|
Fangz posted:Blair's government created the largest reduction in poverty since pretty much WWII. Bullshit. Fangz posted:If the material condition trumps all, this is the only graph you need to look at. lol gently caress off with the 60% median crap and come back with actual science
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Spangly A posted:You can argue that most people don't give a gently caress about economics but frankly we shouldn't give a gently caress about what they think. Whoever argued this would be a fool. It's all people care about at election time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Whoever argued this would be a fool. It's all people care about at election time. lol brexit
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/835923096129372160
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Here is one of the last major long term surveys on poverty, please familiarise the metrics we use and don't insult everyone with a metric that factors nothing more than £s and $s without factoring cost of loving living. Please note how there were very small improvements between 1990 and 99, then a massive crash where the data is re-taken at 2012, two years into the coalition. Please also note that the primary economics criticism of Labour are true; Blair and Brown stretched the economy to attempt to ride out the financial crisis and failed. Saying "oh but there was a global financial crisis" doesn't alter the argument at all; the poor suffered. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Corbyn is a literal joke now
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:lol brexit They think it's an economically good idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:They think it's an economically good idea. that's exactly why we shouldn't give a gently caress what they actually think beyond pandering to them while making their lives better. If your intentions are honest in the second, then you don't need to lie twice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Here is one of the last major long term surveys on poverty, please familiarise the metrics we use and don't insult everyone with a metric that factors nothing more than £s and $s without factoring cost of loving living. quote:Please also note that the primary economics criticism of Labour are true; Blair and Brown stretched the economy to attempt to ride out the financial crisis and failed. Ah, so you buy into the right wing narrative on spending during crises. Another great bit of leadership from the Corbyn Left.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Ah, so you buy into the right wing narrative. No, I understand economics. They could quite easily have altered where the crisis hit, and did not. Not making Britain a tax haven, setting up a transaction tax, and using the money to invest in industry would have prevented the disproportionate losses suffered by the working class. Don't be a wanker, you don't know what you're talking about. Fangz posted:I'll note your link sure doesn't cover the period I am talking about very well. yeah actual data on poverty beyond ooh look at a pretty chart about medians is quite hard to come by.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
To be very clear Brown did not spend all the poonds, he did not spend enough poonds, and he did not tax enough poonds. The scale of losses was preventable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Corbyn is a literal joke now he's jammy
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Corbyn is a literal joke now I mean this is kind of the underpinning of all leftism tbh so I can't say he's wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Fangs I'm really not sure how you don't see a connection between Labour's continued deregulation of banks and the scale of bank losses, or Labour's adamant refusal to use proper poverty metrics under Blair whatsoever and the lack of good data. The UK is, last I checked; the fourth most unequal country on the globe, the nation with the highest millionaires per capita, and a tax haven. Willing to take proper data that isn't a pretty graph about medians to confront this. If Brown had taken on the banks when he had the chance, poverty increases would have been softened. If Brown had had balls and set up a 65% millionaire rate, still outcompeting Paris, then should they have left the public narrative would have been "look at those fukken rich pricks stealing from us". I'd also like to point out, before Ronya arrives, that one of the most important factors for where financial institutions are located is availability of coke and hookers. That comes across most strongly when assessing why institutions which moved to switzerland returned, often from the horses mouth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Please also note that the primary economics criticism of Labour are true; Blair and Brown stretched the economy to attempt to ride out the financial crisis and failed. You're saying the Tories are right and labour overspent?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:You're saying the Tories are right and labour overspent? I've already answered this but here we go again; no, they underspent, under-regulated, and over-estimated their ability to get by with said less spending. E; the country that had the quickest and best sustaining (to date) economic recovery is Iceland. They said "lol go gently caress yourselves, these are our banks now". This is literally what Thatcher refers to when she talks of Blair as her legacy. The idea of economic liberalism is a far-right one. It is also demonstrably not sustainable at any point in history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
what sort of absolute headcase even thinks "over-stretched" implies overspend? if you put butter on a knife, and spread it too thin on bread, then the answer is more butter. Butter is money, which we can create endless amounts of, understanding that there are consequences to this. We can also take money from rich people, which we did not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Fangz posted:So why did we whip for Brexit. Who's "we"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
The idea that Brown did a good job as Chancellor, by any metric, is quite obviously false because our economy flatlined and didn't recover. The proximate cause is the financial crisis. The ultimate cause is that, in 1997, Labour failed to tackle a problem visible to any non-PPE economist on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:what sort of absolute headcase even thinks "over-stretched" implies overspend? I can't even imagine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I can't even imagine. The resource requirements don't go away with less resources, they aren't a negotiable entity, they are an economic reality. Ignoring this in favour of less-spend centrism failed. You want more failure, and I don't quite get it. We're in agreement now that Corbyn Bad, although disagree why. I can't fathom why we aren't in agreement that Brown Bad. He was in power and still hosed up. I'm sorry you didn't have 3 years asking lecturers why the degree they'd taught for twenty years didn't predict a financial crisis that Bakunin managed not to misunderstand a century ago. I can't easily repeat that experience on this forum for you. But the economic orthodoxy most definitely failed and has left people asking questions why. Until Labour say "well we were poo poo, and the tories are worse, let's go back to something that empirically works", we aren't going to get anywhere long term. Your child's future isn't shaped by five years of a mediocre Labour government in 2020. It will be shaped by asking, why the hell was everyone in charge so coked up as to cause and not understand and not correct this crisis? why does it keep repeating? and we already have the answers. Jeremy Corbyn has the answers. John McDonnel has the answers. Momentum have the answers. The job is not to ditch actual empirical data in favour of flouncing about proclaiming free trade with everyone, the job is to get the public to understand that we genuinely do know how to fix this. You can have your not-corbyn any time, we clearly need it. But if we elect another centrist, the country will be worse prepared for the 2028 crisis, 3 years into a conservative government. Economic Liberalism has never worked, and it is impossible to make it work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I'll note your link sure doesn't cover the period I am talking about very well. Here's a link from that period if you care https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/mar/31/socialexclusion.politics quote:The deep recession of the early 1990s during John Major's government curbed the growth in inequality, according to the IFS, as negative equity and white collar job cuts hit the middle classes hardest. quote:Gordon Brown's help to the working poor has been the main reason for the reduction in child poverty, the IFS says, and it has also taken the edge off a rise in income inequality caused by soaring pay awards for Britain's richest 500,000 people. Without the introduction of new tax credits for low income working families and the extra help for those with children, the IFS said the gap between rich and poor would have widened by twice as much since 1997. quote:"The distribution is skewed by a long tail of people on relatively high incomes," the IFS said. In 2002 there were 12.5 million people living in households with incomes below 60% of the median, after housing costs, a slight fall from the 13.9 million living below the poverty line when Labour came to power. The key here - and with most criticism of Blair's government - is that it didn't actually fix the underlying problems, it patched over them temporarily (which is still important) and left them to grow and hit again later. It was about getting immediate results and pushing the consequences down the line. That's why the Blair government is getting blamed for the state the country was left in, and why people want actual left-wing reforms instead of the Third Way version of business as usual
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
It's further worth noting that the relative complexity of tax credits meant they had a degree of under-claiming that simply wasn't acceptable (although, relatively speaking, a minor issue), which most came to fore with terrible tory YOU CUT *MY* MONEY* woman having a cry about it being her, not the poor, affected. It is not a good idea to keep the working class artificially seperated by ridiculous metrics like education and hats while stopping them from starving with things they don't understand. If they don't get the importance, it's too easy for a tory government to remove. This already happened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
There's also that whole "Lead us into a war based on lies, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people" thing. And poo poo policy like PFI which contributes to the sorry financial state of the NHS to this day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Murder everyone with a net worth over £10m and start all over again with luxury high tech fully automated communism. Not ironic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Here's a link from that period if you care You can get a later version of that report at https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/6738 The key point they make is actually: quote:There were many other Labour initiatives that could be considered anti-poverty policies. These include the introduction of the National Minimum Wage, Sure Start, increased financial support for childcare, significant increases in education spending and an expansion of the number of young people going on to higher education. Any payoffs from most of these measures will be long run, rather than immediate. It is of course very difficult to predict precisely what effects they will ultimately have on overall levels of poverty and inequality - and we will never know for sure, as their effects will inevitably happen alongside many other factors which continue to affect the income distribution. The verdict on the effects of Labour’s period in power on poverty and inequality is necessarily incomplete. Gort posted:There's also that whole "Lead us into a war based on lies, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people" thing. Sure, but I think we're getting miles away from 'Corbyn's the only person who wants to do stuff for the poor since Kinnock and that's the only thing that matters' Instead it's 'Corbyn will do things slightly differently from Blair did in a way that'll hurt the rich more I guess also I'll pick data sources that exclude the period of interest and claim Blair conspired to suppress it' Fangz fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Sure, but I think we're getting miles away from 'Corbyn's the only person who wants to do stuff for the poor since Kinnock and that's the only thing that matters' No, we aren't. Patching over a problem doesn't fix it. Kinnock and Corbyn wished to address it. There is a huge difference. Fangz posted:
dude shut the gently caress up, you have been demonstrated to be wrong, and you are pretending that addressing inequality and patching over it are the same thing. You're still wrong. I want an *effective* leader to address it. If you don't like me saying your sources are poo poo, learn to use better sources.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
This isn't the full story, if she'd been here 30 years legally then she would have a passport by now. Being buzzfeed this could very well be a case of "idiot fails to do paperwork for 30 years and is SHOCKED when she's denied access to a country she has no valid visa for"
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:No, we aren't. Patching over a problem doesn't fix it. Kinnock and Corbyn wished to address it. There is a huge difference. "Child deprivation may have increased over the past few years, as it is known to have fallen between 1999 and 2006/07" The IFS report didn't say Labour just patched over the problems, it says genuine fixes - which Labour also implemented - would take many decades to bear fruit. If you expect Corbyn to fix poverty, then that will be similarly true.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Fangz posted:"Child deprivation may have increased over the past few years, as it is known to have fallen between 1999 and 2006/07" Are we speaking the same language? This has been addressed. Child poverty decreased. Poverty did not. What about this am I not making clear? Would you prefer I was saying these things in jam man voice? Would you prefer I did the long blair speech? You are, emprically, wrong. The underlying source of child poverty was not addressed. It's already worse than it was before Blair, which is a bit of a hint that nothing changed long term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Fangs I'm really not sure how you don't see a connection between Labour's continued deregulation of banks and the scale of bank losses, or Labour's adamant refusal to use proper poverty metrics under Blair whatsoever and the lack of good data. Also Switzerland doesn't let people have loud fast cars or loud fast parties. To be honest I can't think of a worse European nation to be young and even vaguely well-off. Also I'm intrigued where you get the stat about the UK having the highest amount of millionaires per-capita. I'd have thought places like the UAE and for that matter Switzerland would have it beaten hands down. Ditto income inequality - I'd have thought basically all of Africa and South America would be way beyond us. Fairly sure even the US has a far bigger inequality problem than the UK.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:This isn't the full story, if she'd been here 30 years legally then she would have a passport by now. Being buzzfeed this could very well be a case of "idiot fails to do paperwork for 30 years and is SHOCKED when she's denied access to a country she has no valid visa for" She wasn't a legal citizen, but was a longtime spouse of one, had married and kids with them, and was now their longterm carer. The fact that she'd left the country for a period of time several years ago should really have no bearing - it is incredibly clear to anyone with a heart instead of whatever Theresa May has in her chest that she should have been allowed to stay here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Are we speaking the same language? This has been addressed. Child poverty decreased. Poverty did not. What about this am I not making clear? Would you prefer I was saying these things in jam man voice? Would you prefer I did the long blair speech? What are these underlying sources of child poverty that Corbyn unlike anyone else is going to fix? Remember that we are defining tax and benefit changes as quick fix patches here. What's the bright new idea here? Fangz fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
mfw parliamentary socialism is a dead end
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:
holy poo poo I butchered those stats. The UK had the fourth highest number of millionaires, not per capita, as per my old data; credit suisse puts it at number 2 with 2.4m as of 2015. Take an avg of a million each, proportionately, and you've just fixed the NHS deficit of last year. I'll need to do more work on the inequality claim to provide a proper answer as mine was way out. Mexico and Hong Kong are definitely #2 and #1 in the developed world by any sample, but I'll need to pick a year and a specific GINI version to come up with a UK answer, suggestions appreciated. Rough framework should be developed world, high income? World Bank needs a loving sort function on their tools. This is why it's never ok to use non-checked data. Fangz posted:
Historically low tax rates over twenty years = not a quick fix patch. I can't get my data in order but you can't contextualise world history, we're now both embarassing ourselves. code:e; I'll add that when you then ask for specific policies I'm not going to do a loving years work on policy impact to give you the answer. These are contextual. My guess would be a lot of the increased tax take being spent on fixing education first while plugging the NHS, and "fixing education" to involve an evidence based revamp of pay, conditions, legal guidelines on appropriate class sizes actually enforced, as well as broad, non-focussed targetting of food at schools, as well as a rather much-needed revamp on things like exams, streamlining, mixing age groups to improve social outcomes, and core subjects. Movement to an evidence-based work week, currently generally believed to be three-four days. Crippling fines with intent of destruction on companies that attempt to abuse contract law while the kinks are worked out over 10-15 years. Focus on restoring a proper work/life balance, which historically when out of order leads to increases in mental health problems as well as making the public generally frustrated at the complexity of the political process. Ensure proper time for socialisation and recreation for the low-income working class, presumably at first through large funding of focused mincome (which weakens the purpose but begins a process of normalisation). These things take time and money to come up with. The reason to have a socialist is they are, historically, a lot better at actually using those things. Corbyn is aggressive on education reform, healthcare reform, tax reform, and media reform. They're his strong suits, as far as we're talking the bizarro world where the media revert back to reality without the need to kill every last Rothemere on the planet and he gets in. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Weirdly enough Tom Watson was very good on Peston today. He said quite clearly that no, the party isn't going to change leader and yes, they can win a general election under Corbyn. He managed to answer questions about whether or not it was all Corbyn's fault, and he made the reasonable point that the people who supported Corbyn aren't exactly helping anything if they abandon him now. I'm quite sure he doesn't believe a lot of it, but for any other Labour MPs watching it really is that easy. It's a shame that Ed Miliband's former adviser came on immediately afterwards to try and contradict it all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Not So Fast posted:She wasn't a legal citizen, but was a longtime spouse of one, had married and kids with them, and was now their longterm carer. The fact that she'd left the country for a period of time several years ago should really have no bearing - it is incredibly clear to anyone with a heart instead of whatever Theresa May has in her chest that she should have been allowed to stay here. If you read the other article it says that she came in 88, married in 1990 and then went home for 5 years in the 90s and then she came back on a visitors visa and kept extending them, she gives no reason as to why she was not in on a work visa. I'm sorry for her, but no one started a kickstarter or twitter campaign for my cousin's husband when his work visa was turned down 10 years ago because he wasn't going to earn enough so the family, including two children born here, had to go back to Australia. The UK has always been a pig when it comes to spousal visas because so many people take the piss. I'm afraid you can't argue for tighter controls on immigration and then get all upset when it applies to non-Muslims as well. Edit: also there is clearly something we are not being told, why did she only have £12? Why no bank account, joint or otherwise? No access to a joint account, rightly or wrongly, is a huge red flag to immigration control. learnincurve fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Gort posted:There's also that whole "Lead us into a war based on lies, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people" thing. these are acceptable losses if labour gets in government
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Jose posted:these are acceptable losses if labour gets in government Erm, no I'm not sure they are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 22:10
|
|