Extreme poverty ‘will double by Christmas’ in UK because of Covid-19

[Thomas]

Thanks for that.

I have in the past focussed on the fact over their 13 years in power Labour did sod all to reverse the destruction of health provision and in several important ways made things worse, it's interesting to see they were pretty much just as effective in combating inequality of living standards...

Its laughable listening to them john , and their supporters.

Its the same non stop never ending pie in the sky promises they make every year , but when they get into power , if you scratch  the surface of their record in government it is feckin woefull.

[johnofgwent]

You are always going on about poverty and inequality in the yookay , with the insinuation all the evils of the world are thrown at the tories ( and others) door.

When labour are in power , what do labour do about it?

The graph above, taken from independent monitoring group The Poverty Site and created from official UK Government statistics, shows the reality of the last 13 years of Labour government (shaded in grey). Over that period – including the time when Ed Miliband was Chairman of HM Treasury's Council Of Economic Advisers – the gap between the respective shares of Britain's wealth owned by the richest 10% of citizens and the poorest 10% significantly INCREASED in size, by around one-eighth.

Thanks for that.

I have in the past focussed on the fact over their 13 years in power Labour did sod all to reverse the destruction of health provision and in several important ways made things worse, it's interesting to see they were pretty much just as effective in combating inequality of living standards...

[Thomas]

They are not equal comparisons. Are you one of those - champion of the working classes - who thinks working class poverty does not exist? That some do not end up homeless? Or do you like Barry think there are only 10 cases of poverty in the entire country

You are always going on about poverty and inequality in the yookay , with the insinuation all the evils of the world are thrown at the tories ( and others) door.

When labour are in power , what do labour do about it?

The graph above, taken from independent monitoring group The Poverty Site and created from official UK Government statistics, shows the reality of the last 13 years of Labour government (shaded in grey). Over that period – including the time when Ed Miliband was Chairman of HM Treasury's Council Of Economic Advisers – the gap between the respective shares of Britain's wealth owned by the richest 10% of citizens and the poorest 10% significantly INCREASED in size, by around one-eighth.

[Thomas]

I don't trust Starmer at all, and am especially dubious of some of the company he keeps and of some of his decisions.

so you keep saying , but what i find ridiculous is your position on blairites like starmer , when you blame them for all your ills i labour , but then insinuate you are going to hold your nose and support them to get labour and the left into power.

.....with the same predictable disasterous consequences as last time.?

But how much of a Blairite he is in policy terms remains to be seen.

Well , as i keep saying to your labour mate good old , starmer cant go the full 4 years till the next GE and not talk about policy no matter how much he wishes he could.

Eventualy he is going to have to start taking a position  ,climb down off the fence , and offer up alternatives , otherwise he is going to get laughed at.

At the minute , he is shit scared of coming off the fence and opening his mouth in case he pisses off the electorate by telling us all what we already suspect , and pissing off the hard left in labour like you with his blairite policies.

He  will get found out sooner or later though , so his current strategy wont last forever.

He did serve in Corbyn's shadow cabinet after all.

He did , and we all saw how he was at loggerheads with corbyn and macdonnel over many areas  especially like anti semtism and brexit.

...but you want to give him the benefit of the doubt....

So if Starmer proves to be a total Blairite even on policy I may remain a member but go utterly dormant, not campaigning for any local candidate who is not of the left

and if you do you will be a hypocrite as i already hinted at  , after everything you have said of the blairites , and you will own everything the blairites did and do.

I may vote for other parties if our local candidate is not to my liking.

thats nothing new , you told me in the past you did that anyway to tactically keep the tories out.

You always crawl back to labour despite everything you say.

But by remaining inside I can vote against the shit at every turn until the tide turns

Do you remember old expounder on our old forum?

Thats was what he said over a lifetime of labour party membership , and i called him out on that policy too. You will be a hypocrite and a blairite enabler if you do.

So say whatever you like, I will choose and walk my own path without reference to you.

you do what you like , but stupidly you have just destroyed your very own tactic of blaming the labour parties poor past record on the blairites as by your own admission you will be holding your nose and supporting them and enabling them into power.

[srb7677]

Actually, the jury is still out on that insofar as Starmer is concerned.

come oan now steve , the jury isnt out insofar as starmer is concerned. This is nonsense , and you know its nonsense.

This is you in labour repeating the same tired old policy of fence sitting  or being disingenuous on various subjects that you hoped would get you elected for the past ten years , and its failed.

What is it they say , doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result is the sign of madness?

Starmer is a blairite , and everybody knows it , including the hard left within labour. The hard left in labour are desperate to get rid of him , and were hoping long bailey would succeed corbyn so what are you talking about?

They also were in a fury with him for buying off those journailsts over the anti semtism affair with corbyn.

All the old blairite babes in the party , cooper , reeve etc are back in positions of authority , and milliband himself stood in for starmer in parliament.

You must think people are fuckin stupid to say the jury is out on starmer. He is an out and out knight for the realm london centric champagne socialist blairite.

But sadly we are a divided party.

You are a divided party , and why are you divided?

You hate the blairites like starmer by your own admission , which is what im saying above , so how the feck can you say the jury is out on starmer when large sections of the labour grassroots members despise the man?

In effect we are two parties in one, forced to fight it out for control or influence because under FPTP leaving would be disastrous for either wing.

right so you tell me you hate the blairites like starmer , and blame them for labours record in the past , but because of the antiquated FPTP system , you are prepared to put up with them ( jury is out on starmer ) to get labour and the left into power?

Glad we cleared that up , so when i criticise labour in the past , you on the hard labour left own the mistakes of the blairites too ok , because you are sanctioning them getting into power by holding your nose and supporting them.

So no more of this "it was the blairites that did it" shite .

I don't trust Starmer at all, and am especially dubious of some of the company he keeps and of some of his decisions. But how much of a Blairite he is in policy terms remains to be seen. He did serve in Corbyn's shadow cabinet after all. So however much you mistakenly choose to think I am taking you for a fool, for me the jury is still out on Starmer in policy terms. You might regard that as foolish but I am afraid it is honest. I am waiting to see what happens on policy.

But in discussions with other left wingers in the party we are all aware the Blairites want us to flounce off. But if we remain we still get to vote in party elections. So if Starmer proves to be a total Blairite even on policy I may remain a member but go utterly dormant, not campaigning for any local candidate who is not of the left. I may vote for other parties if our local candidate is not to my liking. But by remaining inside I can vote against the shit at every turn until the tide turns, as it will if Starmer fails. The left's biggest weakness has been our tendency to walk away on principle. Most of the Blairites never did that. So again I am torn between a desire to walk away in disgust if there is wholesale policy change, or remaining to fight the long fight from within, but choosing carefully what I fight for. I wobble between these two positions as I wrestle with my political conscience.

But these are my internal struggles. I will take no notice of outright political opponents from outside in making my decisions. So say whatever you like, I will choose and walk my own path without reference to you.

[Thomas]

Actually, the jury is still out on that insofar as Starmer is concerned.

come oan now steve , the jury isnt out insofar as starmer is concerned. This is nonsense , and you know its nonsense.

This is you in labour repeating the same tired old policy of fence sitting  or being disingenuous on various subjects that you hoped would get you elected for the past ten years , and its failed.

What is it they say , doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result is the sign of madness?

Starmer is a blairite , and everybody knows it , including the hard left within labour. The hard left in labour are desperate to get rid of him , and were hoping long bailey would succeed corbyn so what are you talking about?

They also were in a fury with him for buying off those journailsts over the anti semtism affair with corbyn.

All the old blairite babes in the party , cooper , reeve etc are back in positions of authority , and milliband himself stood in for starmer in parliament.

You must think people are fuckin stupid to say the jury is out on starmer. He is an out and out knight for the realm london centric champagne socialist blairite.

But sadly we are a divided party.

You are a divided party , and why are you divided?

You hate the blairites like starmer by your own admission , which is what im saying above , so how the feck can you say the jury is out on starmer when large sections of the labour grassroots members despise the man?

In effect we are two parties in one, forced to fight it out for control or influence because under FPTP leaving would be disastrous for either wing.

right so you tell me you hate the blairites like starmer , and blame them for labours record in the past , but because of the antiquated FPTP system , you are prepared to put up with them ( jury is out on starmer ) to get labour and the left into power?

Glad we cleared that up , so when i criticise labour in the past , you on the hard labour left own the mistakes of the blairites too ok , because you are sanctioning them getting into power by holding your nose and supporting them.

So no more of this "it was the blairites that did it" shite .

[srb7677]

That is a difficult one. I am still a party member right now though have had many wobbles. I am not at all sure about Starmer. The big one  for me is what happens on policy and there have been few changes there as yet. In short, were there an election today I would still vote Labour, though whether that continues to hold true in the future remains to be seen. The jury is still out on too many things for me to say I will always support Labour. But on balance I just about still do right now albeit with reservations.

So I cannot actually give a definitive answer because my own present and future support for the party is in a state of flux as I wait and see how things develop. At this precise moment though I am still a Labour supporter and voter, albeit an opponent of the Blairite wing. If the latter wins total dominance including on policy, I will ultimately abandon the party and take my support elsewhere.

ok thats fair and honest , but you can't have it both ways.

Everytime i show up labours past inglorious record in power , you blame the blairites , and i agree with you. However , your party is full of blairites , and obviously they are back in charge again.

You arent two different parties , no matter how much you wish us to think so.

So if as you say the blairites are to blame for labours past deeds , then what you are basically saying is no one should vote for labour as we are simply going to get more of the same if starmer and co get into government.

Actually, the jury is still out on that insofar as Starmer is concerned. Undoubtedly, the Blairites (or Brownites, both New Labour) were in charge from before 1997 until at least 2010, so whatever good or bad happened or didn't happen in those years is largely down to them.

But sadly we are a divided party. In effect we are two parties in one, forced to fight it out for control or influence because under FPTP leaving would be disastrous for either wing. If we had a PR system, Labour would split in two. Some of us on the left see the Blairites as outright enemies, and they see us in the same light. The basic ideological differences between them and us is that they see the Thatcherite consensus as set in stone, the immovable framework within which all solutions must operate, whilst we see that consensus itself as the main problem. We are able to think outside the Thatcherite box, the Blairites seem both incapable of doing so and unwilling to. Some Blairites are heavily invested in the economic status quo, being little more than metropolitan middle class faux lefties who have invested all their progressive credentials in identity politics. Some are barely progressive in an economic sense anymore.

But speaking personally now, what happens on policy will be the deciding factor for me. There is a school of thought that Starmer is about delivering  our left leaning 2017 manifesto from the centre, ie keeping the Blairites on board with the right mood music and making all the right patriotic noises whilst delivering genuinely progressive policies, particularly as most of them poll very well. Am not entirely convinced by this line of thought but neither am I dismissing it out of hand. In that sense the jury is still out for me and I await policy developments. I will be amazed if there is not some backtracking to please the Blairites, but how much or how little will be the deciding factors for me.

[Thomas]

That is a difficult one. I am still a party member right now though have had many wobbles. I am not at all sure about Starmer. The big one  for me is what happens on policy and there have been few changes there as yet. In short, were there an election today I would still vote Labour, though whether that continues to hold true in the future remains to be seen. The jury is still out on too many things for me to say I will always support Labour. But on balance I just about still do right now albeit with reservations.

So I cannot actually give a definitive answer because my own present and future support for the party is in a state of flux as I wait and see how things develop. At this precise moment though I am still a Labour supporter and voter, albeit an opponent of the Blairite wing. If the latter wins total dominance including on policy, I will ultimately abandon the party and take my support elsewhere.

ok thats fair and honest , but you cant have it both ways.

Everytime i show up labours past inglorious record in power , you blame the blairites , and i agree with you. However , your party is full of blairites , and obviously they are back in charge again.

You arent two different parties , no matter how much you wish us to think so.

So if as you say the blairites are to blame for labours past deeds , then what you are basically saying is no one should vote for labour as we are simply going to get more of the same if starmer and co get into government.

[johnofgwent]

Do you remember when the party of the poor , the labour party  , were advertising their socialist soul was for sale when they took money from a formula one boss in exchange for an exemption on tobacco advertising?

Very much so.

I was sitting in a conference room at the london office of saatchi and saatchi. We were pondering the best way to deal with IR35 and the far more insidious for the genuine startup, S660.

I was one of an elected council advising the directors of our trade body.

It was proposed we have a whip round, then 'do a Bernie' and bung Blair a million quid to make the problem go away. We knew who to approach ...

At the time, a thousand pounds was two days work for me. And I was well into the bottom quarter of the invoicing power of the top 500 earners in the organisation.

But we proposed leaving the donation in place until Blair became unpopular, as our lobbyists were certain he would, upon which ime we would arrange for the details of our illegal donation to the party to be leaked to the electoral authorities. This would force the party to return the donation.

You DO realise that was Bernie Ecclestone's plan all along dont you. That he knew the donation would be found out, judged illegal, and the money returned ??

He *KNEW* the days of tobacco ads on racing cars were numbered and he knew an illegal donation if successful would buy him time to have one last round of raking it in, after which the money would have to be returned to him.

In exchange for the loss of interest on a million quid in the bank he made the party a beneficiary of a criminal act.

The concept - and the man - was pure genius

I argued for the idea of doing a Bernie and had my company cheque book in my hand as I said so....

I was not alone. I later found every one of the lobby had like me at one time done, or tendered to do, business with Saudi Arabian individuals or companies and had thus had to deal with the 'facilitation fee' ......

Less unscrupulous people in the room argued the idea down. And the country paid the price.

[srb7677]

The problem is policy is what has increased poverty since May 2010, that plus a hostile environment from the DWP and JobCentre Plus.

In the labour parties 13 years in power , the poorest ten per cent of the popualtions share of income fell from 2% to 1.6%.

Labour massively failed to do anything about income inequality , while throwing billions the country couldnt afford at child poverty and pensioners.

You know I am going to say that it was New Labour that was in power between 1997 and 2010 and I was not a supporter of it. Nevertheless, bearing down upon pensioner poverty and child poverty was the right thing to do. When it came to pensioners though the mistake which made it so costly was to spread largesse of one kind or another to all pensioners regardless of wealth rather than focussing on actual pensioner poverty. Retired millionaires still got their free bus travel and free winter fuel allowance, etc.

But New Labour's gross failure to tackle income inequality effectively was a major failure. This should have been done by more substantial minimum wage increases, and an effective crackdown on the expansion of part time and zero hours work. Also opening the floodgates to eastern Europe and allowing employers to exploit this cheap labour source to keep pay down was a major error which I suspect may have been quite deliberate. All those middle class metropolitan faux lefties saw value in having access to cheap plumbers, builders, and electricians, whilst patting themselves on the back for helping the poor from elsewhere, without a thought for our own working classes, whom they mostly airbrushed out of existence on the assumption that we'd all become middle class now.

When it comes to those at the bottom of the income scale, New Labour was pretty much a failure. And with exponentially rising living costs, especially housing costs, which they also totally ignored, people at the bottom actually got poorer in real terms. Tax credits did help some of them but too many were exempted, eg the under 25s and many part time workers.

ok so you are back to blaming new labour ?

So tell me steve ,do you support labour now , and will you be voting for them at the next election?

That is a difficult one. I am still a party member right now though have had many wobbles. I am not at all sure about Starmer. The big one  for me is what happens on policy and there have been few changes there as yet. In short, were there an election today I would still vote Labour, though whether that continues to hold true in the future remains to be seen. The jury is still out on too many things for me to say I will always support Labour. But on balance I just about still do right now albeit with reservations.

So I cannot actually give a definitive answer because my own present and future support for the party is in a state of flux as I wait and see how things develop. At this precise moment though I am still a Labour supporter and voter, albeit an opponent of the Blairite wing. If the latter wins total dominance including on policy, I will ultimately abandon the party and take my support elsewhere.

[Barry]

Indeed. They struck a supposedly "oven ready" deal that was so poor...

...they stuck it in the oven roasted it and burnt it.

[Thomas]

The problem is policy is what has increased poverty since May 2010, that plus a hostile environment from the DWP and JobCentre Plus.

In the labour parties 13 years in power , the poorest ten per cent of the popualtions share of income fell from 2% to 1.6%.

Labour massively failed to do anything about income inequality , while throwing billions the country couldnt afford at child poverty and pensioners.

You know I am going to say that it was New Labour that was in power between 1997 and 2010 and I was not a supporter of it. Nevertheless, bearing down upon pensioner poverty and child poverty was the right thing to do. When it came to pensioners though the mistake which made it so costly was to spread largesse of one kind or another to all pensioners regardless of wealth rather than focussing on actual pensioner poverty. Retired millionaires still got their free bus travel and free winter fuel allowance, etc.

But New Labour's gross failure to tackle income inequality effectively was a major failure. This should have been done by more substantial minimum wage increases, and an effective crackdown on the expansion of part time and zero hours work. Also opening the floodgates to eastern Europe and allowing employers to exploit this cheap labour source to keep pay down was a major error which I suspect may have been quite deliberate. All those middle class metropolitan faux lefties saw value in having access to cheap plumbers, builders, and electricians, whilst patting themselves on the back for helping the poor from elsewhere, without a thought for our own working classes, whom they mostly airbrushed out of existence on the assumption that we'd all become middle class now.

When it comes to those at the bottom of the income scale, New Labour was pretty much a failure. And with exponentially rising living costs, especially housing costs, which they also totally ignored, people at the bottom actually got poorer in real terms. Tax credits did help some of them but too many were exempted, eg the under 25s and many part time workers.

ok so you are back to blaming new labour ?

So tell me steve ,do you support labour now , and will you be voting for them at the next election?

[srb7677]

The problem is policy is what has increased poverty since May 2010, that plus a hostile environment from the DWP and JobCentre Plus.

In the labour parties 13 years in power , the poorest ten per cent of the popualtions share of income fell from 2% to 1.6%.

Labour massively failed to do anything about income inequality , while throwing billions the country couldnt afford at child poverty and pensioners.

You know I am going to say that it was New Labour that was in power between 1997 and 2010 and I was not a supporter of it. Nevertheless, bearing down upon pensioner poverty and child poverty was the right thing to do. When it came to pensioners though the mistake which made it so costly was to spread largesse of one kind or another to all pensioners regardless of wealth rather than focussing on actual pensioner poverty. Retired millionaires still got their free bus travel and free winter fuel allowance, etc.

But New Labour's gross failure to tackle income inequality effectively was a major failure. This should have been done by more substantial minimum wage increases, and an effective crackdown on the expansion of part time and zero hours work. Also opening the floodgates to eastern Europe and allowing employers to exploit this cheap labour source to keep pay down was a major error which I suspect may have been quite deliberate. All those middle class metropolitan faux lefties saw value in having access to cheap plumbers, builders, and electricians, whilst patting themselves on the back for helping the poor from elsewhere, without a thought for our own working classes, whom they mostly airbrushed out of existence on the assumption that we'd all become middle class now.

When it comes to those at the bottom of the income scale, New Labour was pretty much a failure. And with exponentially rising living costs, especially housing costs, which they also totally ignored, people at the bottom actually got poorer in real terms. Tax credits did help some of them but too many were exempted, eg the under 25s and many part time workers.

That isn't even 1% of everything they got wrong, I'd start with not reforming the electoral system as they promised, and go chronologically from there.

Ultimately, Blair was Murdoch and America's puppet.

I do not disagree with you. I too am a strong advocate of electoral reform and despised all the sucking up to Murdoch

[Borg Refinery]

The problem is policy is what has increased poverty since May 2010, that plus a hostile environment from the DWP and JobCentre Plus.

In the labour parties 13 years in power , the poorest ten per cent of the popualtions share of income fell from 2% to 1.6%.

Labour massively failed to do anything about income inequality , while throwing billions the country couldnt afford at child poverty and pensioners.

You know I am going to say that it was New Labour that was in power between 1997 and 2010 and I was not a supporter of it. Nevertheless, bearing down upon pensioner poverty and child poverty was the right thing to do. When it came to pensioners though the mistake which made it so costly was to spread largesse of one kind or another to all pensioners regardless of wealth rather than focussing on actual pensioner poverty. Retired millionaires still got their free bus travel and free winter fuel allowance, etc.

But New Labour's gross failure to tackle income inequality effectively was a major failure. This should have been done by more substantial minimum wage increases, and an effective crackdown on the expansion of part time and zero hours work. Also opening the floodgates to eastern Europe and allowing employers to exploit this cheap labour source to keep pay down was a major error which I suspect may have been quite deliberate. All those middle class metropolitan faux lefties saw value in having access to cheap plumbers, builders, and electricians, whilst patting themselves on the back for helping the poor from elsewhere, without a thought for our own working classes, whom they mostly airbrushed out of existence on the assumption that we'd all become middle class now.

When it comes to those at the bottom of the income scale, New Labour was pretty much a failure. And with exponentially rising living costs, especially housing costs, which they also totally ignored, people at the bottom actually got poorer in real terms. Tax credits did help some of them but too many were exempted, eg the under 25s and many part time workers.

That isn't even 1% of everything they got wrong, I'd start with not reforming the electoral system as they promised, and go chronologically from there.

Ultimately, Blair was Murdoch and America's puppet.

[Borg Refinery]

Well here is some more for you, they had jock turn up at the border dressed like he was in some 70's sci-fi movie where the day of doom has arrived and now they reckon Sturgeon is causing trouble at the border. Not like they are all clinically insane then.

Heres a good one sheep about the westminster party looking after each other in scotland.....

Labour council boss rescued by Tory votes

The Labour leader of North Lanarkshire Council has survived a vote about his future after being bailed out by the Conservatives.

Jim Logue has been urged by the council's SNP opposition to step aside pending a police enquiry into the financial activity of two council-linked companies he was involved in.

The motions were defeated 40-33 when Labour and Tory councillors voted together.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15486836.labour-council-boss-rescued-by-tory-votes/

Not surprising to see them conspiring against the SNP as usual, unfortunately.

Papa with his newfound 27% Scottish DNA will no doubt be rushing to Labour's condemnation instead of blaming the Tories.