An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

ruggedtoast

fatbeetle wrote: »

Just my two pennorth, I'm a working class, council house raised, ex-Labour voter originally from a steel town in South Wales, (Llanelli.) I lost faith with the Labour party when it became the party of the minority (save the gay, disabled, single-parent, Somali refugee, sod the white working man, ) and gave up on it's working class roots. Corbyn seems to want to drag the UK back to the days of the winter of discontent, and we all know how well that worked for us.

Good grief...

ruggedtoast

cells wrote: »

lets keep it objective not emotional, ons figures put average full time male wage at over £37k pa with women not far behind. So people are doing ok




Probably a made up statistic but even if it were true this wealth is concentrated in the hands of individuals but benefits households. eg I know a man who is a millionaire but his 3 kids and wife are not if you count that as 1 man holding all the wealth while 4 are suffering then yes things sound bad but the reality is that that is a family of 5 who are all millionaires even if on paper 4 are poor 1 is rich



most people could not care less. if you want land there is plenty for sale at around the £10k an acre mark. The average full time male wage can thus nearly buy 4 acres with his gross income per year




The half of the full time men earning £37k a year and the women not far off dont care. Its not a crusade of 99% poor 1% rich. Its more than 50% doing well and closer to 10% doing crap and most that 10% is self induced (eg alcoholism, drugs, family breakdowns)





the number and scope of people receiving handouts from their parents is increasing each and every year. what you imagine to be a few hundred people is probably about half of all households





that nail bar woman was a fool and very likely a liar too. I saw a video interview of her with some BBC crew complaining that she had to sometimes avoid eating (all 100kg of her) so she had enough to feed her kids and make ends meet. All saying this with a straight face as two large dogs in the background were eating their supper. Needless to say the BBC interviewer did not ask how she could afford two large dogs and feed them if she is unable to feed herself not how can can be so obese if she is indeed going to bed hungry

milliband failed as the country is nowhere near as poor or hard up as you think/would-like it to be. I dont see how this changes with korbin




if its a household with two working full time adults its closer to £37k + £35k (and remember these are the people right in the middle, each 1% you go up the figures increase. That is to say if half of all full time men are on £37k then 49% are on more, 48% are on more yet, etc).

More importantly these are the folk that the left need to convince that taxing them is better for themselves. That increasing their property taxes is good for them. That increasing Vat or council tax is good for them. That increasing corp tax is good for their pensions and savings. Needless to say, when they think it through, they think no thanks




No. The tories, and tony Blair achieved success by simply understanding that half the male full time working population earns £37k a year or more and women not far behind and that they strive to try and earn even more. So to tell them that you are going to tax high earners (40% tax kicks in at £43k just a bit above the £37k male wages) is asking them to vote for higher taxes on themselves and they say no thank you





So what is the plan?
Who is going to vote for korbin that did not vote for milliband?
Is the plan that the non voters will turn up for him?
That might work or it might not.

More importantly as westernpromise points out, its no good getting 1 million more people to turn up in inner London to increase the labour majority in those seast those additional votes count for nothing. you need to get people out in the tory seats and have them overturn tory majorities and if tory seats are on average richer with higher assets and incomes its not as difficult as I tried to describe its even harder

So what is the plan?
Who is going to vote for korbin in the marginal tory victory seats who did not vote for milliband?

Firstly. You keep saying £37k like its a king's ransom. Its not!

Secondly, I am not sure what source you are using but if anything, you are talking about mean salary.

The median household income is about £26,000.

http://www.cityam.com/235183/uk-income-inequality-2015-heres-the-average-household-income-in-the-uk-take-this-test-to-find-out-how-your-wealth-compares

Median individual income in the 5th decile is only about £18k.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/25/uk-incomes-how-salary-compare

Nor are salaries outside of specialised technical fields anything like as high as people on here seem to think they are:

http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/State=England%3a_London/Salary#by_Job

cells

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Firstly. You keep saying £37k like its a king's ransom. Its not!

http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc138/index.html

or this for more detail

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/adhocs/005956earningsandearningsgrowthdistrbutionbyregionandnation


yes that is not a kings ransom, however the average person will also receive gifts and inheritances too and often in substantial sums. The average person also owns their own home and will have a house and pension/savings too. Even if we look at housing I have read that there are 2 million landlords in the uk well that probably means closer to 16 million voters dependent or benefiting from that. So not the 1% vs the 99% but closer to the 25% owners vs the 25% renters

the problem i am trying to identify for you is that if you want to tax more to spend more you need to hit enough people so you can pay for your dreams and the levels you need to go after put an awful lot of people into the tax more group and they dont like it so vote against it

its not about taxing the 1% to give to the 99% (if it were the hard left would always win) its more like taxing the top 25% to give to the bottom 10% and the top 25% say no thank you with an x next to a party that tries to do less of asking them to pay more.

ruggedtoast

cells wrote: »

http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc138/index.html

or this for more detail

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/adhocs/005956earningsandearningsgrowthdistrbutionbyregionandnation


yes that is not a kings ransom, however the average person will also receive gifts and inheritances too and often in substantial sums. The average person also owns their own home and will have a house and pension/savings too. Even if we look at housing I have read that there are 2 million landlords in the uk well that probably means closer to 16 million voters dependent or benefiting from that. So not the 1% vs the 99% but closer to the 25% owners vs the 25% renters

the problem i am trying to identify for you is that if you want to tax more to spend more you need to hit enough people so you can pay for your dreams and the levels you need to go after put an awful lot of people into the tax more group and they dont like it so vote against it

its not about taxing the 1% to give to the 99% (if it were the hard left would always win) its more like taxing the top 25% to give to the bottom 10% and the top 25% say no thank you with an x next to a party that tries to do less of asking them to pay more.

I think our experiences of "the average person" differs by some wide margin.

Where do we go to receive the gifts inheritances, substantial sums, owned houses and pensions and savings again? That may well be the experience of older people, or you, but it is not for most who weren't born on the 50s and 60s.

Home ownership in the UK is the lowest in 30 years while rents are at their highest. British working households carry an average of £5000 - £6000 unsecured debt on top of their mortgage or rental payment. Most Brits will be underwater within a couple of months if they lose their jobs, and the Tories are slashing the state safety net ever further in their ideological war on the poor.

Graduates will have £27k on average of loan debt.

As a country we owe over £60k per household thanks to the Tories doubling the national debt during their decade of austerity.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3171088/Britain-eighth-indebted-country-EU-owes-1-600-000-000-000.html

The earnings link you provided only shows that people in London earn £34k a year, and those outside substantially less.

The only thing these discussions seem to serve on here is that wealthy people know wealthy people, and are apparently unable to understand that other people's experience of the UK isn't quite as benign.

Meanwhile the Tories are attempting to expunge from public records the fact that they are basically owned by the 1% of people who certainly can afford to be paying a lot more in recognising that their ability to create wealth is wholly dependent on the goodwill of British workers, who are currently being cheated.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly for the Tories, all they are recognising is payment for graft, sleaze, cheating and leg ups to pursue their interests in government.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservatives-tories-business-dealings-party-donors-wiped-from-records-a7192411.html

Can you imagine if Corbyn was proposing the the Unions were exempt from the financial record keeping Tory donors are about to be?

bobbymotors

I wouldn't worry. Comrade Corbyn is absolutely unelectable as a prime minister. It won't happen, he will never be PM.

Dislike them all you want, but what Blair and Cameron realised is that elections are won from the center...yes, a bit right or a bit left of center but basically in the middle somewhere.

No doubt some of the Corbyn worshippers on here will be along to say how wonderful he is.

However what i say to them is this...for every pound you want to use of yours to back up your opinion I will give you £5 to back up my opinion if Corbyn is ever prime minister.

Any takers?

westernpromise

The problem with the attitude exhibited by people like Toastie is that while they make a lot of pious noises about inherited wealth and toffs, the people they actually intend to target are not people like that. They are people on quite good salaries who've got there on their own; people in a house they bought 40 years ago that he covets; and so on.

People, in other words, who are making or who have made their own money. Toastie actually hates these people most of all because he thinks it's all zero-sum - that what one person has they must have taken from another. He has naff all, so he must have been robbed. So he hates high earners and home owner ans people with nice cars even more than he hates toffs. He couldn't care less whether they are poor people made good, or women, or minorities, or what they are - he just hates and envies them, because they've done better than him. So he wants the state to expropriate them and to give him their money.

This isn't a coherent or legitimate point of view; it's a personality defect that a coterie of people who all share it would like to be considered a point of view. The type of person who holds such views is not a political thinker but a vinegary, bilious blob of envious, morally incompetent inanition.

Masomnia

westernpromise wrote: »

The problem with the attitude exhibited by people like Toastie is that while they make a lot of pious noises about inherited wealth and toffs, the people they actually intend to target are not people like that. They are people on quite good salaries who've got there on their own; people in a house they bought 40 years ago that he covets; and so on.

People, in other words, who are making or who have made their own money. Toastie actually hates these people most of all because he thinks it's all zero-sum - that what one person has they must have taken from another. He has naff all, so he must have been robbed. So he hates high earners and home owner ans people with nice cars even more than he hates toffs. He couldn't care less whether they are poor people made good, or women, or minorities, or what they are - he just hates and envies them, because they've done better than him. So he wants the state to expropriate them and to give him their money.

This isn't a coherent or legitimate point of view; it's a personality defect that a coterie of people who all share it would like to be considered a point of view. The type of person who holds such views is not a political thinker but a vinegary, bilious blob of envious, morally incompetent inanition.

Mrs T couldn't have put it better herself!

cells

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I think our experiences of "the average person" differs by some wide margin.

yes people only really know about people they associate with but clearly projecting ones own experiences to the whole of the country will lead to a picture closer to ones own experiences rather than the averages.

Where do we go to receive the gifts inheritances, substantial sums, owned houses and pensions and savings again? That may well be the experience of older people, or you, but it is not for most who weren't born on the 50s and 60s.

the simple fact is that in the UK there is in excess of £10 trillion in wealth (possibly closer to £15 trillion). This wealth is held by mortals who cant hold onto it more than a few decades. The wealth is in many cases distributed down the generations through kids and marriages and even divorces.

even poor working class people will marry into such situations and hence what they came from is not what they become. There are multiple examples of people I know who are/were from modest means but married into either very high earners or into moneyed families.

thinking about it statistically if 20% of the population is well off there is only a 20% chance they will also find someone well off and a 80% chance they will partner will someone not in that group and share that wealth

Home ownership in the UK is the lowest in 30 years while rents are at their highest.

there are various reasons for this, eg more students = more properties needed for rent. later marriage = more years renting = more properties needed for rent. more divorces = additional households = often needing rentals. etc etc

overall the housing situation in most of the country is very good. What I mean by that is that to buy the average terrace in the area will cost you less in mortgage interest than to rent the social home off the council often much much less. That does not indicate hardship it indicates very affordable housing for those that want to buy

British working households carry an average of £5000 - £6000 unsecured debt on top of their mortgage or rental payment.

I dont think that is at all accurate, I know someone with a £20k unsecured debt on top of his multiple mortgages and other assets probably worth in excess of £10m net. But that £20k unsecured debt to buy a new car with probably adds to your gloom stats

Most Brits will be underwater within a couple of months if they lose their jobs,

no. most brits wont. many will but not most. good thing long term unemployment is just 1% in the UK

and the Tories are slashing the state safety net ever further in their ideological war on the poor.

actual details would be nice rather than sound bites

Graduates will have £27k on average of loan debt./QUOTE]

if its not a worthwhile investment dont make it.

As a country we owe over £60k per household thanks to the Tories doubling the national debt during their decade of austerity.

this is just getting stupid, with one breath you cry that they are cutting spending and with the other that they are spending too much

The earnings link you provided only shows that people in London earn £34k a year, and those outside substantially less.

the links show a lot more than that they show full time , part time, male, female wages. There is also a distrotion in that full time working 16 year olds earn a lot less and drag down the averages etc so they should really be excluded. If you look at the full time male 25+ age group the figures are even better

The second link is a better stats it shows the actual breakdown but its complicated stats for most to understand

The only thing these discussions seem to serve on here is that wealthy people know wealthy people, and are apparently unable to understand that other people's experience of the UK isn't quite as benign.

yes generally wealthy people know wealthy people and poor people know poor people. the problem is that the poor cant project their problems to everyone and think that the ideas that would suit them best will suit everyone best else they will be surprised why its center right parties and center left parties that win elections and not the hard right

you need to break it down and look at who has what and earns what. eg the top 5%, the next 5% the next 5% etc etc and when you do that you find that its not 1% vs 99% but rather that about 50% of the population is doing quite well and 25% is doing v.well

needless to say this 25% isnt going to vote for more taxes on themselves to give to you. The ones between the 25-50% are also unlikely to be overally supportive

Meanwhile the Tories are attempting to expunge from public records the fact that they are basically owned by the 1% of people who certainly can afford to be paying a lot more in recognising that their ability to create wealth is wholly dependent on the goodwill of British workers, who are currently being cheated.

taxing the 1% wont pay for utopia. Give us actual ideas, what taxes are you going to introduce and how much are they going to collect and who will they impact?

since this is the housing part of the forum lets talk about BTL. Lets say you think up a grand plan to tax them to the hilt. You probably think haaaa thats fantastic we will tax this 1% and give to the rest. But when you actually think it through, there are about 2 million landlords in the UK. These 2 million have wives/husbands and children and often grand children too. So its not 2 million you are taking from its closer to 16 million people. So what you think is 1% is actually closer to 25% of the population.

so what taxes do you put up so it only impacts so few people that they vote for you?

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly for the Tories, all they are recognising is payment for graft, sleaze, cheating and leg ups to pursue their interests in government.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservatives-tories-business-dealings-party-donors-wiped-from-records-a7192411.html

I expect that are some bad eggs or bad people who are in the party or support it. does that therefore lead that their methods and ideas are worse than the hard left that you want in power?

Can you imagine if Corbyn was proposing the the Unions were exempt from the financial record keeping Tory donors are about to be?

shouldnt you be objecting to the problems you see rather than the whole party? If a party has 100 policies and there is a handful you dont approve of does that mean going to a party with 100 policies 90 of which you dont approve of is the answer?

ruggedtoast

westernpromise wrote: »

The problem with the attitude exhibited by people like Toastie is that while they make a lot of pious noises about inherited wealth and toffs, the people they actually intend to target are not people like that. They are people on quite good salaries who've got there on their own; people in a house they bought 40 years ago that he covets; and so on.

People, in other words, who are making or who have made their own money. Toastie actually hates these people most of all because he thinks it's all zero-sum - that what one person has they must have taken from another. He has naff all, so he must have been robbed. So he hates high earners and home owner ans people with nice cars even more than he hates toffs. He couldn't care less whether they are poor people made good, or women, or minorities, or what they are - he just hates and envies them, because they've done better than him. So he wants the state to expropriate them and to give him their money.

This isn't a coherent or legitimate point of view; it's a personality defect that a coterie of people who all share it would like to be considered a point of view. The type of person who holds such views is not a political thinker but a vinegary, bilious blob of envious, morally incompetent inanition.

I'll give you 8/10 for alliteration but nothing for the rest.

Reducing anyone who wants an equitable socially democratic society into an incoherent right wing narrative of Reds under the bed lacks imagination to say the least.

Maybe theres a special forum you can join with your lovely friend who hates labour because it's all "Save the gay"

cells

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Reducing anyone who wants an equitable socially democratic society

we already have a social democracy in the uk one that works quite well

the rich pay a lot of the taxes the poor pay little to none, the old, children, the disabled, the sick are cared for and the country obeys the rules of law and order. Crime is fairly low and education fairly good and opportunity to live a free and fulfilling life is high. job opportunities are good with long term unemployment at ~1%

so as I keep saying the picture the hard left try to paint of a dire country in dire circumstances and on the edge of poverty does not exist.

the biggest problems households face in this social democracy is not lack of more state spending but their own internal problems. things like gambling alcohol drug addictions that destroy households and make people miserable and those problems dont just hit the poor but often they do lead to making people poor.