/privileged is facing up to and trying to change something that they could easily ignore and lock themselves away from in their tower.

This just sounds like the rich-bashing politics of envy, which is bizarre when Corbyn himself earns as much as four full-time nurses and lives a million pound flat in Islington.

He is not the only one campaigning this way, Farron, Sturgeon, Wood and Lucas have all pushed for anti-austerity measures of their own making, but they control much smaller parties with a much smaller influence, Corbyn is the only one with the power to challenge Theresa May.

Their parties are smaller and with smaller influence because people in the red/blue bubble can't see outside of it - there are 15 million people who just won't vote any other way, because it's literally their team, no matter what. They could introduce control collars, tracking chips and Carousel and 15 million people will still vote red or blue.

The Liberal Democrats were drawing 6-7 million votes and 15-25% in every election from 1974 up until 2015. This coincided with the coalition, and suddenly everyone decided that they were just Tories because they'd worked with them for five years. If they were still drawing that vote count and percentage, they'd probably be working with Corbyn right now in another coalition, with the Conservatives back near the 250 seat mark.

I think that perhaps the Green Party needs a name change, because they always were and still sound like a one-issue environmental pressure group and even in 2015, the year of the election table-flipping, they only got 4.3%. In fact they're not far from Labour at present, just slightly better at economics and considerably better on social issues. Although they still do like trees.

UKIP may hold social values commonly found among the working classes (though social values are not what I'm discussing, and I wouldn't go so far to say that they are overtly racist in the same way as the BNP), but the rest of their policies are basically Conservatives with a bit less austerity and a bit more isolationism.

That'll be largely because they're almost all Conservatives. They just added a 'immigrants are taking your social housing and the low paid jobs you do' tilt which savagely undercut Labour's inner-city votes - where social housing and low paid jobs are found.

The Conservatives are very unpopular with a very large number of people

And yet Theresa May just recorded the largest polling figures of anyone since 1992 (only beaten since 1979 by three other Conservatives) and the largest vote share of anyone other than Blair since 1979. Put into context, she's more popular in raw figures than the man who won a 1997 landslide, and only slightly less popular in percentage terms - and actually, much the same applies to Corbyn, just slightly less so.

True, more people didn't vote Conservative than did, but the last person to get more than 50% of the votes cast was Stanley Baldwin in 1931, and even that was only 40% of the electorate thanks to the turnout figures.

That would suggest that, of the parties, the Conservatives are the least unpopular, or at least the very large number of people who find them unpopular is smaller than the very large number of people who find the other parties unpopular.

whether it be because of the devastating effect the mine closures had in Yorkshire and Wales, or the hikes in tuition fees, or cuts to pensions and disability benefits, it shouldn't be any surprise that industrialised towns and inner-city neighbourhoods (i.e. where the poorest people live, in very high density) overwhelmingly vote Labour, and the Conservatives hold ground in upmarket neighbourhoods and rural towns and villages.

Yeah, to be honest, urban red and rural blue isn't exactly news. It doesn't mean that the reds automatically know what it's like to be normal and the blues automatically don't - especially since the blues who added an immigrant bogeyman (almost like they knew what normal people feared) suddenly became popular in red places...

 

[Touring Mars]

Hopefully the DUP will end up sinking Theresa May - given that May is only still in No. 10 largely thanks to the resurgent Scottish Conservatives who are led by a gay lady, it seems pretty ridiculous that May can only govern by virtue of being propped up by ten MPs who are mostly opposed to gay marriage, and at least one of which describes homosexuality as 'repulsive'. Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Conservatives represent a bigger bloc than the DUP and could easily scupper any deal that May may wish to strike with the DUP.

In other news, I found this particularly funny:

 

[Famine]

Hopefully the DUP will end up sinking Theresa May - given that May is only still in No. 10 largely thanks to the resurgent Scottish Conservatives who are led by a gay lady, it seems pretty ridiculous that May can only govern by virtue of being propped up by ten MPs who are mostly opposed to gay marriage, and at least one of which describes homosexuality as 'repulsive'. Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Conservatives represent a bigger bloc than the DUP and could easily scupper any deal that May may wish to strike with the DUP.

Personally I can't wait for the coalition's Brexit deal unit. The Conservative-Unionist Negotiation Team has a lot of work to do.

Anyway, who ever heard of a major UK political party aligning with a Northern Ireland party that would put women in prison for having an abortion? Ridiculous...

 

[Tired Tyres]

That shouldn't trigger an election though - the party leader is chosen by the party, the majority party send their leader to the Palace.

If you have a majority. They don't. It will just get a no confidence motion until they dissolve parliament again. Since no "leader" would want to be see to have their hand forced like that they'd call an election straight away as the new leader.

 

[Dotini]

...it seems pretty ridiculous that May can only govern by virtue of being propped up by ten MPs who are mostly opposed to gay marriage, and at least one of which describes homosexuality as 'repulsive'. Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Conservatives represent a bigger bloc than the DUP and could easily scupper any deal that May may wish to strike with the DUP.

In general it seems to me that we would want to respect the differing opinions of others and always be prepared to cooperate with them in a mutually profitable venture. Maybe that doesn't apply in this case, but it won't do for the concept of respect for differing opinions, the rights of others, and mutual cooperation to be held ridiculous in general. Otherwise the Lockean social contract going back to the enlightenment is broken, and the alternative is violence and absolute authoritarianism.

 

[Famine]

Actually the worst part about the DUP coalition is Northern Ireland itself.

It'd take a very long time to explain the problem, but the upshot is:
The DUP's leader, Arlene Foster, is implicated in a £500m scandal over renewable heating incentives.
Her refusal to quit lead to SF quitting.
Without proper representation in the assembly, an election had to be called or NI would revert back to direct UK rule.
Independent intervention from UK Secretary of State for NI resulted in assembly election.
After the election, the same situation persisted, with SF refusing to participate unless Foster resigns.
UK general election called, deadline for direct rule extended.
Northern Ireland still has no government.
DUP now backed by Conservative Party - Secretary of State for NI is no longer independent.
Goodbye, Good Friday Agreement.

 

[Lizard]

Actually the worst part about the DUP coalition is Northern Ireland itself.

It'd take a very long time to explain the problem, but the upshot is:
The DUP's leader, Arlene Foster, is implicated in a £500m scandal over renewable heating incentives.
Her refusal to quit lead to SF quitting.
Without proper representation in the assembly, an election had to be called or NI would revert back to direct UK rule.
Independent intervention from UK Secretary of State for NI resulted in assembly election.
After the election, the same situation persisted, with SF refusing to participate unless Foster resigns.
UK general election called, deadline for direct rule extended.
Northern Ireland still has no government.
DUP now backed by Conservative Party - Secretary of State for NI is no longer independent.
Goodbye, Good Friday Agreement.

Like I said. There are going to be riots on the streets of Belfast soon over this deal May has just done.

 

[PeterJB]

Sure, but if you're just going to repeat back slogans and generalisations, it's not going to clarify anything.

What you said was that 'Corbyn at least has some awareness of what it's like to be a normal person in this country', and I'm looking for evidence that he does (even if 'normal' is redefined to poor, common or average). Not knowing him personally, all I have to go on is what he's said and done to show that he, in any way, is aware of what it's like to be a normal person in this country. Policies about university tuition fees, pensions and grammar schools don't do that.
And that's literally a platitude. Blair used it in 2004. And 2001. And 1996. And it's in the Labour party constitution. And Churchill used it the other way about. And Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote it in 1819.

Unless we're going to suggest that privately educated Oxbridge lawyer Tony Blair had some awareness of what it's like to be a normal person in this country, I think we can ignore that.

He's a politician, it's his job to serve the public. His views, policies and manifesto are a reflection of someone who wants to help and serve the working classes, which has traditionally been the mantra of the Labour party anyway. The Conservative party have consistently put through measures that do not, and are very well suited to high-income earners, who unfortunately are vastly outnumbered by low-income earners.

Another platitude, but an interesting one. I'm not really convinced that your ordinary man in the street knows what 'austerity' means beyond 'it's bad'. I'm curious why they understand that it's bad though. After all, austerity is just strictness. In this sense it's strictness over what is paid for from the public purse. Isn't having a more strict approach to what taxpayer money is spent on a good thing? Do we not want controls, measures and oversight on who's spending what from money taken from people who are working? Do we want it to be more loose?

I'd think that, whatever party you vote for, everyone can agree that when taxes are used to pay for something, the result should be about getting as much as possible for the least amount spent.

The current austerity measures are not working very well. Poverty is going up, dependency on food banks is going up, cost if living is going up, public sector jobs are going down etc. When you cut funding to public services and make minor changes to tax rates it hits hard.

And another platitude - but at least there's something to work with there.

What helping hand is he offering to give? To whom and why? What do people at the bottom of the societal ladder need or want from a government?

Although I'd dispute that the bottom of the societal ladder (how far bottom? 1%? 2%? 5%? 10%? 50%? 99%?) is the normal, average, most common person in the UK, answering these questions with Corbyn's answers might help show he has some awareness of what it's like to be them.

For a start, do they need or want to stop being at the bottom of the societal ladder? If so then what can government do to achieve this and what has Corbyn pledged to do to make it happen (and surely when they are helped that just changes the level on where the bottom is and creates a new bottom, with different needs and wants that Corbyn will then have to be aware of and address)? Is existing government not doing this? Is existing government making their lives harder and keeping them at the bottom of the ladder. What aspects of their day-to-day lives is government affecting for the worse but could affect for the better and what has Corbyn pledged to make that change?

If you could provide answers to these from Corbyn's own statements, it would start to address why you think Corbyn is aware of what it's like to be a normal person in this country. As you've self-identified as normal/poor/bottom of the ladder, it should be easy - what is government doing to keep you normal/poor/bottom of the ladder right now, and what has Corbyn said that makes you think he understands what it's like to be you and how he will help you stop being you?

I can't speak for everyone at the bottom but we each have different needs and desires. We have a very large welfare state, something I would like reduced if at all possible. There are people who have some of disability and physically cannot work, for which I fully support the welfare state, and then are those who can work, but are either working but still need assistance covering living costs or raising children or whatever, or are looking for work but still need to live in the mean time, and then unfortunately there are those abuse the welfare state and simply refuse to work when they are more than capable of doing so and leech off the government. The first way to correct and resolve this and reduce the welfare state would be the creation of more jobs. The job market is brutal at the moment, in my hometown in the past ten years we've gone from having four banks to one, which itself is closing in a few weeks, we've lost our police station, one of our two bus services (which serves only two of the five town in a 10-mile radius, and various other local shops and businesses. Some of these are public and some are private services/businesses, but when they go, it's puts people out a job, and the money stops circulating.

In the Labour manifesto they have pledged to make no increases in VAT and NI for both commodities and public services, increase income tax only for the highest earners (The Tories did reduce them a couple of years back in the bottom bracket, but they reduced it more in the upper brackets) and corporation tax only the largest businesses. They want to keep as many public services in public ownership as possible, giving us a hand in them.

If through doing this "the bottom" is raised to a point where it's still "the bottom" but is in a far better position that it is at the moment, then I'm all for it.

You don't have to be in a wheelchair to realise that a lot of places aren't suitable for wheelchairs, but to be aware of what life is like for someone in a wheelchair, you kinda do.

There's an old phrase that Corbyn's probably aware of - he's quite well-read - that suggests walking a mile in another man's shoes (or wheeling a mile in his wheelchair, in this case) to understand them. I'm not convinced that he has done this - although perhaps being a trade union official in London in the early 1970s wasn't quite as lucrative as it is these days - but I'm open to any evidence.
This just sounds like the rich-bashing politics of envy, which is bizarre when Corbyn himself earns as much as four full-time nurses and lives a million pound flat in Islington.

Again, he's been primarily serving the working classes and low-income earners his whole career, and it's what the manifesto is aimed at. He doesn't have to be one of us to want to help us. And no, he's not perfect, but he's a saint compared to Theresa May. I'm not a mind-reader, I can't tap into his brain and see if he's considering moving into a council estate and stacking shelves at the local Tesco so that he gets it. And yes, I'm sure a lot of his supporters do wish they could be as financially secure as he is, but he has the power, privilege and position to help others, which is exactly what he has chosen to do.

Their parties are smaller and with smaller influence because people in the red/blue bubble can't see outside of it - there are 15 million people who just won't vote any other way, because it's literally their team, no matter what. They could introduce control collars, tracking chips and Carousel and 15 million people will still vote red or blue.

The Liberal Democrats were drawing 6-7 million votes and 15-25% in every election from 1974 up until 2015. This coincided with the coalition, and suddenly everyone decided that they were just Tories because they'd worked with them for five years. If they were still drawing that vote count and percentage, they'd probably be working with Corbyn right now in another coalition, with the Conservatives back near the 250 seat mark.

I think that perhaps the Green Party needs a name change, because they always were and still sound like a one-issue environmental pressure group and even in 2015, the year of the election table-flipping, they only got 4.3%. In fact they're not far from Labour at present, just slightly better at economics and considerably better on social issues. Although they still do like trees.
That'll be largely because they're almost all Conservatives. They just added a 'immigrants are taking your social housing and the low paid jobs you do' tilt which savagely undercut Labour's inner-city votes - where social housing and low paid jobs are found.

I think one of the reasons that the Lib Dems crumbled in 2015, especially amongst my age category, was their promise to reduce university tuition fees and then do a u-turn and triple them. Whether or not they would have done this if they were the outright majority without Tory influence I don't know, but they're the ones that made the promise.

I began my bachelor's degree in 2012-2013, the first year that the new fees came in. When I finish my master's degree in two years I will have accumulated a debt of £35,000, for six years of study. My two older sisters would need to have each done four degrees to amass that under the old system, it's a unforgivable betrayal by the Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg ex-MP.

And yes I agree that if the Greens want to gain more votes they should rename themselves, it only makes them look like a party for tree-hugging hippies and eco-terrorists, when they are by no means a one-policy party.

And yet Theresa May just recorded the largest polling figures of anyone since 1992 (only beaten since 1979 by three other Conservatives) and the largest vote share of anyone other than Blair since 1979. Put into context, she's more popular in raw figures than the man who won a 1997 landslide, and only slightly less popular in percentage terms - and actually, much the same applies to Corbyn, just slightly less so.

True, more people didn't vote Conservative than did, but the last person to get more than 50% of the votes cast was Stanley Baldwin in 1931, and even that was only 40% of the electorate thanks to the turnout figures.

That would suggest that, of the parties, the Conservatives are the least unpopular, or at least the very large number of people who find them unpopular is smaller than the very large number of people who find the other parties unpopular.
Yeah, to be honest, urban red and rural blue isn't exactly news. It doesn't mean that the reds automatically know what it's like to be normal and the blues automatically don't - especially since the blues who added an immigrant bogeyman (almost like they knew what normal people feared) suddenly became popular in red places...

Them allegedly being the least unpopular does not mean that there are not a lot of people who still don't like them! Yes they got 13.5 million votes, but there are c.15 million people who didn't vote at all, either because they don't care, they live in a box and have no awareness of the world around them, they think they're making a statement...by not making a statement, or they did want to vote but didn't like any of the choices, if any of those people were ardent Tory supporters, I would have expected them to have voted for them. As for those that did vote, more than half could have voted Tory but chose not to. There is no one party that's suited to everyone.

 

[PzR Slim]

Timothy and Hill have 'quit'. The first of many I would think.

 

[Famine]

He's a politician, it's his job to serve the public.

And I said earlier that he does at least recognise this, which is rare.

His views, policies and manifesto are a reflection of someone who wants to help and serve the working classes, which has traditionally been the mantra of the Labour party anyway.

That's fine, but not 'awareness of what it's like to be a normal person in this country'.

The Conservative party have consistently put through measures that do not, and are very well suited to high-income earners, who unfortunately are vastly outnumbered by low-income earners.

Which begs several questions about why they have been in government for 25 of the last 38 years with fewer people to call on as supporters...

The current austerity measures are not working very well. Poverty is going up, dependency on food banks is going up, cost if living is going up, public sector jobs are going down etc.

GDP is going up, GDP per capita is going up, employment is going up, the economy is growing, the deficit is going down etc.

At best what you're suggesting is that current austerity measures are not working very well for you. For the country as a whole, they're not doing so bad, although they're short of what the original targets were - and the concept of being strict with public money is not itself a bad one. 'Austerity' is not automatically bad.

When you cut funding to public services and make minor changes to tax rates it hits hard.

Yeeeees, but not really relevant to the question.

Personally I'd suggest that the worst change to tax rates for wealthy people is the increased VAT rate to 20p. This affects people who buy more and more expensive things more than people who buy fewer and cheaper things. I'd suggest that the best change to tax rates for normal people is the increase in the income tax-free allowance from £6,475 to £10,000. This affects people on lower incomes more than people on higher incomes. Both were introduced in the 2010-2015 Conservative/Liberal coalition government.

During the course of three previous Labour governments the tax-free allowance rose from £4,045 to £6,745 (£200/year), while VAT fell to 5% on some products and 15% across the board for a period of 12 months. That benefits the wealthy more than the lowest earners.

I can't speak for everyone at the bottom but we each have different needs and desires. We have a very large welfare state, something I would like reduced if at all possible. There are people who have some of disability and physically cannot work, for which I fully support the welfare state, and then are those who can work, but are either working but still need assistance covering living costs or raising children or whatever, or are looking for work but still need to live in the mean time, and then unfortunately there are those abuse the welfare state and simply refuse to work when they are more than capable of doing so and leech off the government. The first way to correct and resolve this and reduce the welfare state would be the creation of more jobs. The job market is brutal at the moment, in my hometown in the past ten years we've gone from having four banks to one, which itself is closing in a few weeks, we've lost our police station, one of our two bus services (which serves only two of the five town in a 10-mile radius, and various other local shops and businesses. Some of these are public and some are private services/businesses, but when they go, it's puts people out a job, and the money stops circulating.

Okay, that reads like a party political broadcast on behalf of the Literally Every Party.

In the Labour manifesto they have pledged to make no increases in VAT and NI for both commodities and public services, increase income tax only for the highest earners (The Tories did reduce them a couple of years back in the bottom bracket, but they reduced it more in the upper brackets) and corporation tax only the largest businesses. They want to keep as many public services in public ownership as possible, giving us a hand in them.

Okay, yes, that's fairly standard Labour fare. Don't agree with any of it (government is renowned for wastefulness, and public-owned services are a buzzword for inefficiency and poor standard of service, particularly when contracts are habitually awarded to the same few companies who are the cabinet's mates; see literally every NHS facilities contract from 1997-2010), but then I remember what British Rail, British Gas and, to some extent, British Leyland were like. Imagine not being able to change electricity supplier when they put their prices up because there's only one supplier.

If through doing this "the bottom" is raised to a point where it's still "the bottom" but is in a far better position that it is at the moment, then I'm all for it.

Okay, you, as a self-identified bottom of society member, want jobs made to help the bottom be better off. Why do you think putting higher punitive taxes on businesses for operating in the UK will help those large businesses who make the most UK jobs? Would having to pay another 1% of their UK income on paying the exchequer not reduce the amount of the profits they can put into creation of additional outlets and jobs? Could they not create more jobs with reduced corporation tax?

What about the very largest companies who, quite legally, headquarter their operations offshore and run a franchise model so that they are not eligible for UK corporation tax? Do you think increasing corporation tax will encourage them to bring headquarters - and jobs - into the UK?

Again, he's been primarily serving the working classes and low-income earners his whole career, and it's what the manifesto is aimed at.

He's been a comfortable trade unionist and peace protester for his whole career. For his whole political career he's been an MP for Islington. It's not like he's represented Teesside, or Portsmouth, or Moss Side where 50% of constituents are unemployed and in council accommodation.

He doesn't have to be one of us to want to help us.

And no-one said he does. But you said he 'has some awareness of what it's like to be a normal person in this country' and I'm simply not seeing how or when he's acquired this awareness, nor how he's demonstrated it with anything his done or said.

And no, he's not perfect, but he's a saint compared to Theresa May.

That's not a particularly ringing endorsement

I think one of the reasons that the Lib Dems crumbled in 2015, especially amongst my age category, was their promise to reduce university tuition fees and then do a u-turn and triple them. Whether or not they would have done this if they were the outright majority without Tory influence I don't know, but they're the ones that made the promise.

They were a minority partner. They got some traction with things they wanted but had to sacrifice others for that purpose. That's the nature of a coalition and the people that hated them for compromising really ought to grow up and question what would have happened to all the other things they care about without the Liberals tempering the Conservatives for those five years...

I began my bachelor's degree in 2012-2013, the first year that the new fees came in. When I finish my master's degree in two years I will have accumulated a debt of £35,000, for six years of study.

If you have a degree, you're not anywhere close to the normal, common, poorest or bottom of society.

You may class yourself as that, if you have a low (or no) income, but you've had a privilege open to few people through a high level of specialist knowledge, and you've opted in to a high level of debt for a career you have chosen. The average woman in the UK has a handful of GCSEs. The average man in the UK may have an A-Level or two. They leave school and work in manufacturing or the service industry. They don't go to university and they often don't really get to choose their jobs either.

Them allegedly being the least unpopular does not mean that there are not a lot of people who still don't like them!

There's no allegedly about it. We just had a ballot and they were the least unpopular.

As for those that did vote, more than half could have voted Tory but chose not to. There is no one party that's suited to everyone.

More than half could have voted Labour also, but chose not to. More than 90% could have voted Liberal Democrats but chose not to.

However unpopular you think Theresa May and the Conservatives are, they're less unpopular than any of the other choices - and despite their unpopularity, both Conservatives and Labour managed both a raw vote count and a share of the electorate that's broadly equal to or better than anything else either of them have managed in forty years, with the best turnout in twenty years.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Which begs several questions about why they have been in government for 25 of the last 38 years with fewer people to call on as supporters...

Those results (as you know) aren't necessarily pro-rata representations of nationwide voting opinion, they're also reflections of high-wealth low-density areas whose "safe Conservative" parliamentary seats represent fewer voters.

 

[Famine]

Those results (as you know) aren't necessarily pro-rata representations of nationwide voting opinion, they're also reflections of high-wealth low-density areas whose "safe Conservative" parliamentary seats represent fewer voters.

Hence 'several' questions, including how they blew it for 13 years

 

[MUSC4EVER]

A petition against the DUP joining the government has had 300,000 signatures, in just 12 hours!

 

[TenEightyOne]

A petition against the DUP joining the government has had 300,000 signatures, in just 12 hours!

That's nothing, a vote asking the Conservatives to seek a majority's had 36 million.

 

[PeterJB]

That's fine, but not 'awareness of what it's like to be a normal person in this country'.

Ok, so, in your eyes, what does he have to do to demonstrate awareness of the struggles those below him have to face? Because if campaigning to ease the financial strain on the working classes (who he is not a part of, and is within his rights to simply ignore) and against policies that pander to the rich does not count, then I don't know what does.

GDP is going up, GDP per capita is going up, employment is going up, the economy is growing, the deficit is going down etc.

At best what you're suggesting is that current austerity measures are not working very well for you. For the country as a whole, they're not doing so bad, although they're short of what the original targets were - and the concept of being strict with public money is not itself a bad one. 'Austerity' is not automatically bad.

Yes, GDP is going up. Unfortunately the national debt is going up (despite the deficit going down), cost of living is going up, rent keeps going up, bus and train fares are going up, everything is becoming more expensive.

You speak as if I'm the only person this isn't helping, there are many others just like me.

Personally I'd suggest that the worst change to tax rates for wealthy people is the increased VAT rate to 20p. This affects people who buy more and more expensive things more than people who buy fewer and cheaper things. I'd suggest that the best change to tax rates for normal people is the increase in the income tax-free allowance from £6,475 to £10,000. This affects people on lower incomes more than people on higher incomes. Both were introduced in the 2010-2015 Conservative/Liberal coalition government.

During the course of three previous Labour governments the tax-free allowance rose from £4,045 to £6,745 (£200/year), while VAT fell to 5% on some products and 15% across the board for a period of 12 months. That benefits the wealthy more than the lowest earners.

The key point with the VAT is that people who buy fewer and cheaper things often do not out of choice but out necessity. If increases in VAT is such a massive problem for rich people then they're fortunate to have the option of simply buying cheaper items less often. Labour had a far more conservative stance under Blair than they do now under Corbyn.

Okay, yes, that's fairly standard Labour fare. Don't agree with any of it (government is renowned for wastefulness, and public-owned services are a buzzword for inefficiency and poor standard of service, particularly when contracts are habitually awarded to the same few companies who are the cabinet's mates; see literally every NHS facilities contract from 1997-2010), but then I remember what British Rail, British Gas and, to some extent, British Leyland were like. Imagine not being able to change electricity supplier when they put their prices up because there's only one supplier.
Okay, you, as a self-identified bottom of society member, want jobs made to help the bottom be better off. Why do you think putting higher punitive taxes on businesses for operating in the UK will help those large businesses who make the most UK jobs? Would having to pay another 1% of their UK income on paying the exchequer not reduce the amount of the profits they can put into creation of additional outlets and jobs? Could they not create more jobs with reduced corporation tax?

What about the very largest companies who, quite legally, headquarter their operations offshore and run a franchise model so that they are not eligible for UK corporation tax? Do you think increasing corporation tax will encourage them to bring headquarters - and jobs - into the UK?

Have you seen the state the railways are in? Train fares have absolutely skyrocketed in recent years, all the while service has worsened. When I was in Chichester I had to use Southern Rail, who regularly cancel services, or have severe delays, or trains breaking down, or the signals failing, despite making bucket loads of money, I'm curious as to where it's going cause it doesn't appear to be going to the railways. Buses again, not much better, I can remember six years ago a return from Corsham to Bath was £3.80, it's now £6.50.

It's in the interest of protecting smaller businesses. A 1% increase on a large company is larger amount than 1% on a small company, but since the remaining 99% is so much larger it doesn't have anywhere near as much of an effect.

I won't affect offshore companies, but the onshore ones will have to pay more.

If you have a degree, you're not anywhere close to the normal, common, poorest or bottom of society.

You may class yourself as that, if you have a low (or no) income, but you've had a privilege open to few people through a high level of specialist knowledge, and you've opted in to a high level of debt for a career you have chosen. The average woman in the UK has a handful of GCSEs. The average man in the UK may have an A-Level or two. They leave school and work in manufacturing or the service industry. They don't go to university and they often don't really get to choose their jobs either.

Sorry, I forgot the part where if you're poor you must also be uneducated or brought it on yourself in some way. Everyone in this country has the opportunity to do a degree if they so choose. I opposed Cameron's proposals to make it compulsory because it's not for everyone, we still need plumbers, electricians, hairdressers, cashiers etc. I chose to do a degree, and I'm choosing to do a master's, despite the fact that it's probably going to take most of my working life to pay off the accumulative debts, but that's the catch for trying to acquire a well-paying job that uses my specialist skills (emphasis on trying, there is no guarantee that this'll pay off, I could very easily end up doing a job that wasn't my choice, like my current part-time one). I barely scraped through it, even with a large loan I still just about held on. When my master's begins I'll be working part-time, but only enough to pay rent, not food or anything else, as if my hours increased any further I wouldn't have enough time for study, this is if we assume that I receive a grant I've applied for from a trust fund (or yet another loan from the government), to take care of tuition fees which would otherwise need to be paid upfront as well. It's running me in to the ground, but without it I'd probably be stuck in this situation for a long time.

There's no allegedly about it. We just had a ballot and they were the least unpopular.
More than half could have voted Labour also, but chose not to. More than 90% could have voted Liberal Democrats but chose not to.

However unpopular you think Theresa May and the Conservatives are, they're less unpopular than any of the other choices - and despite their unpopularity, both Conservatives and Labour managed both a raw vote count and a share of the electorate that's broadly equal to or better than anything else either of them have managed in forty years, with the best turnout in twenty years.

Good thing I never said that they were the least popular, just that they are unpopular with a lot of people, and for good reason.

 

[Famine]

Ok, so, in your eyes, what does he have to do to demonstrate awareness of the struggles those below him have to face?

That isn't what you said. You said 'awareness of what life is like for a normal person in this country today'.

And he doesn't have to do anything to demonstrate it. It's a claim you made on his behalf, so you have to demonstrate that he has awareness of what life is like for a normal person in this country today. The poet Cocker may be of help at this point.


Literally everything else you wrote is just standard Labour playbook - and since the debt-to-GDP ratio is now falling at last, a decade after Blair/Brown doubled it in just two years by committing to £130bn extra spending and borrowing and selling off all the gold to prop up a foreign investment bank, because the deficit is being managed (more slowly than was anticipated), while GDP is rising, mean wages are 40% higher than 2001 while mean goods prices are up 30%, the UK as a whole is better off than it was in 2009. That's the many, not the few, and socialists really should be in favour of it.

Sorry, I forgot the part where if you're poor you must also be uneducated or brought it on yourself in some way.

Ahhh, now 'normal' or 'common' has become 'poor'. Interesting.

Everyone in this country has the opportunity to do a degree if they so choose.

Kind of, assuming that you're gifted enough to be accepted on the degree course and clever enough to meet the requirements following your compulsory education. But it is a choice.

The problem with universities was one of funding. Universities aren't exactly public institutions, although they do and did receive a decent chunk of their income from subsidies and their qualifications are recognised in law, so they're run as businesses. Many charged tuition fees already, but your Local Education Authority (Council where you went to school) paid it as it was generally recognised that graduates earned more and would pay more in local taxation.

The law change came about because it simply wasn't enough money to keep the universities going with projected increases in student numbers. It was ultimately determined that the best way to recoup funds was to charge the students who chose to go to the university a direct tuition fee, while offering extremely low rate loans to cover the costs, and 'Tuition Fees' were born. The person who chooses the service pays for the service, just like VAT. Simply put, there'd be far fewer universities right now without user-paid tuition fees and far less opportunity to get a degree.

You're an extremely fortunate individual to be have a sufficient gift in a subject to be able to qualify for more education. Ultimately you've chosen this path. Good on you, I did too. You could have chosen to work instead and be better off right now, but you've got something you want to do and you're doing it, sacrificing your immediate earnings for future gain (whether financial or not). That's the risk you take and with life there are no safety nets. I mean, I get that you want a financial safety net, but to be really brutal, life isn't like that and your choices come with the responsibility of making that choice. In this case you've chosen more education, and the responsibility is 'you want it, you pay for it'.


The average, normal or common person in this country does not have that choice. The average woman has a handful of GCSEs, the average man a couple of A-Levels - they aren't stupid, but they aren't clever either (in fact, they're of average intelligence - imagine that!). They're in their early 30s, have one or two children, work in manufacturing or service and own a five to seven year old Ford or Vauxhall. They live less than 60 miles from where they were born and in a rented house.

That's just not your demographic, I'm afraid. Yours is that of a 20-something, part-time working graduate. I guess that, from what you're saying, you don't earn much - I don't either, as I'm a freelance automotive writer these days - but if you have the freedom to choose to do a Master's degree you're not quite as poor as you think you are, or at least compared to those at the actual bottom of the financial tree in the UK. I certainly couldn't do it right now.


So it seems we've come full circle here. I don't believe that Corbyn is aware of what it's like to be a normal person in this country. To be honest, I don't think I am either - nor do I think you are, although we both meet some of the qualities of the normal person and everyone likes to think that they're normal in some way.

It simply seems to me that what Corbyn says on several topics aligns with what you personally want financially and you're painting that into 'I'm normal, what he says is good for me, he understands the plight of normal people'. Although I'm afraid much of his fiscal position is economically illiterate and will lead right back to the problems we had in the Brown era.


I still agree with the chap on much of his social policy.

 

[PeterJB]

I feel that if I had said this in person there wouldn't have been this discussion. You've taken normal as if to mean that doesn't meet this definition is somehow abnormal or strange, when for me it is synonymous with ordinary, common, typical etc. I was not referring to people's intelligence or social status, but purely their financial situation. Of which I am at the bottom, or at least very near it. Yes I will be doing a master's degree but even with part-time work I will be losing money whilst studying (and then having to make up my losses whilst living at home during the holidays), but if I didn't do it I would be blowing a huge opportunity for myself.

I wouldn't overtly describe myself as a Labour or Corbyn supporter, I don't officially side with any of the main parties. I voted Lib Dem two days not because I like them, but because I don't like the Tories, purely in the interest of tactical voting. But when you've got two main parties fighting it out, the one that appeals to the working classes and the most underprivileged will always get my support.

 

[Famine]

You've taken normal as if to mean that doesn't meet this definition is somehow abnormal or strange, when for me it is synonymous with ordinary, common, typical etc.

I'm taking normal to mean normal - which would also, yes, be common, typical, ordinary. Or average. Or mean.

Demographically, the average person in the UK is white, in their early-30s, lives under 60 miles from where they grew up, in a rented house, with one or two children, a five to seven year old car (usually Ford or Vauxhall), state educated (to GCSE for women, to A-Level for men) with a job in manufacturing or service and a household income of around £32,000 (£26k disposable).

That doesn't describe a majority of people, but of the UK's demographics, the largest single chunk is those guys there. They're normal, ordinary, common, typical, average, mean and so on.

I was not referring to people's intelligence or social status, but purely their financial situation.

Okay, so what would 'normal' be financially? The median (that is the middle value of all values) income for all workers in the UK is around £23,000, rising to around £27,000 for full-time workers. The mean (that is the the value of all values divided by the total number of values) post-tax income is about £18,500. The mode (that is the most common individual value) is around £17,000.

All three of those could be considered 'normal' - honestly, median is a bit rough for these purposes, but mean and mode would be fine. So a normal person working full-time earns around £19k gross. Call it £17k net. Again, it's a bit rough to say that this is the 50% mark, but we can call it there for these purposes.

Would that be good enough to qualify as 'normal' financially?

If so, how then does Jeremy Corbyn show 'awareness of what life is like for a person earning £17k net or less a year in this country today'?

As a fun thought exercise, do you think that someone earning £17k net or less a year could show awareness of what life is like for Jeremy Corbyn?

Of which I am at the bottom, or at least very near it. Yes I will be doing a master's degree but even with part-time work I will be losing money whilst studying (and then having to make up my losses whilst living at home during the holidays), but if I didn't do it I would be blowing a huge opportunity for myself.

Nevertheless, you're engaging in something that few have the opportunity to do at all and I'm just not sure why you think that this is anything other than your choice to make and your risk to take. Your life would be easier if all other taxpayers paid for you to do it, but it's a bit much even for socialists. It's not quite like the trains people need to get to work or the hospitals people need to care for them, or the electricity/gas people need to heat their homes in winter. The core of socialism is, as I mentioned earlier, from each according to his means and to each according to his needs. You don't need a degree and you certainly don't need a postgraduate one - you want them to head down the career path you want (which, again, is something to be applauded).

I wouldn't overtly describe myself as a Labour or Corbyn supporter, I don't officially side with any of the main parties. I voted Lib Dem two days not because I like them, but because I don't like the Tories, purely in the interest of tactical voting.

'Tactical voting' is largely a nonsense. You have one vote which cannot be divided and can only be cast for one person and not against anyone. It shows no other intent than 'I agree with you, what you have done and what you say you will do', creating approval for (or at least condoning) all of their past actions and a mandate for all of their policies to be enacted, whether you actually agree with them or not.

You didn't vote against your Conservative candidate. You voted for your Liberal Democrat candidate.

But when you've got two main parties fighting it out, the one that appeals to the working classes and the most underprivileged will always get my support.

Whether Labour appeals to the working classes or not (and they really, really shouldn't with their financial track record; honestly, who do you think suffered the most in the global financial crisis, and who do you think suffers the most from the high debt they created with high borrowing and high spending, usually to businesses their MPs served as board members or trustees of? Do you think it was the 1%? It wasn't) isn't really here or there - and we only have two main parties fighting it out now as a result of people thinking we only have two main parties fighting it out. 82.5% vote share between them is bonkers and beyond anything in my entire life time (1970 was the last time above 80%).

Corbyn's social policies show a keen eye for fairness, in treating all humans as equal. He even maintains this when they are clear enemies of not only us but the ideal of treating all humans as equal that he holds dear, if they have not personally harmed him (see 'his friends' in the IRA, Hamas and Hezbollah) - that's a tough sell and quite off-putting to many. He's largely against war and violence, which is a nice change from the last Labour PMs. Fiscally he's a bit wonky, but then he's a socialist and there's not a lot of joined-up thinking in the economics of socialism. Again, it's based in the idea of the government treating all humans as equal, but it's more on the 'by force' side of the equation, starting with wealth redistribution from those who have higher paying (harder, more stressful, more specialised skill set) jobs to those who have lower paying jobs and ultimately ending with the government producing all goods and services only as needed for use and everyone being paid the same (nothing, which is fine as no-one has any need for money). Although that sounds more communist than socialist, it has to be - you can't maintain socialist order without a fascist police state. Socialism is just the economics of communism.

I'm not sure where on the way from the large house he was born in, to the converted hotel he grew up in, to the private school he went to, to the voluntary overseas service in Jamaica, to the trade union official job in North London, to the MP, to the £137k a year leader of the opposition in a £1m house in Islington, he acquired the ability to be aware what life is like in the UK for people who work full time and earn under £17k net, but frankly his politics don't bear that out in any way.

I feel that if I had said this in person there wouldn't have been this discussion.

I'm this boring in real life too, I'm afraid.

 

[PeterJB]

You're getting way too hung up over the use of one word, how specific do you want to get? You're trying to compartmentalise it into a tiny demographic, when I always thought it meant the way most people in this country live (i.e not excessively rich or not rich at all, which probably now needs to be dissected to death for anyone who has never gone outside and interacted with other people), which in many respects could be better. I know my degree is a choice, but with the job market as it is if you want a decent job you don't really have much choice in it. You keep talking about what Labour have done under previous leaders, I'm talking about what Corbyn is doing now, and if he can aggressively campaign for the rights and needs of the poorest and most screwed-over in our society (or normal, or common, or typical, or mean, or median, or proletariat, or whatever the hell we're using to describe what seemed like a fairly clear term) and still have zero awareness of their situation and therefore not be able to explain or justify why he's on their side, then I'm lost.

 

[Famine]

You're getting way too hung up over the use of one word

That's how language works, yes. We use specific words to communicate specific meanings.

You're trying to compartmentalise it into a tiny demographic, when I always thought it meant the way most people in this country live (i.e not excessively rich or not rich at all, which probably now needs to be dissected to death for anyone who has never gone outside and interacted with other people), which in many respects could be better.

That's not really what 'compartmentalise' means, which is okay as you're not really using 'normal' in any recognisable way either.

So if average income isn't right, exactly what metric is 'not excessively rich or not rich at all'? Earlier on you said £30k, which is a stunningly arbitrary number, but means that you class 75% of all full-time employees as 'normal', regardless of what they do. This seems bizarre, as it encompasses a whole swathe of people, from those who live hand to mouth and need payday loans to those who can buy a brand new BMW without much consideration. They're not really in the same financial ballpark - they're not even playing the same game.

I know my degree is a choice, but with the job market as it is if you want a decent job you don't really have much choice in it.

Only around 25% of the UK workforce is a graduate in anything, so that's bollocks. And wanting a 'decent' job is a choice too. A degree might be a necessity in your chosen line of work, but that's a path you've also chosen. The choice is yours, not the taxpayer's, and so should the responsibility be.

You keep talking about what Labour have done under previous leaders

You keep talking about what the Conservatives have done under previous leaders. It's relevant in both cases. Or neither.

I'm talking about what Corbyn is doing now, and if he can aggressively campaign for the rights and needs of the poorest and most screwed-over in our society and still have zero awareness of their situation and therefore not be able to explain or justify why he's on their side, then I'm lost.

And we're back to poorest and most screwed-over, rather than the 'normal' 50th centile or 75th centile, or whatever random take-home you're after to define normal on your terms.

You haven't established what Corbyn has campaigned for, financially, that addresses the needs of the poorest, most-screwed over, normal, average, ordinary or anyone else. Your first attempt focussed on grammar schools (no-one cares), university tuition fees (no-one cares) and the NHS (open goal). I mean, if you're actually poor and care about there being too many grammar schools and high tuition fees on Master's degrees, you've really got far too little else to worry about.

I'd say that the people who wanted to make the first £10k of your salary tax free are showing they understand the needs of the least well off better than the people who want to renationalise the railways. You didn't even address that point.


I'm not trying to fool you or catch you out. I want you to show me how Jeremy Corbyn has awareness of what it's like to be a normal person in this country. Whether you class 'normal' as literally destitute, bang-on average wage earner or within a quid of the 40% higher tax band. Or all of the above. All that you've said so far still has me here:

It simply seems to me that what Corbyn says on several topics aligns with what you personally want financially and you're painting that into 'I'm normal, what he says is good for me, he understands the plight of normal people'. Although I'm afraid much of his fiscal position is economically illiterate and will lead right back to the problems we had in the Brown era.

 

[PeterJB]

That's not really what 'compartmentalise' means, which is okay as you're not really using 'normal' in any recognisable way either.

So if average income isn't right, exactly what metric is 'not excessively rich or not rich at all'? Earlier on you said £30k, which is a stunningly arbitrary number, but means that you class 75% of all full-time employees as 'normal', regardless of what they do. This seems bizarre, as it encompasses a whole swathe of people, from those who live hand to mouth and need payday loans to those who can buy a brand new BMW without much consideration. They're not really in the same financial ballpark - they're not even playing the same game.

I wouldn't consider people living under 30k a year to be abnormally affluent. It varies a lot, but they're all in a position where they can't just splurge on whatever whenever they feel like it, and if the boiler or the car kicks the bucket, that's a problem.

You keep talking about what the Conservatives have done under previous leaders. It's relevant in both cases. Or neither.

The Conservatives are the ones who've been in power for the past seven years, for most of the global financial crisis, it's their job to sort it out, and they haven't done a particularly good job of it so far.

And we're back to poorest and most screwed-over, rather than the 'normal' 50th centile or 75th centile, or whatever random take-home you're after to define normal on your terms.

You haven't established what Corbyn has campaigned for, financially, that addresses the needs of the poorest, most-screwed over, normal, average, ordinary or anyone else. Your first attempt focussed on grammar schools (no-one cares), university tuition fees (no-one cares) and the NHS (open goal). I mean, if you're actually poor and care about there being too many grammar schools and high tuition fees on Master's degrees, you've really got far too little else to worry about.

Parents care about grammar schools. Students, and the parents of students care about tuition fees. Pretty much everyone cares about the NHS. They're just three items on the long list of things people care about. Corbyn does not want to create more grammar schools, but increase funding for the state schools we already have. He wants to abolish tuition fees (as ambitious as that may be, but hey, other countries have managed it), when they would otherwise keep going up. He wants to put funding back into an NHS which in crumbling to pieces (I think you'd struggle to find anyone in the general population who wants healthcare privatised, this ain't America). He wants caps on rent, which is abused, he wants to abolish zero-hour contracts, which are also abused. He wants to keep the triple-lock on pensioner incomes, which the Tories want to reduce to double, putting a pretty big dent in people's pensions. He wants to increase income tax only for the highest earners, who would still have plenty left over.

Need any more?

I'd say that the people who wanted to make the first £10k of your salary tax free are showing they understand the needs of the least well off better than the people who want to renationalise the railways. You didn't even address that point.

If the Tories want to show that they genuinely care about low-income earners, they'll need to do a lot more than raise the income tax threshold.

 

[UKMikey]

Mrs May has announced her replacement chief of staff as Gavin Barwell (the author of How To Win a Marginal Seat) who's just lost his marginal seat.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...othy-fiona-hill-election-latest-a7783871.html

 

[Famine]

I wouldn't consider people living under 30k a year to be abnormally affluent. It varies a lot, but they're all in a position where they can't just splurge on whatever whenever they feel like it, and if the boiler or the car kicks the bucket, that's a problem.

Our household income is less than that, and we've replaced the boiler and car in the last 12 months (in fact, both at the same time, literally 12 months ago). And we own about 40% of our house.

Compared to someone with a rented house, a rented TV, a eight-year old Focus on HP and a payday loan half the year, we're rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

The Conservatives are the ones who've been in power for the past seven years, for most of the global financial crisis, it's their job to sort it out, and they haven't done a particularly good job of it so far.

Absolutely, unless you mean getting the economy out of recession and back into growth (before other European countries), slashing the deficit by two-thirds, getting debt-to-GDP under control, increasing employment...

We already did the next bit.

Parents care about grammar schools.

Hi. Parent here. I don't care about grammar schools. Perhaps I'm too rich though.

I hate to be the one to tell you, but parents in general don't care about schools at all. Middle class ones do, and they care a lot. They study league tables and catchment areas. Some even move house when pregnant to ensure that the child is born within the catchment area of one school rather than another, so that they qualify for a place at a school with better GCSE results, 16 years before the kid will even take their GCSEs. Which is madness. Rich parents just shove the kids into a private school, and grammars don't enter into it.

But lower income parents... not so much caring. The kid goes to the school they went to. Or that their older sibling went to. League tables are an irrelevance.

When it comes to grammar schools, which are absolutely irrelevant for most of the country (and I worked in a non-grammar in an area where there was a grammar school - actually two, single-sex ones) right now, the only time they might care is when the 11+ happens. If the kid gets into the school, great. If not, no problems. The uniform cost used to be an issue sometimes, but since pretty much all schools have uniform now, that's gone by the wayside.

Students, and the parents of students care about tuition fees.

But most people don't - and it's baffling that someone would support free, selective, opt-in education for adults but be against free, selective, compulsory education for children.

Pretty much everyone cares about the NHS.

Yep. When we did this originally, I already said that most people do, so this isn't exactly a concern of just the normal/common/poor/whatever social group you're defining this time people.

He wants caps on rent, which is abused

There's already a cap on rent. It's called a mortgage. Mortgages are market-led and use Bank of England interest rates. If rent in an area is too expensive, buy a house and pay the cheaper mortgage instead. If you can't, then the rent isn't too expensive.

Yes, you'll commonly need at least a 10% deposit (90% LTV mortgage) and be means-tested for income, but that's part of the value equation here. If you aren't earning enough to build up a deposit while renting you're not earning enough to have a mortgage, but if you're earning enough to rent then you're earning enough to rent and the rent is cheaper.

he wants to abolish zero-hour contracts, which are also abused.

And since 1 million people, usually poorer but not always, are on zero-hour contracts, he wants to put 1 million people out of work. Good guy Corbyn.

He wants to keep the triple-lock on pensioner incomes, which the Tories want to reduce to double, putting a pretty big dent in people's pensions.

Ah yes, pensions. The thing that 18-30 year olds on £17k and less sit up at night worrying about.

He wants to increase income tax only for the highest earners, who would still have plenty left over.

Literally the politics of envy right there. The top 5% of earners already pay more than half of all income tax and you say it's not enough.

If the Tories want to show that they genuinely care about low-income earners, they'll need to do a lot more than raise the income tax threshold.

But they did do it. Labour did not. It went up by £200 a year across their entire term (saving £40 a year), but the Conservatives put it up by over 50% the first opportunity they got - saving £700 a year for everyone earning £10k a year or more, and £50 per thousand pounds of income for everyone below that. It's still rising too - it's £11,500 now. If you earn £11,500 or less, the Conservative government doesn't charge you for working. The last Labour government would have charged you up to £700.

That measure, more than any of the others you mention, directly affected every wage earner in the UK, but as a proportion of income it helped the poorest 20 million people far more. In the meantime you want to talk about Corbyn's plans to tackle middle-class concerns like grammar schools, pensions and university tuition fees to show how he's the guy who knows how the poor people live...


Incidentally, it transpires that Gordon Brown tried to do a deal with the DUP for parliamentary support in 2010, and Ian Paisley Jr. claims that Miliband also offered a deal to the DUP in 2015. This is odd, as Labour already has its own Northern Ireland anti-abortionist party, the SDLP.

Which all rather goes to show that whether they say they're Conservative or Labour, what you have is a politician in a different colour tie.

 

[Dotini]

Patrick Cockburn, reprinted from the Independent.

http://www.unz.com/pcockburn/britain-refuses-to-accept-how-terrorists-really-work/

snippets:

The Conservative government largely avoided being blamed during the election campaign for its failure to stop the terrorist attacks. It appealed to British communal solidarity in defiance of those who carried out the atrocities, which was a perfectly reasonable stance, though one that conveniently enables the Conservatives to pillory any critics for dividing the nation at a time of crisis. When Jeremy Corbyn correctly pointed out that the UK policy of regime change in Iraq, Syria and Libya had destroyed state authority and provided sanctuaries for al-Qaeda and Isis, he was furiously accused of seeking to downplay the culpability of the terrorists. Nobody made the charge stick that it was mistaken British foreign policies that empowered the terrorists by giving them the space in which to operate.

------

There is a self-interested motive for British governments to portray terrorism as essentially home-grown cancers within the Muslim community. Western governments as a whole like to pretend that their policy blunders, notably those of military intervention in the Middle East since 2001, did not prepare the soil for al-Qaeda and Isis. This enables them to keep good relations with authoritarian Sunni states like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan, which are notorious for aiding Salafi-jihadi movements. Placing the blame for terrorism on something vague and indefinable like “radicalisation” and “extremism” avoids embarrassing finger-pointing at Saudi-financed Wahhabism which has made 1.6 billion Sunni Muslims, a quarter of the world’s population, so much more receptive to al-Qaeda type movements today than it was 60 years ago.

Deliberate blindness to very specific places and people – Sunni states, Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia, Syrian and Libyan armed opposition – is a main reason why “the War on Terror” has failed since 9/11.

 

[Famine]

If I'm allowed to pick on just one word in that particular headline, when he says "Britain refuses to accept how terrorists really work", does he mean Britain as in the population or Britain as in the election propaganda of one party that fewer than 30% of the population voted for?

Only his article focuses on the latter, but the implication is the former, and that's an absolute load of cockburn.

 

[PeterJB]

Hi. Parent here. I don't care about grammar schools. Perhaps I'm too rich though.

I hate to be the one to tell you, but parents in general don't care about schools at all. Middle class ones do, and they care a lot. They study league tables and catchment areas. Some even move house when pregnant to ensure that the child is born within the catchment area of one school rather than another, so that they qualify for a place at a school with better GCSE results, 16 years before the kid will even take their GCSEs. Which is madness. Rich parents just shove the kids into a private school, and grammars don't enter into it.

But lower income parents... not so much caring. The kid goes to the school they went to. Or that their older sibling went to. League tables are an irrelevance.

When it comes to grammar schools, which are absolutely irrelevant for most of the country (and I worked in a non-grammar in an area where there was a grammar school - actually two, single-sex ones) right now, the only time they might care is when the 11+ happens. If the kid gets into the school, great. If not, no problems. The uniform cost used to be an issue sometimes, but since pretty much all schools have uniform now, that's gone by the wayside.

Perhaps I should clarify, parents care about the distribution of funding between state and grammar schools. The PM obviously wants to create more grammar schools and increase their funding, maybe she should think about sorting out the grave situation comprehensive schools are in. The point of comprehensive was that anyone could go regardless of background or finances. Grammar schools only further increase the divide between the working and middle classes. The last thing we need right now is to divert funding away from schools that everyone has a guaranteed place in.

But most people don't - and it's baffling that someone would support free, selective, opt-in education for adults but be against free, selective, compulsory education for children.

More than half a million people go in to higher education every year, and there are currently more than two million university students in the UK, those numbers are only going up. Many people now at university are part of the first generation in their family to do so, how many of them do you think can pay back a £27,000 loan in one go with room to spare? And how many more people need to go or have children that go for it to suddenly become an important issue?

There's already a cap on rent. It's called a mortgage. Mortgages are market-led and use Bank of England interest rates. If rent in an area is too expensive, buy a house and pay the cheaper mortgage instead. If you can't, then the rent isn't too expensive.

The key difference between mortgage and rent is that mortgage is only good in long-term situations. Not everyone is prepared to buy every house they live in and then have to spend God only knows how long paying it off, when renting gives you flexibility to move around if necessary. Which again is concern of students, who almost universally rent accomodation whilst studying, but of course all students are rich apparently and there aren't enough of them for it be a problem.

And since 1 million people, usually poorer but not always, are on zero-hour contracts, he wants to put 1 million people out of work. Good guy Corbyn.

Fortunately there are companies doing what they can make sure that doesn't happen.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/25/mcdonalds-contracts-uk-zero-hours-workers

Ah yes, pensions. The thing that 18-30 year olds on £17k and less sit up at night worrying about.

Who said you can't be old and poor at the same time? Or have family members that are?

Literally the politics of envy right there. The top 5% of earners already pay more than half of all income tax and you say it's not enough.

It's basic maths. If for a example you put a flat income tax rate of 20% on all earners, guess who is the least affected in the long run despite paying more when on paper it looks the same for all, and would still be the least affected if their tax rate was raised...

But they did do it. Labour did not. It went up by £200 a year across their entire term (saving £40 a year), but the Conservatives put it up by over 50% the first opportunity they got - saving £700 a year for everyone earning £10k a year or more, and £50 per thousand pounds of income for everyone below that. It's still rising too - it's £11,500 now. If you earn £11,500 or less, the Conservative government does charge you for working. The last Labour government would have charged you up to £700.

That measure, more than any of the others you mention, directly affected every wage earner in the UK, but as a proportion of income it helped the poorest 20 million people far more. In the meantime you want to talk about Corbyn's plans to tackle middle-class concerns like grammar schools, pensions and university tuition fees to show how he's the guy who knows how the poor people live...

Incidentally, it transpires that Gordon Brown tried to do a deal with the DUP for parliamentary support in 2010, and Ian Paisley Jr. claims that Miliband also offered a deal to the DUP in 2015. This is odd, as Labour already has its own Northern Ireland anti-abortionist party, the SDLP.

Which all rather goes to show that whether they say they're Conservative or Labour, what you have is a politician in a different colour tie.

Again, you're discussing things that Labour did before Corbyn was leader. During the Blair/Brown era and beyond I agree the difference between Labour and Conservative was not particularly profound. Under Corbyn they present a very different vision and ideology (which I have seen you previously acknowledge in this thread).

 

[Famine]

Perhaps I should clarify, parents care about the distribution of funding between state and grammar schools. The PM obviously wants to create more grammar schools and increase their funding, maybe she should think about sorting out the grave situation comprehensive schools are in. The point of comprehensive was that anyone could go regardless of background or finances. Grammar schools only further increase the divide between the working and middle classes. The last thing we need right now is to divert funding away from schools that everyone has a guaranteed place in.

Why not both? Corbyn wants to put £8bn into universities, which is opt-in, selective education for grown-ups, but is also in favour of increasing state school funding.

What's so wrong with opt-in, selective education for children that means Corbyn wants no more of it than already exists? Why shouldn't smart children get the chance to thrive in a selective environment? And why does it do anything to divide working and middle-class children? Are you suggesting that working class children are too stupid to get into a selective school?

More than half a million people go in to higher education every year, and there are currently more than two million university students in the UK, those numbers are only going up.

There are 10 million graduates in a 30 million+ workforce. Those that went to university instead of working are a minority, and an elective minority at that.

Many people now at university are part of the first generation in their family to do so, how many of them do you think can pay back a £27,000 loan in one go with room to spare?

Who said anything about paying back a loan in one go? That's not how loans work.

The key difference between mortgage and rent is that mortgage is only good in long-term situations.

Tripe. I owned a house for 8 months once.

Not everyone is prepared to buy every house they live in and then have to spend God only knows how long paying it off, when renting gives you flexibility to move around if necessary. Which again is concern of students, who almost universally rent accomodation whilst studying, but of course all students are rich apparently and there aren't enough of them for it be a problem.

Please try to stick to what's been said.

Remember, being a student is a career choice. It's one you make instead of working (although many make it as well as working part-time), but it's your choice. It's not like the costs of doing it are hidden from you and it all comes as a big shock once you show up to your first lecture - you know it's going to cost you, and you know how much. I'm still baffled why you think anyone else needs to pay for your choice to pursue a degree and career you want.

And the point still stands. The cap on rent is a mortgage repayment. There's no need for an artificial cap, because once rent exceeds a mortgage repayment it's cheaper to buy than rent. This is why most rents are less than the mortgage repayment for an equivalent house (if not always that much less).

Fortunately there are companies doing what they can make sure that doesn't happen.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/25/mcdonalds-contracts-uk-zero-hours-workers

A private company doing something beneficial for its employees without government force? Gosh, it's like free market economics or something. Oh, also:

The company said that about 80% of workers in the trial chose to remain on flexible contracts

... a choice which Corbyn wants to ban. Remember, he's on your side, McDonald's workers.

Who said you can't be old and poor at the same time? Or have family members that are?

Here comes a further redefinition of 'normal'...

Ultimately, most people don't give a rat's ass about pensions. They have a state one if they earn a wage, or they have a private one with their company. Not a lot of thought goes into it, and if you'd said 'triple lock' to most people before April they'd have thought it meant putting a chain on your door as well as lifting the handle up and turning the key.

It's basic maths. If for a example you put a flat income tax rate of 20% on all earners, guess who is the least affected in the long run despite paying more when on paper it looks the same for all, and would still be the least affected if their tax rate was raised...

It's basic equality. If you say that government should treat all people as equal but create a graded tax code to take more of a proportion of salary along with more of an actual monetary value from wealthier people, guess who is the least equally treated.

But that's the problem with liberal and socialist values when paired together. You want to treat everyone equally so badly, that no-one can ever have any more money than anyone else, regardless of how difficult, skillful or stressful their job is. The end point is government producing all goods and services as it is needed, with zero private ownership.


Tax is a punishment. We tax cigarettes to punish smokers*. We tax alcohol to punish drinkers*. We tax fuel to punish car drivers*. We punish them because they are using up resources, and with the tax they pay we replenish the resources. The health service is paid to look after the effects of smoking and drinking. The roads are rebuilt to look after the effects of wear and tear.

So why does anyone want to punish people for working - and punish them more for working harder, more vital or more skillful jobs? What resources are they using up? What harm are they doing by working? Income tax is moronic.

Again, you're discussing things that Labour did before Corbyn was leader. During the Blair/Brown era and beyond I agree the difference between Labour and Conservative was not particularly profound. Under Corbyn they present a very different vision and ideology (which I have seen you previously acknowledge in this thread)

And I'm discussing things that the Conservatives did under Cameron, not May. The fact is that the Conservatives did more to help the poor-but-employed in their first 12 months than the Labour party - for whom Corbyn was an MP - in 13 years.

All the things you've said Corbyn would do with his awareness of the life of normal people are absolutely nothing compared to that one act. It wouldn't take much to acknowledge this.

*Each of these taxes is on a choice, and per use. However, a 20-a-day smoker on £17k a year will pay a larger proportion of their income in cigarette tax than a 20-a-day smoker on £170k a year. Would you support lower rate per-use taxation on products according to income too? Show your payslip at the garage to get cheaper fuel?

 

[Lizard]

If I'm allowed to pick on just one word in that particular headline, when he says "Britain refuses to accept how terrorists really work", does he mean Britain as in the population or Britain as in the election propaganda of one party that fewer than 30% of the population voted for?

Only his article focuses on the latter, but the implication is the former, and that's an absolute load of cockburn.

Britain does refuse to accept how terrorists really work. Otherwise the massive amount of hate towards Islam would not exist.