And all the Osborne fan club seem to forget about the worldwide financial crash that caused the whole thing in the first place, unless, of course, you blame Gordon Brown for the sub-prime lending in the USA and all the Icelandic banks going belly up.
I'll mention that every single poll puts Labour ahead of the Conservatives. Don't you think that shows that people don't trust the Conservatives?
so the worldwide crash caused the whole thing did it? you know what, i agree - so why blame osborne for how long its taken to recover from the worldwide crash. slow growth was inevitable whoever was in power. unless you think labour had some magic beans to grow the economy quicker.
as for the polls, well all i'll say is "brainwashed masses, sheep follow sheep, and there are non so blind as those who will not see".
I'm afraid there's nothing doctors can do about it, it's like a form of Tourette's they just can't help themselves whenever someone mentions the upturn in the economy, either that are they are being willfully ignorant (sometimes called tactical stupidity).
Labour's various positions on the economy have all come unravelled and the cost of living is just the latest. There is hope for Balls as he does not a U but a 7 point turn.
masses of people being exploited on zero hours contracts? not millions, like you've said in the past? for your information, many people prefer zero hours contracts, as polls previously shown on this forum, show.
as for food banks (sorry to sound glib on this), but, if you build it, they will come. the more food banks that are opened, the more they will be used (which begs the question, what were these people using before foodbanks?).
if you and labour want more full time jobs available, then please please please explain to me how labour intend to provide more full time jobs?
lets face it Jol, the economy is on the up, inflation is down, wages rising faster than inflation, more people in work now than at any other time - labours mantra is crumbling before them. and they have no alternative.
More people in work? You mean more people in shit jobs with shit wages because that is all there is. Seriously, the tories have had it (and they know it) so will be out next year. Mark my words.
More people in work? You mean more people in shit jobs with shit wages because that is all there is. Seriously, the tories have had it (and they know it) so will be out next year. Mark my words.
and then all the shit jobs will have disappeared thanks to the brave new world created under labour, won't they. and everyone will work in hunky dory jobs (insert rolleyes smilie here).
oh, i can plummet quite low when sarcasm is required.;-)
my contempt for people is when they vote for a certain party because:
a) they've always voted that party (and are unwilling to at least view the alternatives).
b) they vote for that party because their father did, and his father before him etc.
c) they vote for a certain party because they are the only choice who can keep another party out of government.
and i think we all know a few of the above on this forum, don't we.
Yes, about half of them vote Conservative and the other half Labour. I vote for neither most of the time (next 4 votes likely to be Independent, Green, Yes, LD).
Patrick Bosco McFadden (born 26 March 1965, Paisley) is a British Labour Party politician, who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Wolverhampton South East since 2005. He was briefly Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, but failed to be elected to the Shadow Cabinet shortly after Ed Miliband became Labour Leader.
Can't imagine for the life of me why, A, he's the only one they dare name, and B, he should feel a 'tad' bitter about not being elected to the shadow cabinet,
So basically we have a story in right-wing paper with a track record of attacking Labour for just about anything, and everything, including attacking the dead father of the party leader, and implying that a senior member supported kiddy fiddlers,
making up another non story claiming, without backing it up with a shred of evidence,
(because most journalists know that using "sources said" in any article means "we are making it up but you can't prove that we are, and we haven't quoted anyone so you can't sue us either")
that "senior Labour MPs" have said the things that the right wing Labour hating paper with a despicable record, is claiming they have said, and the ONLY 'evidence' they provide to back up this claim is a quote from an EX Labour minister a man who hasn't been a minister for almost 10 years and who failed to get elected to the shadow cabinet,
it IS however, an excellent exercise to show just how willingly some people are to believe any old garbage provided it tells them what they want to hear, no matter which 'team' they support,
erm which Labour MPs? because they couldn't have been "demanding" very loudly if they haven't been named by any newspaper or media outlet,
Really? and where is "one source" the MP for?
Who are you asking these questions of.
i see you deconstructing the story like this and it tells me you have no answer to it. you know labour of no credibility on the economy nor any economic plan that they have told us about.
your energy would be better spent complaining to them.
So basically we have a story in right-wing paper with a track record of attacking Labour for just about anything, and everything, including attacking the dead father of the party leader, and implying that a senior member supported kiddy fiddlers, making up another non story claiming, without backing it up with a shred of evidence, (because most journalists know that using "sources said" in any article means "we are making it up but you can't prove that we are, and we haven't quoted anyone so you can't sue us either")
that "senior Labour MPs" have said the things that the right wing Labour hating paper with a despicable record, is claiming they have said, and the ONLY 'evidence' they provide to back up this claim is a quote from an EX Labour minister a man who hasn't been a minister for almost 10 years and who failed to get elected to the shadow cabinet,
Hmm - you are aware (or possibly not) that the same story was in the Staggers - are they now a 'right wing Labour hating paper with a despicable record'?
it IS however, an excellent exercise to show just how willingly some people are to believe any old garbage provided it tells them what they want to hear, no matter which 'team' they support,
Well no party will need worry for long if they are in the right or in the wrong, inflation down and wages up means one thing and that's a rise in interest rates (good for savers if its passed on but not for mortgage holders ) then we see a rise in other prices so inflation back up again, so no one wins for long.
Well no party will need worry for long if they are in the right or in the wrong, inflation down and wages up means one thing and that's a rise in interest rates (good for savers if its passed on but not for mortgage holders ) then we see a rise in other prices so inflation back up again, so no one wins for long.
A rise in interest rates does not cause a rise in prices. Indeed the reason they would raise interest rates would be to reduce inflation.
Of course the lucky who get bonuses are going to think it's great, but they are in the minority.
Bonuses are still part of someone's wages however much people would wish it otherwise. Further given the closeness of the figures it will not be a long time before even standard wages (for want of a better way of putting it) will also outstrip inflation
Of course the lucky who get bonuses are going to think it's great, but they are in the minority.
GM that is one of the daftest things you've said in a while.
The figure doesn't say excluding people who earn bonuses it says excluding bonuses, as in party if someone's pay.
If you don't get a bonus but your pay went up 10%, and I do get a bonus but my core pay went down 8.6% then that would mean on average, excluding bonuses our pay went up 1.4%
If my bonus though increased a little then we could have day a 2% average pay rise.
I would have thought that attacking this government's Economic Competence is the right plan for the Opposition.
The Tories say that the creation of 540,000 new jobs - which are self employment - is good news. But if these 540,000 people are now miserable after being bullied into accepting self employment, poor job security and lower pay, how is that good news for the Tories chances of a majority next year?
John Redwood has been crowing to the BBC about the surge in numbers with an income of more than £1m. In fact, he described the amounts that these people have paid themselves this year as "eye-popping". Was that a good idea John? What he might see as a good economic indicator may in fact be an indication of where the benefit of growth will be seen in this country.
A report by The Living Wage Commision says:
For the first time, the majority of people in poverty in the UK are working. One in every five workers are paid less than they need to maintain a basic, but socially acceptable standard of living.
Working families are increasingly having to turn to food banks and credit to make ends meet.
The number of people paid below a Living Wage has increased by more than 400,000 in the last 12 months.
The last one is interesting. Have the Tories driven an extra 400,000 people into poverty level wages - in the past 12 months - or have they created 400,000 poverty level jobs? Look forward to hearing your views on which it is.......
GM that is one of the daftest things you've said in a while.
The figure doesn't say excluding people who earn bonuses it says excluding bonuses, as in party if someone's pay.
If you don't get a bonus but your pay went up 10%, and I do get a bonus but my core pay went down 8.6% then that would mean on average, excluding bonuses our pay went up 1.4%
If my bonus though increased a little then we could have day a 2% average pay rise.
You follow?
I didn't write that report it's from YouGov so why attribute it to me ?
I would have thought that attacking this government's Economic Competence is the right plan for the Opposition.
The Tories say that the creation of 540,000 new jobs - which are self employment - is good news. But if these 540,000 people are now miserable after being bullied into accepting self employment, poor job security and lower pay, how is that good news for the Tories chances of a majority next year?
John Redwood has been crowing to the BBC about the surge in numbers with an income of more than £1m. In fact, he described the amounts that these people have paid themselves this year as "eye-popping". Was that a good idea John? What he might see as a good economic indicator may in fact be an indication of where the benefit of growth will be seen in this country.
A report by The Living Wage Commision says:
For the first time, the majority of people in poverty in the UK are working. One in every five workers are paid less than they need to maintain a basic, but socially acceptable standard of living.
Working families are increasingly having to turn to food banks and credit to make ends meet.
The number of people paid below a Living Wage has increased by more than 400,000 in the last 12 months.
The last one is interesting. Have the Tories driven an extra 400,000 people into poverty level wages - in the past 12 months - or have they created 400,000 poverty level jobs? Look forward to hearing your views on which it is.......
Thanks for posting - interesting.
I suspect a significant chunk of the 400,000 are those that didn't have a pay rise last year - whose salaries were just enough to qualify as above the living wage, but when the Living Wage increased in November last year, they no longer qualified.
Luckily, that substitute will arrive in May 2015 when we get rid of Osborne.
Ha ! And replace him with Ed Balls? The election would have to be rescheduled for 1st April in that case.
There are two kinds of politics: "fantasy" and "reality". Most of the time we've chose reality, but every so often we retreat into a little bit of fantasy.
Tony Blair attempted to create an electable party based on a mixture of both, however, the dream part of those 13 years went on too long and in 2010 we woke up.
There's always a terribly groggy feeling when you come out of a peaceful slumber and thankfully we're just settling down and feeling grounded again, and not yet ready for another round of dreams and fantasy. By next year we'll be well awake and won't be ready to dream again for another 5 to 10 years at least.
Comments
so the worldwide crash caused the whole thing did it? you know what, i agree - so why blame osborne for how long its taken to recover from the worldwide crash. slow growth was inevitable whoever was in power. unless you think labour had some magic beans to grow the economy quicker.
as for the polls, well all i'll say is "brainwashed masses, sheep follow sheep, and there are non so blind as those who will not see".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27042251
How long should it take to recover from the world's worse economic crash in living memory?
And by virtue of it being the biggest crash in living memory what are you comparing it against in order to support that statement?
The Japanese would have bitten your hand off if 6 years is the most it should take. How'd you account for their lost decade?
More people in work? You mean more people in shit jobs with shit wages because that is all there is. Seriously, the tories have had it (and they know it) so will be out next year. Mark my words.
oh, i can plummet quite low when sarcasm is required.;-)
my contempt for people is when they vote for a certain party because:
a) they've always voted that party (and are unwilling to at least view the alternatives).
b) they vote for that party because their father did, and his father before him etc.
c) they vote for a certain party because they are the only choice who can keep another party out of government.
and i think we all know a few of the above on this forum, don't we.
and then all the shit jobs will have disappeared thanks to the brave new world created under labour, won't they. and everyone will work in hunky dory jobs (insert rolleyes smilie here).
erm which Labour MPs? because they couldn't have been "demanding" very loudly if they haven't been named by any newspaper or media outlet,
Really? and where is "one source" the MP for?
AHHH so NOT a "labour MP" then, but a "former minister"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_McFadden_%28British_politician%29 Can't imagine for the life of me why, A, he's the only one they dare name, and B, he should feel a 'tad' bitter about not being elected to the shadow cabinet,
So basically we have a story in right-wing paper with a track record of attacking Labour for just about anything, and everything, including attacking the dead father of the party leader, and implying that a senior member supported kiddy fiddlers,
making up another non story claiming, without backing it up with a shred of evidence,
(because most journalists know that using "sources said" in any article means "we are making it up but you can't prove that we are, and we haven't quoted anyone so you can't sue us either")
that "senior Labour MPs" have said the things that the right wing Labour hating paper with a despicable record, is claiming they have said, and the ONLY 'evidence' they provide to back up this claim is a quote from an EX Labour minister a man who hasn't been a minister for almost 10 years and who failed to get elected to the shadow cabinet,
it IS however, an excellent exercise to show just how willingly some people are to believe any old garbage provided it tells them what they want to hear, no matter which 'team' they support,
i think they think talking about fiscal stimulus, supply side economics, capital adequacy ratios and so on is off putting to their voters.
they prefer alliteration. bankers bonuses, cost of living crisis, tory taxes, too far too fast, too little too late. etc.
Who are you asking these questions of.
i see you deconstructing the story like this and it tells me you have no answer to it. you know labour of no credibility on the economy nor any economic plan that they have told us about.
your energy would be better spent complaining to them.
Hmm - you are aware (or possibly not) that the same story was in the Staggers - are they now a 'right wing Labour hating paper with a despicable record'?
Indeed..
You kill me sometimes, flaggers.
A rise in interest rates does not cause a rise in prices. Indeed the reason they would raise interest rates would be to reduce inflation.
Bonuses are still part of someone's wages however much people would wish it otherwise. Further given the closeness of the figures it will not be a long time before even standard wages (for want of a better way of putting it) will also outstrip inflation
Ask many business who raise prices (some of them have no choice ) as their mortgage interest rate goes up.
GM that is one of the daftest things you've said in a while.
The figure doesn't say excluding people who earn bonuses it says excluding bonuses, as in party if someone's pay.
If you don't get a bonus but your pay went up 10%, and I do get a bonus but my core pay went down 8.6% then that would mean on average, excluding bonuses our pay went up 1.4%
If my bonus though increased a little then we could have day a 2% average pay rise.
You follow?
You had better phone economics and tell it it's wrong then.
The Tories say that the creation of 540,000 new jobs - which are self employment - is good news. But if these 540,000 people are now miserable after being bullied into accepting self employment, poor job security and lower pay, how is that good news for the Tories chances of a majority next year?
John Redwood has been crowing to the BBC about the surge in numbers with an income of more than £1m. In fact, he described the amounts that these people have paid themselves this year as "eye-popping". Was that a good idea John? What he might see as a good economic indicator may in fact be an indication of where the benefit of growth will be seen in this country.
A report by The Living Wage Commision says:
For the first time, the majority of people in poverty in the UK are working. One in every five workers are paid less than they need to maintain a basic, but socially acceptable standard of living.
Working families are increasingly having to turn to food banks and credit to make ends meet.
The number of people paid below a Living Wage has increased by more than 400,000 in the last 12 months.
http://livingwagecommission.org.uk/new-report-from-the-living-wage-commission-sets-out-the-scale-of-low-pay-in-the-uk/
The last one is interesting. Have the Tories driven an extra 400,000 people into poverty level wages - in the past 12 months - or have they created 400,000 poverty level jobs? Look forward to hearing your views on which it is.......
I didn't write that report it's from YouGov so why attribute it to me ?
Thanks for posting - interesting.
I suspect a significant chunk of the 400,000 are those that didn't have a pay rise last year - whose salaries were just enough to qualify as above the living wage, but when the Living Wage increased in November last year, they no longer qualified.
It was your analysis rather than the quote. You understand why it was wrong?
Ha ! And replace him with Ed Balls? The election would have to be rescheduled for 1st April in that case.
There are two kinds of politics: "fantasy" and "reality". Most of the time we've chose reality, but every so often we retreat into a little bit of fantasy.
Tony Blair attempted to create an electable party based on a mixture of both, however, the dream part of those 13 years went on too long and in 2010 we woke up.
There's always a terribly groggy feeling when you come out of a peaceful slumber and thankfully we're just settling down and feeling grounded again, and not yet ready for another round of dreams and fantasy. By next year we'll be well awake and won't be ready to dream again for another 5 to 10 years at least.