Momentum finally takes control of Labour
Discussion
JagLover said:
The article you linked too is referring to INCOME inequality which is very different and if it has been reducing is mainly due to a higher minimum wage and in work benefits.
It is claimed that wealth inequality has risen in the past ten years due to the housing bubble combined with falling home ownership.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40318284
Which is why, for all of the fat cattery, the only way that this is likely to be materially changed by a Corbyn government is by soaking the middle classes. It is claimed that wealth inequality has risen in the past ten years due to the housing bubble combined with falling home ownership.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40318284
BOR said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Why is it that wanting the chance to earn more money or keep more of what you've already earned is characterised as 'me me me'. While if you want some of what someone else has earned that's 'wanting a better society'?
Because unless you believe in the Goldman Sachs Magic Money Tree, then there is a finite pot of money, and at the moment that money is being hosed into boardrooms where bonuses are now measured in 100s of millions of pounds.The median salary is something grotesque like GBP 26k, and has remained at that level for years, while boardroom pay soars.
At some point, even the lemonade tory is going to accept that he has been f
ked over by the Conservatives, and the tory vote will collapse.WEALTH is being created all the time, if you let it. But confiscate it from those who create it and guess what, they stop? Whether they collected high salaries in boardrooms or £26k on the shop floor.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Based upon averages that may be the case, however what I am talking about is the ftse Board pay differentials. These have increased hugely above the average worker pay, this against a background of pay stagnation in the worker pay packet. The differential used to be something like x20 of the average worker pay, now it’s more like x250. Happy to be corrected on the numbers but in a nutshell that is the problem. Add to that the fact that these huge payments attract National media attention which stirs people like me up and you have a recipe for growing problems.
The wealth gap may have shrunk in recent times owing to the generosity of benefits and the shrinkage of middle market pay.
Hasn’t the world changed a lot with globalisation, making the job of a FTSE CEO more complicated than it used to be?The wealth gap may have shrunk in recent times owing to the generosity of benefits and the shrinkage of middle market pay.
Why was 20x the right number?
Surely more tax for the government is a good thing, as it can be used to support the poorest in society?
Like I said, happy to be corrected on the numbers.
Yes more tax for Government to distribute into Society is definitely a good thing. But this does not excuse the excess bonus culture at the top.
JagLover said:
Yipper said:
The wealth gap between rich and poor is actually shrinking in the UK.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4708718/Ri...
The reason mobs like Momentum are on the rise is because Corbyn promised in 2016 to steal money from the old rich and hand it for free to young poor students. It energized hundreds of thousands of young communists who want their free money.
The article you linked too is referring to INCOME inequality which is very different and if it has been reducing is mainly due to a higher minimum wage and in work benefits.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4708718/Ri...
The reason mobs like Momentum are on the rise is because Corbyn promised in 2016 to steal money from the old rich and hand it for free to young poor students. It energized hundreds of thousands of young communists who want their free money.
It is claimed that wealth inequality has risen in the past ten years due to the housing bubble combined with falling home ownership.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40318284
Asset wealth (BBC article) is mostly what people have on paper and in theory.
The actual money people have in their pockets every day is getting better for poorer people. The gap is closing there.
crankedup said:
Yes more tax for Government to distribute into Society is definitely a good thing.
Not necessarily.crankedup said:
But this does not excuse the excess bonus culture at the top.
Calling it 'excess' is begging the question. And if the shareholders are happy for their money to be spent in this way, why should anyone else argue?crankedup said:
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Based upon averages that may be the case, however what I am talking about is the ftse Board pay differentials. These have increased hugely above the average worker pay, this against a background of pay stagnation in the worker pay packet. The differential used to be something like x20 of the average worker pay, now it’s more like x250. Happy to be corrected on the numbers but in a nutshell that is the problem. Add to that the fact that these huge payments attract National media attention which stirs people like me up and you have a recipe for growing problems.
The wealth gap may have shrunk in recent times owing to the generosity of benefits and the shrinkage of middle market pay.
Hasn’t the world changed a lot with globalisation, making the job of a FTSE CEO more complicated than it used to be?The wealth gap may have shrunk in recent times owing to the generosity of benefits and the shrinkage of middle market pay.
Why was 20x the right number?
Surely more tax for the government is a good thing, as it can be used to support the poorest in society?
Like I said, happy to be corrected on the numbers.
Yes more tax for Government to distribute into Society is definitely a good thing. But this does not excuse the excess bonus culture at the top.
Globalisation has not been so good for roughly half a billion people in North America, Western Europe and developed Asia. A large chunk of their jobs and wealth have moved to (cheaper) Asia etc.
Fifty years ago, someone working in a clothing factory in the UK would only have been competing with companies from about 5 countries in the world, like Italy. Today, they are competing with about 50 countries, like China, Vietnam, etc.
fesuvious said:
...
If she stays put, and continue surviving, and continues being PM and making appearances and not being afraid to speak.... The public will start to see the opposite of the words above.
She'll quietly be seen as a 'survivor', and 'tough'. With these comes the perception of integrity. And after that competance.
...
She only has 4yrs If she stays put, and continue surviving, and continues being PM and making appearances and not being afraid to speak.... The public will start to see the opposite of the words above.
She'll quietly be seen as a 'survivor', and 'tough'. With these comes the perception of integrity. And after that competance.
...
A good Brexit result might help her, and that's still achievable...piss about with exiting in name only or anything the other side of that and she's dead in the water though. As are the Tories.
I have to agree with Crankedup. There seems to be quite a few people on here whose bias is skewing what they think will happen. Brexit has turned a lot of of the richer young people against the conservatives - who would been the normal party for them to vote for. There is also a unhappiness with what is viewed as wealth inequality throughout society - from the big bonuses to "old people having pushed house prices too high". This will turn more people to Labour, even more so if they don't have experience from a proper hardcore Labour party (which is a lot of people).
May is not popular, and not doing anything to challange Labour in a meaningful way - she just seems to bounce around doing bits and pieces. It may be she's putting all her effort into actual Brexit, but it's certainly not the PR that is coming across. However there is a long way to go to the next election, so anything could happen before then. But don't write Labour off given the current situation.
May is not popular, and not doing anything to challange Labour in a meaningful way - she just seems to bounce around doing bits and pieces. It may be she's putting all her effort into actual Brexit, but it's certainly not the PR that is coming across. However there is a long way to go to the next election, so anything could happen before then. But don't write Labour off given the current situation.
Dr Jekyll said:
Why is it that wanting the chance to earn more money or keep more of what you've already earned is characterised as 'me me me'. While if you want some of what someone else has earned that's 'wanting a better society'?
Due to the assumption that only poor people are voting for the latter. If you go to other places in Europe (Norway for example) the latter is generally the case, even when many lose out personally. I would say quite a lot of young people I know are happy to pay more for others to be more equal.NRS said:
I have to agree with Crankedup. There seems to be quite a few people on here whose bias is skewing what they think will happen. Brexit has turned a lot of of the richer young people against the conservatives - who would been the normal party for them to vote for. There is also a unhappiness with what is viewed as wealth inequality throughout society - from the big bonuses to "old people having pushed house prices too high". This will turn more people to Labour, even more so if they don't have experience from a proper hardcore Labour party (which is a lot of people).
There is definitely some confusion between wealth inequality and income inequality.NRS said:
May is not popular, and not doing anything to challange Labour in a meaningful way - she just seems to bounce around doing bits and pieces. It may be she's putting all her effort into actual Brexit, but it's certainly not the PR that is coming across. However there is a long way to go to the next election, so anything could happen before then. But don't write Labour off given the current situation.
Lots of people might say that - and could do so voluntarily if they really wanted to. In practice things are often different.Dr Jekyll said:
Why is it that wanting the chance to earn more money or keep more of what you've already earned is characterised as 'me me me'. While if you want some of what someone else has earned that's 'wanting a better society'?
Due to the assumption that only poor people are voting for the latter. If you go to other places in Europe (Norway for example) the latter is generally the case, even when many lose out personally. I would say quite a lot of young people I know are happy to pay more for others to be more equal.sidicks said:
Fittster said:
Inverse of your definition of hard left.
Given that I’ve not provided my definition of ‘hard left’ then you appear to not be able to define ‘hard right’, which makes your post somewhat meaningless!sidicks said:
Lots of people might say that - and could do so voluntarily if they really wanted to. In practice things are often different.
I know, but here in Norway they certainly do so. Also remember that young people have been having the message of equality, environment etc all the time since they were young.Sorry, income should have been in relation to wages stagnating (in the middle class western world) while the top ones rise. Combine that with wealth inequality (houses and assets massively increasing) it results in a lot of issues and people viewing it as a problem. I don't think it's much to do with the Conservatives to be honest, but that's what a lot of people will think. Although of course a lot have put it down to globalisation too, which is a bigger impact - and one of the major reasons for Brexit IMO.
NRS said:
sidicks said:
Lots of people might say that - and could do so voluntarily if they really wanted to. In practice things are often different.
I know, but here in Norway they certainly do so. Also remember that young people have been having the message of equality, environment etc all the time since they were young.Sorry, income should have been in relation to wages stagnating (in the middle class western world) while the top ones rise. Combine that with wealth inequality (houses and assets massively increasing) it results in a lot of issues and people viewing it as a problem. I don't think it's much to do with the Conservatives to be honest, but that's what a lot of people will think. Although of course a lot have put it down to globalisation too, which is a bigger impact - and one of the major reasons for Brexit IMO.
Fittster said:
Why would a new blairite be more successful than Miliband?
Couldn't be any worse than Miliband... Unlike EM, CU seems to have a bit of gravitas and have a bit of knowledge of what he's talking about and that, from a PR perspective, might claw back a few voters who fled the party when Corbyn was elected Labour leader - who is in turn rather wet.I'm not a Labour supporter/voter in any way, shape or form. Just interesting to see how a party so divided motors on (same could be said of the Conservatives)
amgmcqueen said:
If Corbyn and Labour came into power, the UK would be fked into oblivion. Small businesses...the backbone of the British economy would be decimated.
Project fear in full swing.ked into oblivion. Small businesses...the backbone of the British economy would be decimated.Would it be better if we lived in a one party state and didn't let people vote in case they voted the wrong way?
mx5nut said:
amgmcqueen said:
If Corbyn and Labour came into power, the UK would be fked into oblivion. Small businesses...the backbone of the British economy would be decimated.
Project fear in full swing.ked into oblivion. Small businesses...the backbone of the British economy would be decimated.Would it be better if we lived in a one party state and didn't let people vote in case they voted the wrong way?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff