Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Corbynomics: A Dystopia

1533534536538539552

Comments

  • GreatApe
    GreatApe Posts: 4,452 Forumite
    The Tories are too embarrassed to say we have it great as a nation because the lefties will hold up a example of someone with a tough life on camera crying that life is hard. The truth is life is good for the majority.

    Wages are high, work conditions good, we have full employment, we have a lot of freedom
    Life can't be perfect there is always room to improve but perfection shouldn't be the enemy of the good.
  • Arklight wrote: »
    Over the last 7 years life for the poorest has never been harder, public spending has been slashed and average wages are stagnant or have fallen in real terms.

    Sounds like they inherited an utter disaster. Who was that from again?
  • Silvertabby
    Silvertabby Posts: 10,181 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 28 October 2017 at 1:47PM
    If you think it's bad now, you wouldn't have liked living in the 1930s.

    Even under Labour (Ramsey MacDonald 1929 to 1935) the dole was subject to stringent means testing, which stated that all 'luxury' goods were to be sold before the claimant could be allowed to dip into the public pocket.

    Non luxury items were basically:

    A double bed(with one set of bedding) for every 2 people in the house.
    One kitchen table plus a basic wooden chair for each person.
    One good set of clothes per person (ie, surplus to that would have to be sold)
    One very basic set of pans, crockery and cutlery

    Anything else was a luxury. I remember my gran telling me about a couple of families in her street who were 'on the dole'. When the dole inspector made one of his unannounced visits, there would be a mad scramble to hide any family treasures.

    Moving on, the political definition of 'poverty' is not set in concrete. I grew up in the 1950s/1960s in what would be, in today's terms, abject poverty. But we obviously weren't even classed as 'poor' then, as my sister and I didn't qualify for free school meals.

    Before anyone starts shouting, there's absolutely no way I would wish that on any child today - but when the current definition of 'child poverty' includes not be able to afford their own TV in their own bedroom, foreign holidays or birthday parties then the true definition of 'poverty' is not being met.
  • when the current definition of 'child poverty' includes not be able to afford their own TV in their own bedroom, foreign holidays or birthday parties then the true definition of 'poverty' is not being met.

    It is imperative that the definition of "poverty" is continually revised so that the Left always have something to be outraged about.
  • Fella
    Fella Posts: 7,921 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Excellent article on this:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11697568/Our-poverty-rules-are-an-insult-to-everyone-its-time-to-rip-them-up.html

    By using dodgy statistics to overstate their case, the Left has caused much of the public to ignore the real problems of deprivation

    An excerpt that sums it up:

    Take the latest row over child poverty. The main official statistics purport to show that 2.3m children live in poverty. Despite rising wages and employment, that number is set to increase. If such figures don’t sound plausible, that’s because they are scandalously unfit for purpose and are not measuring actual deprivation.
    The current rules, originally dreamt up by Left-wing academics in the Sixties, state that somebody is poor if they live in a household on below 60pc of median earnings, regardless of their actual quality of life or access to essentials.
    But this measures income inequality, not poverty. Under that definition, poverty can never realistically be eradicated in a capitalist society. If median incomes go up by 10pc, and that of the bottom 20pc by 9pc, delivering huge improvements to the living standards of everybody in the country, poverty would still be deemed to have gone up. It’s bonkers. “Poverty” would remain rife even if the bottom decile earned £100,000 a year, unless – or until – all top earners were taxed out of existence.
  • antrobus
    antrobus Posts: 17,386 Forumite
    ...Even under Labour (Ramsey MacDonald 1929 to 1935) ...

    On a point of order.

    The government was only Labour in 1929-1931. MacDonald then became PM of the National Government. Shortly before the 1931 GE I believe. Labour got stuffed.
  • antrobus
    antrobus Posts: 17,386 Forumite
    I might be wrong, but everyone seems to have missed the fact that the 25th October was the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. The storming of the Winter Palace, you know.

    In fact, no one seems to have made any fuss about it all. You'd almost think that people have lost interest. Were there any marches anywhere?
  • antrobus
    antrobus Posts: 17,386 Forumite
    It is imperative that the definition of "poverty" is continually revised so that the Left always have something to be outraged about.

    There are a multitude of definitions.

    The World Bank uses a $1.90 a day. Or it did. It might be a bit more now. That might be a relevant yardstick in some countries, but I'm not sure you'd get very far in the UK on a tenner a week.
  • cogito
    cogito Posts: 4,898 Forumite
    antrobus wrote: »
    I might be wrong, but everyone seems to have missed the fact that the 25th October was the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. The storming of the Winter Palace, you know.

    In fact, no one seems to have made any fuss about it all. You'd almost think that people have lost interest. Were there any marches anywhere?

    Perhaps because it happened on the 7th November?
  • antrobus
    antrobus Posts: 17,386 Forumite
    cogito wrote: »
    Perhaps because it happened on the 7th November?

    My source says the 25th October 1917.

    A People's Tragedy by Orlando Figes, which I am reading at the moment. That's because he, like almost everybody these days uses the Julian calendar. I think the Russians, or the Soviet Union by then, only adopted the Julian calendar in 1918. So their 7th November in 1917 was our 25th October 1917, and would now be the Russians 25th October 1917.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.8K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.1K Life & Family
  • 257.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.