General Election 2024
- Thread starter gavreid
- Start date
Enfield boy
pfm Member
There is a crowdfunder already, it closed for new donations at around £500k as the case it was originally set up for was settled ooc. Hopefully it was worded so he could use it if he wanted.
gez
pfm Member
The legislation did nothing to force existing smokers to stop smoking, it just ensured (or was intended to do so at least) that younger generations don't take up smoking in the first place. If successful, it would be a gradual removal of smoking from our society that impinged on absolutely no smokers rights to continue smoking. I struggle to understand how anybody can see that as a negative thing.
What is your definition of vulnerable minorities?
PS - Just popping out for Lunch, will reply later.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I was leaving it broad, but would include physically disabled people, people with mental health issues, LGBT+, asylum seekers; not an exhaustive list by any means and there are also plenty of other minorities less obviously vulnerable, but still clearly disadvantaged, such as ethnic minorities, people in 'left behind' communities, etc.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Labour are another lurch to the right
Labour are Thatcherite stupidity.
Labour have already promised more Thatcherite stupidity.
Labour have promised more privatisation, not less
Also see children living in poverty caused by callous government policies.
paulfromcamden
Baffled
I had a quick look on a cost of living comparison site to see how Madrid fares against London.
Madrid wages are about half(!) but rent, utilities and public transport are also about half.
The site calculates that overall the purchasing power of the average Madrid worker is about 10% less then their London counterparts. Not great. Not terrible.
...and that's how a tory answers a direct question
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Income inequality measured by the Gini coefficient peaked in the UK in 2001, but that doesn't contradict your point.. the long term rise began in 1983. It takes about four/five years for government policy changes to have an impact on a measure like this. The turnaround after 2001 was started in 1997; the rise in 1983 was started in 1979..
Here's the UK with its neighbours, plus the USA, higher values are worse:
Income inequality: Gini coefficient
The Gini coefficient measures inequality on a scale from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate higher inequality. Depending on the country and year, the data relates to income measured after taxes and benefits, or to consumption, per capita.ourworldindata.org
“In the year to 2022/23, incomes for those in the bottom 80% fell before housing costs and incomes for those in the top 10% increased”
If we did have two similar parties, i'd be happy. Instead the Tories have ceded the centre ground to Labour, and have chased extremist policies. That's why we have brexit, attempts to break international law by exporting asylum seekers, stupid policies which tanked the economy (Truss and her mates), and the 'hostile environment' which attacks the very values which we hold dear (windrush for example), to name a few.
I would like to believe that post-defeat analysis by the conservatives will lead to some soul searching, and an attempt to re-position the party so as to be electable again. This is not because I believe in their values, but I believe that the UK political system only works when we have a choice between alternative reasonable courses, and bad stuff happens when either party is considered unelectable. The conservatives have traditionally been very good at this, dropping leaders and vote loosing policies, and a return to the centre ground is the sane option. Let's hope sense prevails and this happens swiftly.
It's an indicator, it's not Gospel. But it shows up something odd about the UK economy. Inequality and income are separate things. It is possible for inequality to fall and general living standards to fall too. UK median incomes have not kept up with those in its peers, and flattening of wages in the middle will lower the income inequality curve, even though nobody is better off.
In the specific case of the UK, personal debt has increased in that period, and increased faster than incomes. Inflation of property prices isn't shown in income inequality, but it does affect those on lower incomes more than those at the top. But particularly worrying is the relatively high reliance on unsecured debt... the high interest on this kind of debt can lock people into a cycle of paying interest constantly, as loan follows loan. This siphons earnings straight to financial institutions with no productivity.
So, to answer: possibly more equal, but definitely less well off.
Tony L
Administrator
The problem is that is all they have left. They sacrificed the myth of economic competence long ago to protect elite offshore tax havens and money-laundering scams (the underlying point of Brexit). All that is left on the table is the racist and divisive rhetoric of fascism, and sadly there are plenty of miserable old Mick Ps still left festering in the party happy to vote for it. Delusion is preferable to reality to these people.
The elephant in the room is the UK can’t survive economically as the isolated and cut adrift bin-fire the Tories have created. It is no longer a viable structure, yet no one will talk about that.
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
Yes. The longer term trend is interesting also. High inequality in 1900, coming down with the growth of democracy, then increasing again with the rise of neoliberalism
Tony L
Administrator
One also needs to factor that the UK has only been anything even vaguely approaching a democracy since 1928 (the date women won the vote).
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I can't help thinking that democracy might be better served if men lost the right to vote.