General Election 2019 thread

[ChopleyIOM]

Haha, very good - never heard of "If you're not voting Labour at 20 you haven't got a heart, if you're not voting Tory at 40 you haven't got a brain.."

Your graph fully endorses that old political saying.

The thing is dunover, that only worked when average folks were doing better over time, what do the young of today see around them? They're getting left behind as their parents and grandparents enjoyed stuff they can only dream of. Secure employment, decent wages, affordable housing, a solid pension. Even in my lifetime, things that used to be free - (university education for example, student loans were just coming in when I was at Uni in 1992/93, but they were merely 'top-ups' to the old grant system, and the fees were 100% covered by the state) - are now saddling our young people with tens of thousands of pounds of debt before they even start work.

Pensioners get their triple-lock with inflation at 10% (the Tories know who they need to look after), whilst the young are told to suck up a pay 'rise' of 2-3% and not be greedy and demand more.

The idea behind the adage you source is based around people getting more selfish as they get older, and wanting to protect what they have accrued, but if our young people are accruing nothing, what are they voting Tory to protect?

The polling plus demographics is starting to come through now, and it's pretty clear, the young of today aren't turning into the Tories of tomorrow, because there's nothing left to bribe them with, they are feeling the full impact of 'market forces', and it isn't pretty. Thatcher pulled a bit of a blinder with basically selling off the entire UK, and the working person did get a slice of that, with council houses sold off for peanuts, and great national institutions shilled out to rapacious shareholders, but ordinary folks did get some crumbs from the table and made a bit of money. My dad worked for British Gas when it was privatised and took all the share options he could, he did OK out of it, but then took early retirement when the newly privatised entity made it clear they were going to slash their pension scheme to boost profits. (i.e. The next generation of workers, weren't going to get anything like he did.)

Point is, you can only pull that trick once, there's nothing left to sell now, the cupboards are bare, UK Plc is owned and exploited by every other nation on the planet, and our young people are paying the price.

I guess it's easy to think the Tories are great if you grew up in an era when a superb education, up to and including university was free, when you could buy a nice house for three or four times your salary, work out 30-40 years in a solid job and retire on a nice pension with a big stack of cash, and then decide 'Yeah this is sweet, I'll vote Tory to protect what I have'. (I mean, massively fucking selfish, but I can understand it.)

And lest we forget that the era that facilitated that dynamic was the era when (proper) Labour governments were most prevalent, New Labour weren't great in terms of wealth inequality, I'll give you that, they did a lot to help those at the bottom, but were very blasé about those at the top turning into fucking mercenaries.

TL: DR - don't bet on the young left wing and liberal folks of today turning into the Tories of tomorrow, because the old construct has broken.

 

[dunover]

The thing is dunover, that only worked when average folks were doing better over time, what do the young of today see around them? They're getting left behind as their parents and grandparents enjoyed stuff they can only dream of. Secure employment, decent wages, affordable housing, a solid pension. Even in my lifetime, things that used to be free - (university education for example, student loans were just coming in when I was at Uni in 1992/93, but they were merely 'top-ups' to the old grant system, and the fees were 100% covered by the state) - are now saddling our young people with tens of thousands of pounds of debt before they even start work.

Pensioners get their triple-lock with inflation at 10% (the Tories know who they need to look after), whilst the young are told to suck up a pay 'rise' of 2-3% and not be greedy and demand more.

The idea behind the adage you source is based around people getting more selfish as they get older, and wanting to protect what they have accrued, but if our young people are accruing nothing, what are they voting Tory to protect?

The polling plus demographics is starting to come through now, and it's pretty clear, the young of today aren't turning into the Tories of tomorrow, because there's nothing left to bribe them with, they are feeling the full impact of 'market forces', and it isn't pretty. Thatcher pulled a bit of a blinder with basically selling off the entire UK, and the working person did get a slice of that, with council houses sold off for peanuts, and great national institutions shilled out to rapacious shareholders, but ordinary folks did get some crumbs from the table and made a bit of money. My dad worked for British Gas when it was privatised and took all the share options he could, he did OK out of it, but then took early retirement when the newly privatised entity made it clear they were going to slash their pension scheme to boost profits. (i.e. The next generation of workers, weren't going to get anything like he did.)

Point is, you can only pull that trick once, there's nothing left to sell now, the cupboards are bare, UK Plc is owned and exploited by every other nation on the planet, and our young people are paying the price.

I guess it's easy to think the Tories are great if you grew up in an era when a superb education, up to and including university was free, when you could buy a nice house for three or four times your salary, work out 30-40 years in a solid job and retire on a nice pension with a big stack of cash, and then decide 'Yeah this is sweet, I'll vote Tory to protect what I have'. (I mean, massively fucking selfish, but I can understand it.)

And lest we forget that the era that facilitated that dynamic was the era when (proper) Labour governments were most prevalent, New Labour weren't great in terms of wealth inequality, I'll give you that, they did a lot to help those at the bottom, but were very blasé about those at the top turning into fucking mercenaries.

TL: DR - don't bet on the young left wing and liberal folks of today turning into the Tories of tomorrow, because the old construct has broken.

Actually, the student loan will not be paid back in most cases unless the recipient earns a decent whack, many won't pay a sausage. The 'peanuts' for council houses which actually gave the long-term tenants benefits of cheap homes, was a massively popular policy. The old quote from Thatcher about her greatest achievement and purportedly stating 'Tony Blair' had a great many truths about it. She basically lifted 20% of the former 'working class' into property ownership, those floating voters who swung between Lab and Con each election, thus never ensuring a consistent long-term policy. This effectively removed the socialist option from the electorate and in nearly half a century we've not endured a socialist administration, and whether you accept it or not, we aren't likely to have one in the forseeable.

So the Con or Con-lite (Labour) are the options. The shortage of homes is solely down to excessive population of these islands which has caused demand to far outstrip supply and short of concreting over the land it isn't likely to be resolved, which is actually benefiting us homeowners so I wouldn't complain too much!

As for 'secure employment' are you having a laugh? You've contradicted yourself. You were only saying recently that we have a so-called labour shortage and need more migrants despite the fact 1.5m are out of work which is quite a low figure in of itself, therefore secure employment should be easy to find according to your assertions. The early to mid 1980's I have to remind you had 3 million out of work (mainly due to the restructuring of nationalized and inefficient old industries) and getting ANY job was bloody hard at the time, nothing like as easy as it is today. What was that saying in Liverpool - "Vote Tory, retire at 18!" QED

So which is it? - there's no secure employment to be had therefore we don't require migrants at all, OR there's a surfeit of jobs (so contradicting your spiel I've quoted) and there IS employment? You need to make your mind up mate.

If you think the level of possessions and standard of living of your grandparents was anything like as high as it is now you are in dreamland. For a start, as you've already said, the triple lock has raised and maintained basic state pension on top of occupational ones, whether final-salary or money purchase. There are more pensioners now owning homes outright than there ever were back then thus having no accommodation costs.

There seems to be a sense of entitlement among the young that relieves them of the ability to see the hard slog over 2-3 decades necessary to own a home and build up a career and savings that these 'rich old racist Tory pensioners' somehow seem to have landed in their laps with little work and no sacrifice, no not having a foreign holiday each year, no not having a new car, no not having the latest phone or telly. If it ain't instant gratification, it aint fair, government's fault I tells ya, where's Jezza when you need him......

 

[goatwack]

I don't think my grandparents, even my parents were exactly 'living the dream'.

My earliest memories of them was foraging for elderberries and then taking the haul back to our makeshift tent on the outskirts of the Ferrier Estate.

Deciding they could no longer afford to keep me, I ended up being raised by wolves. So with that went my dreams, and N.I contributions

Getting older is simply consolidating what little you have, and is not indicative of any particular time in history. The only reason more 'mature' people would hoard anything is because they've seen what free-spending results in. So ultimately, becoming 'conservative' is a fairly normal state of affairs, as is changing one's mindset from 20 to 40.

You should see me now, I'm a right chintzy bastard (but loaded)

 

[interlog]

Maybe Chopley should move to the Utopia that is Europe, where there is no living standard crisis and wealth is flowing freely.

I watch quite a bit of the Dutch politics debate on Youtube and you could be forgiven that you are watching the UK version. Same problems, just a difference in language.

 

[mack341]

The thing is dunover, that only worked when average folks were doing better over time, what do the young of today see around them? They're getting left behind as their parents and grandparents enjoyed stuff they can only dream of. Secure employment, decent wages, affordable housing, a solid pension. Even in my lifetime, things that used to be free - (university education for example, student loans were just coming in when I was at Uni in 1992/93, but they were merely 'top-ups' to the old grant system, and the fees were 100% covered by the state) - are now saddling our young people with tens of thousands of pounds of debt before they even start work.

Pensioners get their triple-lock with inflation at 10% (the Tories know who they need to look after), whilst the young are told to suck up a pay 'rise' of 2-3% and not be greedy and demand more.

The idea behind the adage you source is based around people getting more selfish as they get older, and wanting to protect what they have accrued, but if our young people are accruing nothing, what are they voting Tory to protect?

The polling plus demographics is starting to come through now, and it's pretty clear, the young of today aren't turning into the Tories of tomorrow, because there's nothing left to bribe them with, they are feeling the full impact of 'market forces', and it isn't pretty. Thatcher pulled a bit of a blinder with basically selling off the entire UK, and the working person did get a slice of that, with council houses sold off for peanuts, and great national institutions shilled out to rapacious shareholders, but ordinary folks did get some crumbs from the table and made a bit of money. My dad worked for British Gas when it was privatised and took all the share options he could, he did OK out of it, but then took early retirement when the newly privatised entity made it clear they were going to slash their pension scheme to boost profits. (i.e. The next generation of workers, weren't going to get anything like he did.)

Point is, you can only pull that trick once, there's nothing left to sell now, the cupboards are bare, UK Plc is owned and exploited by every other nation on the planet, and our young people are paying the price.

I guess it's easy to think the Tories are great if you grew up in an era when a superb education, up to and including university was free, when you could buy a nice house for three or four times your salary, work out 30-40 years in a solid job and retire on a nice pension with a big stack of cash, and then decide 'Yeah this is sweet, I'll vote Tory to protect what I have'. (I mean, massively fucking selfish, but I can understand it.)

And lest we forget that the era that facilitated that dynamic was the era when (proper) Labour governments were most prevalent, New Labour weren't great in terms of wealth inequality, I'll give you that, they did a lot to help those at the bottom, but were very blasé about those at the top turning into fucking mercenaries.

TL: DR - don't bet on the young left wing and liberal folks of today turning into the Tories of tomorrow, because the old construct has broken.

I agree with some of your points, but probably disagree on the causes and solutions. The news floated the other week about cross generational mortgages is another sign things are getting worse.

I definitely don't believe the older generations had it easy in the 80s etc, they had it 'normal', youngsters today are getting a worse deal but not because their parents or others bought a council house [which tended to be badly built, damp/cold problems, and the councils in any case made a profit from the sale]

It is strange, most of the goods sold in shops during 80s to mid 90s would've been made in the uk, clothes, furniture etc..and yet the shops could still afford to provide decent pension schemes/perks, job security, now everything is made with cheap labour [far east mainly but a few other places] and we have things like zero hr contracts. I suppose the internet plays a part in taking away business share, but even amazon run their staff ragged:

Amazon has been accused of treating staff like robots as it emerged that ambulances had been called out 600 times to the online retailer’s UK warehouses in the past three years.

So possibly more greed at the top and the govts are unable to stand up to it, either they're effectively bought or the multinationals are too powerful. And the same firms also lobby the EU massively.

 

[Kroffe]

I agree with some of your points, but probably disagree on the causes and solutions. The news floated the other week about cross generational mortgages is another sign things are getting worse.

I definitely don't believe the older generations had it easy in the 80s etc, they had it 'normal', youngsters today are getting a worse deal but not because their parents or others bought a council house [which tended to be badly built, damp/cold problems, and the councils in any case made a profit from the sale]

It is strange, most of the goods sold in shops during 80s to mid 90s would've been made in the uk, clothes, furniture etc..and yet the shops could still afford to provide decent pension schemes/perks, job security, now everything is made with cheap labour [far east mainly but a few other places] and we have things like zero hr contracts. I suppose the internet plays a part in taking away business share, but even amazon run their staff ragged:

Amazon has been accused of treating staff like robots as it emerged that ambulances had been called out 600 times to the online retailer’s UK warehouses in the past three years.

So possibly more greed at the top and the govts are unable to stand up to it, either they're effectively bought or the multinationals are too powerful. And the same firms also lobby the EU massively.

The wealth gap has massively widened, and is also focused to a much smaller % of people today.
Usa is of course an extreme example, but its fucked all over.

"A study of 300 top US companies released by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) on Tuesday found the average gap between CEO and median worker pay jumped to 670-to-1 (meaning the average CEO received $670 in compensation for every $1 the worker received). The ratio was up from 604-to-1 in 2020."

Going like this we will have a couple trillionaires before reaching 2030, the world does not need trillionaires.

Unrelated: how to build a guillotine

 

[Mr_Slot5]

Going like this we will have a couple trillionaires before reaching 2030, the world does not need trillionaires.

I've never understood why people need to accumulate so much wealth. It's more money than anyone can feasibly spend in a lifetime and it means very little if you're a business owner unwilling to pay your staff a decent whack.

All I can think it's for is for personal status reasons. But again, when all said and done that also means very little in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Kroffe]

I've never understood why people need to accumulate so much wealth. It's more money than anyone can feasibly spend in a lifetime and it means very little if you're a business owner unwilling to pay your staff a decent whack.

All I can think it's for is for personal status reasons. But again, when all said and done that also means very little in the grand scheme of things.

Yeah, its such an obscene amount of money some people have its hard to wrap your head around how much it is.
The different between a million and a billion is pretty much a billion.
Or in seconds a million is 11.5 days, a billion is 31.5 years.
Forget spending it in one lifetime, they could live like kings for a thousand lifetimes and still not put a dent in their wealth.

 

[dionysus]

My earliest memories of them was foraging for elderberries

well, that explains my early childhood British memories, then

 

[mcgameboy]

Actual excerpt from a WhatsApp group I'm a member of, yesterday afternoon.

Obviously I need to update things to account for the 'funny' names now being used for Starmer and Rayner, as Corbin and Flabbott are out of date.

View attachment 169804

That's NOT ME

Because if it was, I would already be permanently residing in a room covered in rubber wallpaper.....

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I'm wondering if maybe we do actually have some common ground here, specifically around wealth inequality and the societal destruction that neoliberal economics has wrought. (Leading on from the points last night about the hurdles that young people face with regard to things that were considered perfectly normal for working class people to be able to do in the past, such as buying their own house.)

This is something I've been interested in recently, because I got fed up with Tory ministers going on telly spouting off about them having 'given away' £450bn during Covid, hence tax rises were required to get some of it back, and I remember thinking to myself, 'Well where did it all fucking go then?' £450bn is £11K for every adult in the country, and yet the people I know back in the UK weren't all sitting on an extra £11K, so who got their £11K?

Then I happened across this guy, he's not a lefty, he's not actually political, he's an economist. His story is that he grew up working class in London, his dad was a postman. He excelled in school at maths, went on to get a good education and started working in the finance sector, specifically at Citibank, where he became their most profitable trader, and made himself a millionaire in his twenties. He made his money in the wake of the 2008 crash, essentially betting the bank's money that the economy wouldn't recover, every other economist thought he was crazy, except he was right, and he made a fortune.

In the end he quit his job, because he felt what he was doing was fundamentally wrong, and he decided to dedicate his life to fighting wealth inequality.

The video I've linked below was made early on in Covid, back in 2020, when the furlough scheme was getting into gear (at the time government support was £300bn, it would later grow to £450bn). At the time this guy was once again predicting that the economy wouldn't recover, and that the actions being taken would lead to high inflation, low growth, and continued suppressed wages for ordinary people, whilst pooling all that 'free money' into the hands of the rich, leaving the average taxpayers to pick up the tab. All of this has come to pass.

Give this guy 14 minutes of your time, I really do think you'll learn something, I certainly did.

I must stress again he's not some raving lefty, he repeatedly stresses that he is not political, but an economist, he's offered to work with any political party who'll sit down with him. Also note he used his own smarts to make himself a millionaire in his twenties, he never needs to work again, so he's got some legit credentials.

His channel is here, he's also increasingly been showing up in the media recently -

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

He did an interview with the Guardian the other week (the right wing press aren't going near him, as even though he isn't political, the changes he's pushing for are antithetical to neoliberals) -

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

And here's the video I would respectfully suggest you watch, it's only 14 minutes long, and remember, he made this at the start of Covid, every single thing he predicted has happened. If you like this video, have a look around on his channel, there's loads more stuff there where he explains how different elements of the economy work.

 

[slot_zombie]

My dad was an engineer on an average salary, mum did a little bit of part time work but mostly stayed home to look after us.

We never went short, but holidays were always in the UK and food was always own-brand.

Anyhow, by some alchemy they retired at 55 on a nice final salary pension, living in a house worth half a million and mortgage paid off.

Not sure what went awry, but that's not possible these days. The only way I managed to get on the housing ladder at all is through handouts.

I have to do other stuff just to keep my head above water and pay the energy bills, such as crypto trading, and feck paying tax on that, got to look after our own first in a crisis, they have their hands in my PAYE every month already and they'd just piss it up the wall on shite or "foreign aid", as per.

Anyway, I do agree about most of the inequality and harder times points, just don't agree that the solution is wokery and Labour.

(edited to add I'm not advocating breaking the law, just using legal loopholes to avoid paying tax like the rich do, such as non crystallisation of assets and colllateralised 0% loans)

 

[interlog]

I'm wondering if maybe we do actually have some common ground here, specifically around wealth inequality and the societal destruction that neoliberal economics has wrought. (Leading on from the points last night about the hurdles that young people face with regard to things that were considered perfectly normal for working class people to be able to do in the past, such as buying their own house.)

This is something I've been interested in recently, because I got fed up with Tory ministers going on telly spouting off about them having 'given away' £450bn during Covid, hence tax rises were required to get some of it back, and I remember thinking to myself, 'Well where did it all fucking go then?' £450bn is £11K for every adult in the country, and yet the people I know back in the UK weren't all sitting on an extra £11K, so who got their £11K?

Then I happened across this guy, he's not a lefty, he's not actually political, he's an economist. His story is that he grew up working class in London, his dad was a postman. He excelled in school at maths, went on to get a good education and started working in the finance sector, specifically at Citibank, where he became their most profitable trader, and made himself a millionaire in his twenties. He made his money in the wake of the 2008 crash, essentially betting the bank's money that the economy wouldn't recover, every other economist thought he was crazy, except he was right, and he made a fortune.

In the end he quit his job, because he felt what he was doing was fundamentally wrong, and he decided to dedicate his life to fighting wealth inequality.

The video I've linked below was made early on in Covid, back in 2020, when the furlough scheme was getting into gear (at the time government support was £300bn, it would later grow to £450bn). At the time this guy was once again predicting that the economy wouldn't recover, and that the actions being taken would lead to high inflation, low growth, and continued suppressed wages for ordinary people, whilst pooling all that 'free money' into the hands of the rich, leaving the average taxpayers to pick up the tab. All of this has come to pass.

Give this guy 14 minutes of your time, I really do think you'll learn something, I certainly did.

I must stress again he's not some raving lefty, he repeatedly stresses that he is not political, but an economist, he's offered to work with any political party who'll sit down with him. Also note he used his own smarts to make himself a millionaire in his twenties, he never needs to work again, so he's got some legit credentials.

His channel is here, he's also increasingly been showing up in the media recently -

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

He did an interview with the Guardian the other week (the right wing press aren't going near him, as even though he isn't political, the changes he's pushing for are antithetical to neoliberals) -

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

And here's the video I would respectfully suggest you watch, it's only 14 minutes long, and remember, he made this at the start of Covid, every single thing he predicted has happened. If you like this video, have a look around on his channel, there's loads more stuff there where he explains how different elements of the economy work.

Some of it that this chap in the video discusses makes sense. Some of it doesn't at all.

He refers to his prediction that unemployment following the end of the furlough scheme would go up because Companies would not reemploy the furloughed workers. The opposite is happening, hence the crisis in the leisure, tourist and hospitality industry where they are crying out for staff.

He mentioned that those that worked through the Covid crisis and earned their full money (the rich office people working from home) accumulated more wealth that they didn't spent and kind of blaming them. I was one of those workers (key worker) so am I to blame too?

And then his solution, tax the wealthy more. It is a solution that is to be looked at with caution because if you start taxing the wealthy too much, they will then leave, it in turn resulting in less tax flowing into the Government's coffers.

 

[bamberfishcake]

Anyway, I do agree about most of the inequality and harder times points, just don't agree that the solution is wokery and Labour.

I think when you sit outside of left or right, don't align yourself with a view or take a stand just because you blindly support red or blue, it's much easier to see the bigger picture.

The solution is radical reform, until then, be prepared for more debt because it's the only thing keeping the UK afloat.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Some of it that this chap in the video discusses makes sense. Some of it doesn't at all.

He refers to his prediction that unemployment following the end of the furlough scheme would go up because Companies would not reemploy the furloughed workers. The opposite is happening, hence the crisis in the leisure, tourist and hospitality industry where they are crying out for staff.

He mentioned that those that worked through the Covid crisis and earned their full money (the rich office people working from home) accumulated more wealth that they didn't spent and kind of blaming them. I was one of those workers (key worker) so am I to blame too?

And then his solution, tax the wealthy more. It is a solution that is to be looked at with caution because if you start taxing the wealthy too much, they will then leave, it in turn resulting in less tax flowing into the Government's coffers.

The thing about unemployment is that whilst the unemployment itself didn't come to pass, the stagnation in, and suppression of wages has come to pass, with pay 'rises' tending to be well under the rate of inflation.

Note that when he talks about the rich, he means rich in the sense of those who own and control wealth (i.e. super rich), he's not talking about folks who work a relatively normal job for relatively normal pay, so no, he's not 'blaming you' for anything (this is something he talks about in his other videos). I personally (and by extension our household) did OK through Covid, I switched to working from home, my pay stayed the same, and our expenses dropped, as did our discretionary spending 'cause everything was shut - we had more money in the bank at the end of Covid than we had at the start.

But no, he really isn't talking about coming after people like me or you for more tax.

As for taxing the wealthy more and them responding by buggering off, he's said he'll be covering that in a video to come soon, and I'm interested to hear his solution to that. But ultimately just because a problem is difficult, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to tackle it! I don't have the option of 'managing my taxes efficiently', tax and NI just gets taken out of my pay every month, case closed. To my mind it's morally repugnant that those who have massive amounts of money simply have the option to spend their way out of paying their fair share.

He goes into some of what he's talking about here, whereby there are huge amounts of wealth and income that sit entirely outside the tax system.

 

[interlog]

The thing about unemployment is that whilst the unemployment itself didn't come to pass, the stagnation in, and suppression of wages has come to pass, with pay 'rises' tending to be well under the rate of inflation.

Note that when he talks about the rich, he means rich in the sense of those who own and control wealth (i.e. super rich), he's not talking about folks who work a relatively normal job for relatively normal pay, so no, he's not 'blaming you' for anything (this is something he talks about in his other videos). I personally (and by extension our household) did OK through Covid, I switched to working from home, my pay stayed the same, and our expenses dropped, as did our discretionary spending 'cause everything was shut - we had more money in the bank at the end of Covid than we had at the start.

But no, he really isn't talking about coming after people like me or you for more tax.

As for taxing the wealthy more and them responding by buggering off, he's said he'll be covering that in a video to come soon, and I'm interested to hear his solution to that. But ultimately just because a problem is difficult, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to tackle it! I don't have the option of 'managing my taxes efficiently', tax and NI just gets taken out of my pay every month, case closed. To my mind it's morally repugnant that those who have massive amounts of money simply have the option to spend their way out of paying their fair share.

He goes into some of what he's talking about here, whereby there are huge amounts of wealth and income that sit entirely outside the tax system.

But that is exactly what he said. Those that were on 80% of their wages just got by, by spending it on the essentials whilst the "rich" that earned their full wage stopped 20% of their usual spending. That is true because, just like you, I couldn't spend the money that I usually did on things such as holidays, eating out etc. He didn't differentiate between the likes of you and me and the super rich. To be honest, I took a little offence by what he said regarding this.

As to wage increases to match inflation. Very tricky. If wages are to raise in line with inflation, it will drive up the cost fuelling inflation further. I don't have the answer how to break the cycle. I myself had a 4% wage increase this year. Doesn't match the rate of inflation. Our LGV drivers, however, managed to get a 12% increase (Unionised so driven by Sharon Graham) which, in my opinion, is not the answer to the solution either. It will drive cost into the business that will need to be recovered and the end consumer will end up suffering by higher prices at the till.

 

[ChopleyIOM]

But that is exactly what he said. Those that were on 80% of their wages just got by, by spending it on the essentials whilst the "rich" that earned their full wage stopped 20% of their usual spending. That is true because, just like you, I couldn't spend the money that I usually did on things such as holidays, eating out etc. He didn't differentiate between the likes of you and me and the super rich. To be honest, I took a little offence by what he said regarding this.

As to wage increases to match inflation. Very tricky. If wages are to raise in line with inflation, it will drive up the cost fuelling inflation further. I don't have the answer how to break the cycle. I myself had a 4% wage increase this year. Doesn't match the rate of inflation. Our LGV drivers, however, managed to get a 12% increase (Unionised so driven by Sharon Graham) which, in my opinion, is not the answer to the solution either. It will drive cost into the business that will need to be recovered and the end consumer will end up suffering by higher prices at the till.

OK I've just rewatched the video and yes I can see how it could be seen as him talking about normal people who got through Covid OK financially and maybe had a bit of extra cash at the end of it, what I can say is that having watched a fair few of his other videos, and having seen some of his media appearances, he absolutely isn't talking about folks like us. When he uses the word 'rich', he isn't talking about us (and I'm certainly not rich!), indeed he makes it clear he isn't even talking about lawyers or bankers or whatever earning £100K+ and the like, he's talking mainly about the people who own wealth and assets. (See the video linked above about wealth versus income.)

He was asked in one interview a question along the lines of what about the granny who bought a house in 1970 and now it's worth two million quid, and again, he makes it clear he's not talking about people like that.

His point is that in the final analysis, a good chunk of that £450bn the government paid out over Covid has ended up in the pockets of the very wealthy, people who were already rich before Covid, and who are even richer now. Folks like us with maybe a few extra grand in our pockets, are not what he's talking about - he's talking about people with tens or hundreds of millions, or billions.

He openly acknowledges that what he's proposing would mean he'd pay more tax, but that it's the right thing to do.

We must all be able to see that there's a lot of money sloshing around at the moment, house prices on the IOM have gone crackers, we paid £185K for our house in 2007, one just down the road, pretty much identical to ours, went on the market a few weeks ago for £350K, that's mental. I earn more than I did in 2007, but if our house had cost £350K back then, there isn't a hope in hell we'd have been able to afford it. (It was our first property purchase, prior to that we'd always rented, but I got fed up of paying other people's mortgages for them, and we had to really stretch to get in at £185K, I remember my 'mortgage car' was a 1985 Vauxhall Carlton that I bought for £500, that fortunately lasted as long as I needed it to.)

So if you're a young person now, maybe earning £20-£25K, what possible hope do you ever have of buying a modest family house, unless the bank of mum and dad can help you out, or you get some other sort of windfall?

(This is, incidentally, one of the reasons why young people aren't having enough babies and our birth rate is cratering, because they quite understandably want to get housing sorted first.)

I don't want our house to be worth £350K, I think it's obscene, it doesn't make us any 'richer', because at the end of the day we still need a house to live in as a family, so our house is just worth a house, but the ladder is being pulled up behind us for younger people, who now see home ownership as something that will be out of their reach forever.

The point is houses are worth that much because some people are paying those prices, and who's paying those prices? People who are already loaded and have money to splash around, it's pooling assets and wealth into the hands of those who are already rich or very rich, and leaving ordinary folks behind. One of my colleagues basically earns the same amount as I do, but he's not been on the island that long, and he can't afford to buy, he can only rent, rents are sky high too, which limits his ability to save for a deposit, and even if he does his best to scrimp and save, property prices are running away into the distance to the extent he can't possibly hope to keep up.

If you're managing to save a few grand per year, but the average house is going up £10K or more per year (as ours has) - you're screwed!

And yet somehow the tax burden that ordinary working people in the UK are expected to pay, is now the highest it's been since the 1940s! (Thanks Rishi! Maybe you could pay a bit more tax on the £730m you and your missus have got, eh?)



That is some fucked up shit.

 

[goatwack]

Tried watching a video, lost me around two seconds in when he claimed he was from a poor background yet studied at LSE and Oxford

 

[ChopleyIOM]

Tried watching a video, lost me around two seconds in when he claimed he was from a poor background yet studied at LSE and Oxford

I fail to see why those things have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[goatwack]

What is it with these cringeworthy slogans they foist upon the unsuspecting public? Yes, very good Penny Mordaunt

PM 4 PM

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

And as if that wasn't bad enough, she then reels off clips inadvertently showing convicted murderers! You go girl!

 

[ChopleyIOM]

A reminder that the next Prime Minister of the UK will be chosen by around 200,000 wealthy pensioners.

And don't the candidates know it.

I suspect this Tory leadership contest will be the most depressing experience for quite some time.

 

[goatwack]

Even though it'll be decided in-house, I'd expect the next leader that inherits the Prime Ministership to call an early General Election, much like the May> Johnson transfer.

End of the day they have to decide on someone, however much opposing parties would love them to flounder leaderless

And the notion that eg Labour figureheads like Blair, Corbyn, Sir Keir grew up mining coal and making ends meet, and not been mingling with the rich and powerful is quite amusing I must confess!

 

[slot_zombie]

Not really liking the look of the chancers candidates, especially Sunak. Penny Mordaunt is slightly easy on the eye after a few pints (in a pinch..) so we'll go with 'PM for PM'.

Well, it's a better selection process than arguing about who has the best definition of of a woman, and pronoun usage.

 

[goatwack]

I recall the widespread hesitancy from all sides in attributing the characteristics of a woman, with the likes of Boris avoiding the question of what a woman is, like his life depended on it, a couple of years ago.

Only as of late have we seen ministers lining up to impart their answers, I think Boris not too long ago, and Sunak fairly recently. Though obviously emboldened to open up on the subject, I suspect it was a calculated move on their part, as they figured alienating 50% of the population wasn't worth the risk, as opposed to the minority he 'might' offend, of which around 0.03% actually would likely vote

Still not a definitive 'take' from any of the other parties, to my knowledge? And these are people with wives, mothers and daughters

Makes you wonder why they'd tolerate their antics to be fair

 

[ChopleyIOM]

I can't quite believe I'm saying this, but Grant Shapps had the most sensible take.