Labour leadership

[philpvfc]

People are more cosmetic than they ever have been, must have the latest mobile, kids must have the latest PlayStation etc. £195 a week is not poverty. The reason that figure is so high is because we are richer as a nation. Unfortunately you will get some with no money at all and as house prices continue to rise so will the cost of rent or owning your own house meaning those with nothing will find it even harder. 

Labour May reduce those on poverty as the average earnings would go down reducing the £195 a week.

Those without need looking after but those on £195 a week with no intention of working need to stop claiming poverty.

[Jacko51]

1 hour ago, Bycarsbill said:

Depends upon your definition of "worse off than their parents"?  I happened to have got married in the early 1970s and I grant you that we did manage to scrape together a deposit for a small bungalow in Biddulph.  However, after the mortgage we didn't have any money left over for furniture, so had to rely on gifts and hand-me-downs from family & friends--we even had a second-hand gas fridge at that stage of our lives! Not sure what age you are, but in those days there was no such thing as a credit card (it hadn't been invented then) and you therefore had to either save up enough for a bigger purchase or get it 'on the tick' (hire-purchase). I can assure you these were not exactly days spent glowing in the heights of luxury!

The height of luxury for us in those days was maybe twice a year we could manage to fund a visit to a Berni Inn for a 'special' meal out. Pubs were even a 'luxury' in those days and if we wanted (and could afford) a drink, it was a bottle of beer from the 'offy' (off-licence) to drink at home--or if you were a bit more extravagant--beer at home delivered by Davenports--look up their adverts if you want a laugh. 

We couldn't even afford a television set until almost 3 years after we got married and a car was a far-off luxury for most people in those days.  Shoes got repaired at the local cobblers as we couldn't afford to buy too many pairs new and you tended to have only your workday clothes and one set of 'Sunday best' clothes for special occasions. So don't be taken in by all the left-wing claptrap about being a poorer generation and please don't try to tell me that you are now "worse off" than previous generations. I'm sure many of the older posters on here will recognise the picture I paint and unless you lived through those rather basic times you can't have any perception of what "being worse off" really means.  Having said all that, I suspect in many ways we were much more self-sufficient and content with our lot than the youth of today appear to be. So if that's your definition of being "better off" then I plead guilty, but in purely commercial and financial terms it was, I have to tell you, a much more basic and impoverished world than it is today!!

I can empathise with that, Bill.  Growing up in the North East with a father who had several periods of unemployment I never thought we were poor because my parents always fed us and never spent more than they could afford.  I was 18 before I spent a night away from home and 17 before we had a telly. 

To some extent, the concept of poverty now is different because of expectations.  There are loads of things now which folk expect to have which simply weren't around when we were youngsters - mobile phones, satellite telly, cars (neither of my parents could drive), etc.

[Howjy04]

Not sure it is relevant but the first house I bought we could borrow 2x main salary plus 1x second salary.How many times salary is it now? Young people need to save more instead of wasting what money they get.Parents and grandparents can only help so much.Having said that my grandson can have what he wants.I do without so he can.

[Regal Beagle]

As with everything these days the media and incorrect politicians conflate london with the majority.

They also conflate young middle class people with no assets and lower paid entry level jobs, with the working class.

These middle class "poor" people are the ones who will traditionally drop labour when they're 25-30 and start earning some decent money.

I think labour have just forgotten who they represent and why.

 

[TheSage]

I think everyone the wrong side of sixty can empathise with such comments. I think I was about ten when I got my first holiday - taken by relatives to a caravan park in Prestatyn. My, it was great!

But "poverty" has many meanings and there are undoubtedly aspects of society today of which we should be ashamed. Fosse mentioned the number of folk sleeping on the streets. We now step over beggars. Food bank use has risen astronomically. I don't recall these things in the sixties. Benefits have wrongly been cut and/or delayed for some. There are a great many people today who count every penny and survive on credit which is at record levels. 

We can dismiss these statistics glibly if we wish but the UN published a report into poverty in the UK in 2018 and it was damning. The UK was only the second westernised country to receive condemnation, after Ireland. And the UN is a creditable source.

The government does not have an official definition of poverty so it set up a Social Metrics Commission to come up with some suggestions and facts. Members were largely Tory and included at one stage May and Lady Stroud. They said that families living on less than 55% of the median wage should be classified as falling into poverty. It's mainly single parent families and those with a disability.

The UN Report claimed that homelessness has increased massively; poorer people suffer more because of cuts in welfare, community services and access the the legal system: and child poverty has rocketed. These findings are largely confirmed by the IFS and OECD. But what is perhaps more damning is the fact the financial inequality has grown since 2010 and the gap is wider than ever. While the top 10% saw their earnings rise inexorably, the bottom 10% had a cut and in effect have less money now than in 2010.

Poverty is a difficult concept to grasp and one that changes over time. It's a bit like trying to judge who is the greatest footballer you've ever seen, which is an impossible task because you can't really compare across generations as everything moves on and is different (George Best for me, by the way, a genius). So we can really only explain poverty in today's standards and that tends to be defined now as a family living on less than 55% of the median wage.

My daughter lives and works in London. If you have any ideas as to how she can even begin to think about buying a house let me know. You could get a job in the government if you can square that circle as she's paying an eye-watering sum of money per month just to rent. The place would be worth about £120k in Stoke but the asking price where she lives is £1.2 million. Something needs to be done about the housing market but what, I do not know.

[bobvale]

3 hours ago, AMF said:

I doubt it. People tend to grow up and stop voting for Labour as they realise how the world actually works. Look at most Labour voters over the age of 45, dress like children most of them ("traditional working class Labour" over this age no longer exist).

As for Corbyn lies, there isn't much need for lies because the truth is pretty damning for that fellow. Absolute scum. He must be on the psychopathic end of the mental spectrum. Thankfully people around here and across the north saw through his filth. As Ruth Smeeth stated, Labour are the racist party.

His supporters are either 

1. anarchists. 

2. Public servants looking out for themselves after the promise of inflation busting payrises.

3. Naive students, 80% of which have never seen the inside of a back street boozer.

4. Middle class 30 somethings living in the gentrified metropolitan bubble full of enough guilt over their own prosperity to vote Labour (although they should vote Lib Dem).

The "working class base" has been patronized to death through years of absolute drivel. The Labour Party are so out of touch with reality that it's not even funny. It's not healthy to have such a weak opposition as any government needs to be held accountable.

You are a peculier card, sir!

[bobvale]

3 hours ago, Bycarsbill said:

 I happened to have got married in the early 1970s and I grant you that we did manage to scrape together a deposit for a small bungalow in Biddulph.  However, after the mortgage we didn't have any money left over for furniture, so had to rely on gifts and hand-me-downs from family & friends--we even had a second-hand gas fridge at that stage of our lives! Not sure what age you are, but in those days there was no such thing as a credit card (it hadn't been invented then) and you therefore had to either save up enough for a bigger purchase or get it 'on the tick' (hire-purchase). I can assure you these were not exactly days spent glowing in the heights of luxury!

The height of luxury for us in those days was maybe twice a year we could manage to fund a visit to a Berni Inn for a 'special' meal out. Pubs were even a 'luxury' in those days and if we wanted (and could afford) a drink, it was a bottle of beer from the 'offy' (off-licence) to drink at home--or if you were a bit more extravagant--beer at home delivered by Davenports--look up their adverts if you want a laugh. 

We couldn't even afford a television set until almost 3 years after we got married and a car was a far-off luxury for most people in those days.  Shoes got repaired at the local cobblers as we couldn't afford to buy too many pairs new and you tended to have only your workday clothes and one set of 'Sunday best' clothes for special occasions. 

You were lucky. We lived for three months in a brown paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six o'clock in the morning, clean the bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down mill for fourteen hours a day week in-week out. When we got home, our Dad would thrash us to sleep with his belt!

[Jacko51]

1 hour ago, bobvale said:

You were lucky. We lived for three months in a brown paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six o'clock in the morning, clean the bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down mill for fourteen hours a day week in-week out. When we got home, our Dad would thrash us to sleep with his belt!

You’re making stuff up to get a laugh. BB is actually talking about the reality of life in his younger days. Don’t mock. 

[toyahw]

We've got no car, I have no smart phone.  No debts.  We only ever fly business class, and spend six weeks a year in the Maldives. Plus a few F1's. Am I in poverty? Or do I just manage my money?

[Mario]

1 minute ago, Nofinikea said:

The truth is, the rich run the country and they do it for there own gains.  They own the papers, they prop up governments and they wouldnt piss on us if we were on fire.  Unless Labour somehow get them onside, they will never win another election.  

That's the reality.  Its <ovf censored>, but there you go.  Until the people with the real power actually start thinking for themselves it wont change.

Nothing to do with being rich......Its about the Labour Dinner Party Group and Momentum being kicked out asap and a credible believable leader being selected, the public aren't as stupid as some would believe, the problem of Labour blaming everyone but themselves and their own shortcomings will continue to hamper their revival.

[bobvale]

41 minutes ago, Jacko51 said:

You’re making stuff up to get a laugh. BB is actually talking about the reality of life in his younger days. Don’t mock. 

It was a quote from a famous monty python sketch about people trying to out do each others tales of hardship. My life was very hard myself and my intention was not to mock. Don't tell me what to do. it was a joke and no mean ness was meant.

[toyahw]

11 minutes ago, bobvale said:

It was a quote from a famous monty python sketch about people trying to out do each others tales of hardship. .

 

[Jacko51]

11 minutes ago, bobvale said:

It was a quote from a famous monty python sketch about people trying to out do each others tales of hardship. My life was very hard myself and my intention was not to mock. Don't tell me what to do. it was a joke and no mean ness was meant.

I recognised t was Pythonesque but just didn’t think it was appropriate. I accept it was meant as a joke though and you didn’t mean anything unpleasant. 

[geosname]

1 hour ago, Nofinikea said:

I am afraid the public are very stupid as a whole.  The establishment run things, they chose the winner and the public oblige.

When was the last time The Sun didnt back the winner?

You are correct though, Labour need to play the game if they want power but a Labour that can win wont be a Labour that does much for every day people and it certainly wont be a Labour that wants to close the wealth gap.

We have had a chance for a few years to smash the establishment and we have let the establishment dictate the narrative.  It will be a very long time before this country ever gets an opportunity to level the playing field again.

You can't have a level playing field, life doesn't work like that, people aren't like that, it doesn't exist.

Labour was formed to bring the lower class up not bring the upper class down, that may be the consequence but not the imperative... I don't give a rat's ass that someone has more money than me, I don't care what they have I care about what I have.

You are suggesting that everyone is stupid and the media dictate, if that's the case then if the "SUN" got behind Labour you would advise Labour supporters not to vote Labour.

I don't want everyone dragged down to the lowest common denominator, I would prefer everyone being allowed to achieve their own highest factor.... whatever that may be.

[geosname]

I think poverty should be defined quite simply as.....

If you can't afford necessities you are poor.

The difficulty is not defining poor it's defining necessities.

Mobile phone.. plasma tv... car... holiday.... game consul.... etc etc etc.... are these necessities?

I could push it wider and say people who have kids they can't afford aren't poor just stupid. That's a different argument.