What's the difference between 'em?
- Thread starter DeadJoe
- Start date
weltweit
Well-Known Member
There was an interesting page on the bbc website about relative poverty and the rich.
Poverty was defined as having income less than 60% of the median income. A graph was there with sliders that you could move and it demonstrated that reducing or increasing the richest had little effect on the median which therefore had little effect on how many people were classed as in relative poverty. The only thing that raised people out of relative poverty was increasing their own income.
It seemed to suggest that concern about the rich was misplaced if your aim was actually to reduce poverty.
Poverty was defined as having income less than 60% of the median income. A graph was there with sliders that you could move and it demonstrated that reducing or increasing the richest had little effect on the median which therefore had little effect on how many people were classed as in relative poverty. The only thing that raised people out of relative poverty was increasing their own income.
It seemed to suggest that concern about the rich was misplaced if your aim was actually to reduce poverty.
Some people would like a fairer, more equal society.
But there is no unanimity on what that should mean or how it would be achieved.
And of course the rhetoric of most New Labour politicians on the subject is largely worthless - they come in the flavours of selfish careerist, corporate (or other interests) shill, closet-conservative and probable "asset"........but some of them can still fake a social democrat pose.
But there is no unanimity on what that should mean or how it would be achieved.
And of course the rhetoric of most New Labour politicians on the subject is largely worthless - they come in the flavours of selfish careerist, corporate (or other interests) shill, closet-conservative and probable "asset"........but some of them can still fake a social democrat pose.
Who is chasing that goal?
Don't see many primitivist communists around.....
read the thread, there are comments on wealth inequality
the opposite of inequality is equality
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
It wasn't *really* the Sun what won it.
a fair society is indeed a desirable goal, i too do not know how that can be achieved without an act of theft or taxation to the level of brain draining
even though i personally do not see what employment is worth in excess of £150k per year, i also cannot see the fairness of a 50% taxation rate
its a shame about the term careerist... what would you term someone who wants to work hard, progress thier skills and therefore labour worth so that they have a better income and more secure, comfortable existence but wish to do so in a manner that does not prevent others from doing the same if they so wish?
Careerism in politics, particularly in these latter days of so-called liberal democracies (an oxymoron if ever there was one) is synonymous with dissembling, dishonesty and corruption.
"A fair society is indeed a desirable goal...."
That sounds just like a politician speaking
"A fair society is indeed a desirable goal...."
That sounds just like a politician speaking
i googled the term to check my understanding of the term. it seems to be held in wholly negative manner, yet i cannot see the problem in wanting to further yourself, to make your lot better. of course this should not be done in a manner of walking all over others but fairly through your own hard work and commitment. i also value the desire to make this happen through your own deeds rather than by being indebted to others doing it "unto you"
i bring this up as i get the impression that this mentality is frowned upon, seen as dirty and capitalist, a tory concept (to get on track)
"A fair society is indeed a desirable goal...."
That sounds just like a politician speaking
just trying to not cause any reason for misinterpretation or offence thus avoiding floods of any emotive or negative dialogue
And with their current level of "party democracy" it would still not make one iota of difference......
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
And every MP in the country could be deselected...And with their current level of "party democracy" it would still not make one iota of difference......
The Sun have just endorsed the Conservative Party for the next election.
LOL I think your understanding of the power of the centre in modern New Labour is somewhat different to mine. This is not the 1980s. The door is shut on all that sort of thing - that is what the "Project" was all about internally, at least. New Labour is not an internally democratic party.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Hey it was just something to think about...
I dont think its right to say that NL carried on the same policies. The minimum wage was deeply opposed by the Tories. They would never have introduced things like Sure start,the EMA,tax credits,M.IG. and certainly never doubled spending on health and education.
A lot of the policies that Thatcher and Major implemented could not be easily wished away or reversed.
When Labour came to power in 1997 the priority was to ensure that achievable goals were met. That meant for the first 2 years keeping spending down and building a base for sustained future funding. They were largely very succesful in that.
NL have been really succesful overall. Past Labour govts have had a really ropey record and been thrown out quickly by the electors.
I guess people wont really appreciate New Labours record until the Tories are back in power.
so we are not in the worst recession since the 30's?
we are not lagging behind our peers in europe to come out of said recession?
we are not on the verge of uber taxation to try to stay afloat in the HUGE amount of public debt we have?
they havent spent double yet achieved less in the NHS (due to continued and massive increases in management and their target driven culture)?
dont get me wrong, im not looking forward to a tory government but to say NL have been really successful is to adopt an ostrich model of thinking
1 YES ever heard the expression when america sneezes the restof the world gets a cold. The USA got a cold not that much anybody could do about it.
2 Thats the way the media have tried to spin it. They have been busy preparing the way for a Tory govt ever since Michael Howard lost.
3 No. Tax rises are likely to be fairly small.
4 Thatn again is the way the media have tried to spin it. Its a half truth. Money could and should have been spent better and lots of money has been siphoned off by the usual combination of corruption and incompetence.
The case recently where some moron paid £35,000 for a £1,000 photocopier sums up a lot thats wrong with public services in this country.
5 I think that in time people will look back longingly at New Labour......
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Who is chasing that goal?
Don't see many primitivist communists around.....
That's because they're hiding.
In their caves.
"They took all the trees, and put em in a tree museum
And they charged the people a dollar and a half to see them
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got till it's gone
They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot"
Well, at least not for the time that Blair was in charge. And rightly so. Otherwise they would never have got elected.
ah i see, im completely mistaken then on every single point
thanks for the re-education
do i report for NL fanboy duites now? or tomorrow?
ah i see, im completely mistaken then on every single point
thanks for the re-education
do i report for NL fanboy duites now? or tomorrow?
It's not so much that you are mistaken, I don't think.. I think it's more that almost anyhing can be spun either for or against... when really the reality is that NL came in after many many years of conservative rule and had a great many steps to go through before reform could be visible to the general public... but some of the steps they introduced have been socially responsible.. even if there implementation could have been better.
It all boils down to how you judge a government and against what standards.
For example:
1 - so is everyone else and it wasn't nl's fault.
2. There isn't really any evidence for that statement. Some areas of industry are lagging others are not... some other countries were in different financial positions prior to the recession.
Plus it's better to come out of a recession later and stronger than to come out early and slip straight back in.
3. increased taxation to support vital services in times of trouble is to be expected.
4. Although there is much waste... suggesting they acheived less is really difficult to back up given the huge range of the nhs services. Some areas are better.. some not so.. money diverted to where it's important. Question is - is the nhs still good compared to others and given the pressure on it?
The alternative would have been more conservative rule and more unfairness.
It's not so much that you are mistaken, I don't think.. I think it's more that almost anyhing can be spun either for or against... when really the reality is that NL came in after many many years of conservative rule and had a great many steps to go through before reform could be visible to the general public... but some of the steps they introduced have been socially responsible.. even if there implementation could have been better.
It all boils down to how you judge a government and against what standards.
For example:
1 - so is everyone else and it wasn't nl's fault.
the current gov were warned somewhat about banking practices.. the warnings were not heeded (i agree they werent anywhere)
2. There isn't really any evidence for that statement. Some areas of industry are lagging others are not... some other countries were in different financial positions prior to the recession.
im just comparing our monetary worth to that of the us (£ -$ pretty much the same as it "should" be....... £ -euro fecked..... $ - euro.. fecked. our european cousins are fairng better quicker and possibly more meaningfully. does france have the same level of debt we now do? (thats a question btw, i dont know
Plus it's better to come out of a recession later and stronger than to come out early and slip straight back in.
3. increased taxation to support vital services in times of trouble is to be expected.
im talking about the increases yet to come, that in part will have to come under which ever party is in next, financially i see us as being pretty fecked.. whether ive been sucked into media hype? maybe.. im still concerned and see nothing anyway to lessen that concern
4. Although there is much waste... suggesting they acheived less is really difficult to back up given the huge range of the nhs services. Some areas are better.. some not so.. money diverted to where it's important. Question is - is the nhs still good compared to others and given the pressure on it?
the NHS is still good, not for the money and certainly not due to staffing (clinical staff have fallen dramatically) but because of the clinicians working their bollocks off to try and make sure the ridiculous paperwork and bureaucracy doesn't effect patient care
The alternative would have been more conservative rule and more unfairness.
i struggle with this unfairness, i just dont see it
im working class, lived in poverty and in squats under labour as a child, grew up through my teens and early adulthood under torys during which time i went to uni, got an education and a good (enough) job and bought a house. now i have kids, paying huge taxes, being threatened with paying half my pension back for private healthcare i might not even need, have to save to pay for kids education and so on
labour havent done much for me from what i can see.. not saying tory will do much either but i dont see what they will do thats much worse
Similar threads
- Poll
