The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Mic09]

13 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

You’ve shifted your goalposts.

Your original point was people on minimum wage can buy food, buy clothes and go on holiday.

I’m telling you we had to donate 100 kilos of emergency food to the local food bank. Many of the people using that food bank have jobs.

Again, I am not interested in some weird race to the bottom international comparison where we should be grateful we aren’t eating bananas out of bins.

Yes, people on minimal wage can go on holiday every now and again. and can buy food.

Minimal wage is £8.21 for those over 25. 

I don't care about anecdotal evidence that people with jobs use food banks. I don't know what their situation is. Maybe they have a gambling problem, maybe they are abused at home, maybe there is a different reason.

My anecdotal evidence is that my mum was able to raise me by herself with my brother and give us a good life. And once, we went abroad. So in my view, you can do it on £8.21 (or about 6.80/7 as it was back then). But that anecdotal evidence means nothing to you. I guess we should ask millions of polish/romanians/Russians/Slovaks how they like the life on minimal wage in a warehouse. Many left their families behind because life is simply better over here.

Even the poorest in the UK are better off then poorest in many other places. And that is no benchmark of "we are doing a good job". We (UK society) are simply doing a better job than many others.

I don't like that people are on the streets, people use food banks. I put my hand up that I don't do enough to help them. 

What is so outregous in the above post?

 

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

 

What is so outregous in the above post?

 

The whole lot.

The mindset.

 

[bickster]

33 minutes ago, Xann said:

I completely understand Scotland voting SNP and folk not wanting to vote Corbyn going Lib. 

It's a Media play. The most prominently bleeding obvious culprit, Murdoch.  

The centre/left vote split and non-Tory voting Scotland gone.

People patting each other on the back for being smarter than the Brexiters are just going to fall 'plop' into the next trap.

Sorry mate, this is tosh.

Scottish Tory Seats 13, Scottish Labour seats 7

It's not a media ploy to split the vote, it's a genuine, f**k that I'm not voting for Labour. Show me where any of the media especially the Murdoch mediia have expressed a vote Liberal Democrat sentiment. Sure they've expressed an anti-Corbyn sentiment but that's normal. What isn't normal is the sheer amount of people saying they'll vote LD

The country as a whole is generally f**ked off with Brexit. Logically there are three options.

• Leave - giving you the choice of Tory or NF Corp
• 2nd Referendum - sort of Labour sort of not, which way is the wind blowing this hour, who sodding knows
• Revoke - LibDems

The ardent remainers of which there are millions and millions, I do think there are many more "hard line" remainers than there are hard line brexiteers would rather revoke the thing full stop, its a quicker end to it all. - LibDems have pulled a master stroke with that. Given the choice between LibDem and Labour, people that are full on remainers will be voting LibDem and after today I expect Labour's position in the polls to see a major downturn. I honestly wouldn't be shocked to see them ahead of Labour.

Labour have effectively told the middle class to eff off at conference, so they will

This is no media ploy, if the media had their way, they'd get everyone to vote for Farage, with some supporting Johnson

[Xann]

Plop

[peterms]

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

We definately could and need to do better.

You or me could invite the guy from the tent to stay on our sofas. But we don't do it, because we like to moan about it on the internet.

Let's just have the government fix that guys life.

This is indeed one of the functions of government: to arrange for social provision which we want and need as a society, and which would only be provided sporadically, wastefully, and on the basis of personal whims and easily withdrawn largesse, if it were not done on behalf of us all, in recognition of our mutual social obligation.

Governments haven't done this very well, over the last 40 years or so.  Possibly because they are shy of tackling the driving forces behind the manifestation of street homelessless, preferring to see it as an issue of individual pathology.  (By saying which, if it isn't obvious, I'm not saying that no street homeless person has other issues as well as housing).

[peterms]

11 minutes ago, bickster said:

The country as a whole is generally f**ked off with Brexit. Logically there are three options.

• Leave - giving you the choice of Tory or NF Corp
• 2nd Referendum - sort of Labour sort of not, which way is the wind blowing this hour, who sodding knows
• Revoke - LibDems

The ardent remainers of which there are millions and millions, I do think there are many more "hard line" remainers than there are hard line brexiteers would rather revoke the thing full stop, its a quicker end to it all. - LibDems have pulled a master stroke with that. Given the choice between LibDem and Labour, people that are full on remainers will be voting LibDem and after today I expect Labour's position in the polls to see a major downturn. I honestly wouldn't be shocked to see them ahead of Labour.

Labour have effectively told the middle class to eff off at conference, so they will

This is no media ploy, if the media had their way, they'd get everyone to vote for Farage, with some supporting Johnson

Another way of seeing it would be that we start with two positions, which as usual are emotional rather than rational: either we go for winner takes all, or we try to find a compromise position.

I would have thought that most rational people, and especially people in the so-called centre gound who count rhemselves rational, would try to seek a compromise, but apparently not.  That's a bad move.

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, peterms said:

or we try to find a compromise position

A 2nd Referendum is the compromise position

[colhint]

I think you make a fair point, however I think we are 3 years down the line, and the Labour party cannot tell us what their position is. I think people will find it difficult to believe them now whatever they say.

[ml1dch]

1 minute ago, colhint said:

I think you make a fair point, however I think we are 3 years down the line, and the Labour party cannot tell us what their position is. I think people will find it difficult to believe them now whatever they say.

Which will be made worse, because at some point they will come out in favour of one side or the other. Quite possibly after it's been settled, with them meekly accepting what eventually ends up on top.

And their years of being unable to say what they want will just look indecisive and weak.

[peterms]

13 minutes ago, bickster said:

A 2nd Referendum is the compromise position

Yes.  But on the basis of the best available information, not lies and spin.

That seems to me what the Labour policy is seeking to achieve.  A choice between what we now know to be the outcomes of a no-deal, and what we will be told are the best available outcomes of a negotiated deal.

That seems like something no rational being could reject, don't you think?

Edited September 23, 2019 by peterms
missing word

[bickster]

18 minutes ago, peterms said:

Yes.  But on the basis of the best available information, not lies and spin.

That seems to me what the Labour policy is seeking to achieve.  A choice between what we now know to be the outcomes of a no-deal, and what we will be told are the best available outcomes of a negotiated deal.

That seems like something no rational being could reject, don't you think?

If you think there's anything remotely rational about any of Labour's miriad of policy announcements and actions on Brexit then you are doing something wrong here.

The current Labour policy might last a week. The evidence is there to back that up

No-one being rational could vote for a party in such disarray, it's quite frankly open warfare right now. Even if they miraculously came up with the perfect Brexit policy in their game of Brexit roulette, Corbyn would put all the winnings on 0 and spin again

EDIT: and given that we agree on the 2nd Referendum being the compromise position, neither side of the Brexit debate is in the moon for compromise

[peterms]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

If you think there's anything remotely rational about any of Labour's miriad of policy announcements and actions on Brexit then you are doing something wrong here.

The current Labour policy might last a week. The evidence is there to back that up

No-one being rational could vote for a party in such disarray, it's quite frankly open warfare right now. Even if they miraculously came up with the perfect Brexit policy in their game of Brexit roulette, Corbyn would put all the winnings on 0 and spin again

EDIT: and given that we agree on the 2nd Referendum being the compromise position, neither side of the Brexit debate is in the moon for compromise

It's the most rational position I've seen. That includes my own party.

The rest of your post appears to be channelling the Express, I'm not sure how to respond, but all my instincts say "don't ".

[Mic09]

Would those of you asking for a second referendum accept that it is the least bad option of all right now?

Or would you say it's a good option on its own merit?

[peterms]

5 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Would those of you asking for a second referendum accept that it is the least bad option of all right now?

Or would you say it's a good option on its own merit?

Both, surely?

It's obviously the least bad option, compared with driving through an option in the face of mass discontent .

And given the passage of time and the consequences now being clearer, a more informed vote sounds like a good idea.

[mjmooney]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

A 2nd Referendum is the compromise position

What should the wording/choices be? 

[NurembergVillan]

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

Yes, people on minimal wage can go on holiday every now and again. and can buy food.

Minimal wage is £8.21 for those over 25. 

I don't care about anecdotal evidence that people with jobs use food banks. I don't know what their situation is. Maybe they have a gambling problem, maybe they are abused at home, maybe there is a different reason.

My anecdotal evidence is that my mum was able to raise me by herself with my brother and give us a good life. And once, we went abroad. So in my view, you can do it on £8.21 (or about 6.80/7 as it was back then). But that anecdotal evidence means nothing to you. I guess we should ask millions of polish/romanians/Russians/Slovaks how they like the life on minimal wage in a warehouse. Many left their families behind because life is simply better over here.

Even the poorest in the UK are better off then poorest in many other places. And that is no benchmark of "we are doing a good job". We (UK society) are simply doing a better job than many others.

I don't like that people are on the streets, people use food banks. I put my hand up that I don't do enough to help them. 

What is so outregous in the above post?

OK then, we'll skip the anecdotes...

Quote

Food bank use in UK reaches highest rate on record as benefits fail to cover basic costs

Figures show 1,332,952 three-day emergency food supplies delivered to people in crisis in past year – a 13 per cent increase on last year, compared with rise of 6 per cent year before

Tess Lanning, director of the Living Wage Foundation, highlighted the impact of low earnings on food bank use, saying: “Many of those who are going hungry are also working, with one-in-six households referred to foodbanks in work. Our own research found over a third of parents working full-time and earning less than the real Living Wage are now regularly skipping meals."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/food-bank-uk-benefits-trussell-trust-cost-of-living-highest-rate-a8317001.html

The minimum wage (although you're saying minimal wage, so not sure whether that's a misnomer or referring to something else), even at the current £8.21, has always tracked lower than the cost of living in the UK.  And that's for over 25s.  For 18-20 year olds it's still at £6.80.  Working a 40 hour week, that's £272.  I'm well over that age now, sadly, but I don't remember paying less at the supermarket, or on the bus, or Council Tax, when I was that age.  Tell a lie, I didn't pay Council Tax because I was a student.  Although now I wouldn't have been able to afford to study, as I was fortunate to pay no tuition fees.

Having helped out at a local foodbank (so I'll dip back into the anecdotes, indulge me) I'd hear about people, often nurses, as I live near a hospital, would be able to make ends meet on their salary, but any financial emergencies would blow everything out of the water - a failed MOT when they need a car to get to work, emergency dental treatment, a rent increase.

Your suggestion that people who can't get by on a "minimal wage" may have a gambling problem or be abused at home (as examples) is naïve at best, blasé as a likelihood, and downright appalling at worst.

There's a horrible mindset amongst many in this country now (and I won't tar you with this brush based on one opinion on the internet) that "things have been tough in the past so people just need to grow a pair and get on with it", and frankly it's selfish bollocks.  And it's pointless.  Why the ****, whatever hardships you've suffered and wherever you've got to, would you not want to prevent anyone from suffering in the same way.

As evidenced by my writing an epic post at this time of night, it absolutely boils my piss.

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

What should the wording/choices be? 

The honest answer is I'm past caring as long as remain is an option as that is the only box I'm putting my x in

The only two other options can be, just leave or some form of a deal that will be worse than remain

[NurembergVillan]

Just now, bickster said:

The honest answer is I'm past caring as long as remain is an option as that is the only box I'm putting my x in

The only two other options can be, just leave or some form of a deal that will be worse than remain

I'd add an extra, qualifying, box "Do you enjoy Mrs Brown's Boys".  Anyone putting an X in that one gets their vote annulled.

Job done, EU membership retained.

[Mic09]

6 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

OK then, we'll skip the anecdotes...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/food-bank-uk-benefits-trussell-trust-cost-of-living-highest-rate-a8317001.html

The minimum wage (although you're saying minimal wage, so not sure whether that's a misnomer or referring to something else), even at the current £8.21, has always tracked lower than the cost of living in the UK.  And that's for over 25s.  For 18-20 year olds it's still at £6.80.  Working a 40 hour week, that's £272.  I'm well over that age now, sadly, but I don't remember paying less at the supermarket, or on the bus, or Council Tax, when I was that age.  Tell a lie, I didn't pay Council Tax because I was a student.  Although now I wouldn't have been able to afford to study, as I was fortunate to pay no tuition fees.

Having helped out at a local foodbank (so I'll dip back into the anecdotes, indulge me) I'd hear about people, often nurses, as I live near a hospital, would be able to make ends meet on their salary, but any financial emergencies would blow everything out of the water - a failed MOT when they need a car to get to work, emergency dental treatment, a rent increase.

Your suggestion that people who can't get by on a "minimal wage" may have a gambling problem or be abused at home (as examples) is naïve at best, blasé as a likelihood, and downright appalling at worst.

There's a horrible mindset amongst many in this country now (and I won't tar you with this brush based on one opinion on the internet) that "things have been tough in the past so people just need to grow a pair and get on with it", and frankly it's selfish bollocks.  And it's pointless.  Why the ****, whatever hardships you've suffered and wherever you've got to, would you not want to prevent anyone from suffering in the same way.

As evidenced by my writing an epic post at this time of night, it absolutely boils my piss.

The problem I have is that I don't disagree with yourself or Chrisp at all. 

Can I once again say that there is plenty of poverty that we need to tackle in this country and we should not rest in our pursuit to help others?

Would you not agree that we are very fortunate to live in a country where the vast majority of people, even those earning minimum wage, are able to live a good life compared to the  majority of rest of the world? 

Do you not agree that people die to come here, to better their lives? Is the fact that they are fleeing their homes and risking lives enough evidence that life in UK is better than in most places in the world? Not perfect, not amazing, not satisfactory to my standard, but better?

And can we not, in this god forsaken world where babies die on the streets of starvation appreciate the good stuff we have and are able to give to those most needy in the UK?

[mjmooney]

15 minutes ago, bickster said:

The honest answer is I'm past caring as long as remain is an option as that is the only box I'm putting my x in

The only two other options can be, just leave or some form of a deal that will be worse than remain

1. Leave (no deal) 

2. Leave (some form of a deal, let's say the Theresa May one, for tbe sake of argument)

3. Remain

The above wording would enrage the Leavers, as it would split the Leave vote and usher in a Remain win, with quite possibly a smaller number than the combined Leave votes. 

(All fine by me, but I can't see them daring to do it). 

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by mjmooney