Keir Starmer

[Jacob]

Successful economies are not run to suit the poor.

A contradiction in terms. If there is poverty then the economy has failed.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The right wing media have been screaming that Labour (who have followed the expenses rules) are far worse than the Tories (who didn’t follow the rules).

Keir Starmer getting a free pair of glasses has had way more media coverage than Robert Jenrick mysteriously getting a donation of £75,000 from a company that has no employees and is £300k in debt.

The false equivalence is staggering

The gifts are not over-reported items of trivial significance.

£16000 in clothes to Sir Kier is rather more than a free pair of glasses. You can pay a couple of thousand ££ for a bespoke suit. M&S best are up to about £400, John Lewis around £600. To judge from his appearance if they cost more than this he was robbed.

The glasses reportedly worth £2485 (Guardian) compare to Specsavers best at £170 a pair. Did he get get 15 pairs are are they unobtainium?

There's none so blind as those who will not see. (Jonathan Swift)

 

[sploo]

It was reasonable at the time. But investment now would have to comply with current law. Rather than focus media attention on an investment summit, what the two numptys did was focus everyone labour's anti employer attitude at the top.

Going on about what the tories did in the past is pointless. To be better off economically we need to forget all that and look forwards not back. Some diplomacy would not go amiss.

Agreed that it wasn't particularly tactful, but - and here's the million dollar question - if P&O's dodgy practices had not been brought into public attention (by people prepared to be untactful) would they have agreed to change? Does anyone believe they're happily changing?

Unfortunately, it does take public attention for companies to be shamed into rolling back scummy behaviour, so maybe a modicum of blunt language isn't all bad.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

It's amazing and shocking that so many people find it so easy to turn a blind eye to this massive humanitarian catastrophe.

I wholly agree it is a humanitarian catastrophe.

Hamas and Hezbollah are unequivocally, by their own admission, and actions in indiscriminately firing rockets intent on genocide. Using civilians to shield military activity is a war crime.

Israel have every right to defend and secure their borders against such a proven threat.

The general principle is that a balance needs to be struck between the risk to civilians and the pursuit of an enemy. Whether Israel has struck the right balance is a fair debate.

Personal view - the events unfolding are the inevitable consequence of 75 years failure by the whole international community to identify and ensure a stable lasting solution to the dispute. The UN "peacekeepers" in Lebanon - sent 18 years ago to ensure peace and an abject failure.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

So breaking the rules is OK then. Strange as I always thought the Left preached ethical behaviour.

Breaking the rules is not OK

Observable Reality here: Starmer has not broken any rules. Anyone who still tries to perpetuate this lie is either not paying attention to the truth (probably inhabits an echo chamber of right-leaning misinformation) or is being deliberately dishonest.

 

[sploo]

The attitude of some evidently Labour supporters to the "mis-doings" of the current government are precisely the same as those Tories who could see no fault with the previous senior Tory leadership - despite its obvious failings.

One may have hoped that the pursuit of high standards to which politicians should be held, and the honesty to call out the inappropriate would continue. It seems I was mistaken.

That's literally, and specifically... not what I said. I absolutely agree that any wrongdoing in government should be highlighted by a competent media, and people should be held to account. My point was that an awful lot of noise has been made about the behaviour of some Labour politicians, when those same voices were exceptionally quiet over dodgy dealings by Tories that were orders of magnitude larger in scope. Holding power to account only really works if any and all wrong behaviour is treated equally.

 

[sploo]

The right wing media have been screaming that Labour (who have followed the expenses rules) are far worse than the Tories (who didn’t follow the rules).


Keir Starmer getting a free pair of glasses has had way more media coverage than Robert Jenrick mysteriously getting a donation of £75,000 from a company that has no employees and is £300k in debt.

The false equivalence is staggering

Exactly this. How some people struggle to understand this concept staggers me. No one is saying "corruption by my lot is fine"; the point is the false equivalence of wrongdoing.

 

[sploo]

That's just another pointless article looking at the situation through a very narrow lens focussing on just oe aspect - salary.

That FT article literally talks about living standards rather than just salary. It's anything but pointless; it highlights the issue of the massive disparity in wealth faced by many at the lower end of society.

 

[sploo]

Not "the British serving classes"; just "the Woke establishment"

I'll bite... could you please explain "the Woke establishment"?

The Tory Party have twice recently had candidates with the potential to make great Prime Ministers: Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt. In each case, the 'pearls & twinset classes' studiously ignored them, in favour of populist mediocrities.

Not sure about Jeremy *unt, but agreed on Stewart.

 

[ey_tony]

A contradiction in terms. If there is poverty then the economy has failed.

Do you really believe that?
If the government redistributed the entire wealth of the UK with the people living here, then within a decade there would be billionaires and people in destitution. There is no such thing as normal values where some people are concerned.
Much of the poverty we have in the UK is actually self inflicted.
My OH a social worker is going out today to visit a dysfunctional family in crisis. The mother has several thousand pounds in benefits coming into her household every month but they had no food in the house when my OH visited the other day...as soon as the money comes in it goes out ...the mother is spending it on drugs so my OH had had buy food for them. This is what you're dealing with so to carp on about poverty and a failed economy is nonsense, look at why before making a judgement.

Her kids are young teenage girls who are being neglected very badly and it will likely be that they will be taken into care for their own protection. They're sensible but the mother is a loser and always will be.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink! She has more money than many working families coming in each month but she has no values so gets into debt by spending on rubbish she puts inside her body.
She also gets through 2 packs of cigarettes each day. That's 40 cigarettes daily or £160-200 per week that the taxpayer is contributing to her worthless lifestyle just for cigarettes.

A person with a half a functioning brain wouldn't do the things she does so not all poverty is due to a failed economy, much of it is down to a failed character and unfortunately there is no cure for stupidity.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Do you really believe that?
If the government redistributed the entire wealth of the UK with the people living here, then within a decade there would be billionaires and people in destitution. There is no such thing as normal values where some people are concerned.
Much of the poverty we have in the UK is actually self inflicted.
My OH a social worker is going out today to visit a dysfunctional family in crisis. The mother has several thousand pounds in benefits coming into her household every month but they had no food in the house when my OH visited the other day...as soon as the money comes in it goes out ...the mother is spending it on drugs so my OH had had buy food for them. This is what you're dealing with so to carp on about poverty and a failed economy is nonsense, look at why before making a judgement.

Her kids are young teenage girls who are being neglected very badly and it will likely be that they will be taken into care for their own protection. They're sensible but the mother is a loser and always will be.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink! She has more money than many working families coming in each month but she has no values so gets into debt by spending on rubbish she puts inside her body.
She also gets through 2 packs of cigarettes each day. That's 40 cigarettes daily or £160-200 per week that the taxpayer is contributing to her worthless lifestyle just for cigarettes.

A person with a half a functioning brain wouldn't do the things she does so not all poverty is due to a failed economy, much of it is down to a failed character and unfortunately there is no cure for stupidity.

I do wonder if you were Harry Enfield's inspiration for this character

 

[ey_tony]

I do wonder if you were Harry Enfield's inspiration for this character

You mean like the Wolfie Smith character that people of a certain political persuasion exhibit on forums like this?
I respond to what I believe is political and partisan nonsense.
Not all poverty is due to government failings...it's very often down to personal values and budgeting.
The person I mentioned has more money coming in than many working families when it's worked out but they aren't in poverty so why do you suppose that is?

 

[Spectric]

A contradiction in terms. If there is poverty then the economy has failed.

A good strong economy should provide a route out of poverty but that does not mean everyone is able to do so as just like some people will practice unsafe use of machinery then some also fail to manage finances and lifestyle choices.

 

[Jacob]

Do you really believe that?

Yes

If the government redistributed the entire wealth of the UK with the people living here, then within a decade there would be billionaires and people in destitution. There is no such thing as normal values where some people are concerned.

It's not simply about redistribution

Much of the poverty we have in the UK is actually self inflicted.

What a very silly idea. Do people self-inflict low wages, job insecurity, redundancy, high rents?

 

[AJB Temple]

This argument will never be resolved. Some people are born intelligent and self motivated. Some are also entrepreneurial and full of energy and ambition. They build businesses and create jobs. Eventually people complain that they are not paid as much as the boss and are oppressed workers. 'twas ever thus and always will be. There will always be those who are negative and unmotivated, there will always be leaders and followers, and always be wealth creators and consumers. It's the inevitable human bell curve. 50% will always be below average - it's just a matter of degree.

 

[sploo]

Do you really believe that?
If the government redistributed the entire wealth of the UK with the people living here, then within a decade there would be billionaires and people in destitution. There is no such thing as normal values where some people are concerned.
Much of the poverty we have in the UK is actually self inflicted.
My OH a social worker is going out today to visit a dysfunctional family in crisis. The mother has several thousand pounds in benefits coming into her household every month but they had no food in the house when my OH visited the other day...as soon as the money comes in it goes out ...the mother is spending it on drugs so my OH had had buy food for them. This is what you're dealing with so to carp on about poverty and a failed economy is nonsense, look at why before making a judgement.

Her kids are young teenage girls who are being neglected very badly and it will likely be that they will be taken into care for their own protection. They're sensible but the mother is a loser and always will be.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink! She has more money than many working families coming in each month but she has no values so gets into debt by spending on rubbish she puts inside her body.
She also gets through 2 packs of cigarettes each day. That's 40 cigarettes daily or £160-200 per week that the taxpayer is contributing to her worthless lifestyle just for cigarettes.

A person with a half a functioning brain wouldn't do the things she does so not all poverty is due to a failed economy, much of it is down to a failed character and unfortunately there is no cure for stupidity.

There will always be the lost causes, but lumping all poor as self inflicted is no more helpful than lumping all wealthy as evil fat cats.

If wealth distribution were fairer (e.g. according to the recently posted FT article - closer to many of our developed European neighbours) there would still be the "Sky TV and 2 packet of fags" wasters; but the vast majority of low earners would be in a much better position.

 

[Jacob]

This argument will never be resolved. Some people are born intelligent and self motivated. Some are also entrepreneurial and full of energy and ambition.

and some still fail

They build businesses and create jobs.

...and have to employ people to do the work

Eventually people complain that they are not paid as much as the boss and are oppressed workers. 'twas ever thus and always will be.

Some people catch measles etc. 'twas ever thus and always will be.
Doesn't mean you don't do anything about it!!!

There will always be those who are negative and unmotivated, there will always be leaders and followers, and always be wealth creators and consumers.

..and there will always people moving from one of these groups to another, succeeding, failing, getting by etc

It's the inevitable human bell curve. 50% will always be below average - it's just a matter of degree.

....and there will always be powerless people exploited unless they get together and fight for their rights, as they have been doing for hundreds of years.
Just been reading Paul Foot "The Vote" which is excellent. Starts 1647 at Putney with the New Model Army and ends 2000 ish when he popped off. Essential reading and masses of detail about the successes and failures of Labour governments.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/feb/26/highereducation.politicalbooks

 

[ey_tony]

What a very silly idea. Do people self-inflict low wages, job insecurity, redundancy, high rents?

In answer to that question, YES some do. Apathy and not lack of opportunity is the biggest contributor to poverty for many people.

If they are in jobs with low wages and insecurity for most of their lives, then for many that is self inflicted. Why?

Because they should and very likely could have done something about their position and re-trained or whatever to improve their employment prospects but if they can't be bothered then that is their problem and not the state's nor is it the fault of those who are successful.

The UK believe it or not has a first class education system so they should make use of it.
I may complain about the numbers of migrants coming to Britain but many to their credit actually appreciate the education system we have to offer and they take advantage of it to improve their future job prospects.
If they can do it so too can those who have lived here all their lives.
Sorry but I don't subscribe to all the left wing nonsense about how it's everyone else's fault why some people are less successful than others!

Many people come from humble backgrounds but have the drive and determination to do well in life and don't let apathy have a chance to take root. Most people get out of life what they put into it.

It isn't the fault of the successful why many others aren't.

 

[Noel]

Some seem to have mistakenly gone on a geographic swerve in a South Easterly direction. away from the topic in question.
All sorted now.

 

[Chris152]

In answer to that question, YES some do. Apathy and not lack of opportunity is the biggest contributor to poverty for many people.

If they are in jobs with low wages and insecurity for most of their lives, then for many that is self inflicted. Why?

Because they should and very likely could have done something about their position and re-trained or whatever to improve their employment prospects but if they can't be bothered then that is their problem and not the state's nor is it the fault of those who are successful.

Can you think of any reasons why some people are apathetic/ can't be bothered/ etc. Are those people that way because of some biological/ genetic condition, a result of the environment and culture they're born to, a combination of those, or something else?

On the British education system, this seems interesting:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/nov/21/english-class-system-shaped-in-schools