Off Topic Political Debate

What worries me Frenchie is not the top 10-20% but rather the lowest 30%. The trend being that the numbers of people identifying themselves positively as 'working class` has gone down dramatically since the 80s - the term is no longer used in a positive sense but nowadays as a euphamism for 'poor'. An accompaniment of the deindustrialisation of Britain is now that the poorest 30% is only that - poor. a population of occasional fruit pickers, doormen and call centre workers etc. A fully diverse group with only this in common and the fact that they have become largely detached from politics. The disengagement of the poorest in society from mainstream politics has had the effect of driving the middle of politics to the right - where it has remained since the 80s.

 

It actually amazes me that there is a sizeable number of people who appear to think that the Internet is some sort of magic box, a box which can nicely parcel up anything people want into one convenient location. I have not provided a 'reference', or a 'link' if you prefer, because there is no one particular, convenient location. Very much like a University assignment, you have to be prepared to research and piece together - which is what I suggest anyone with the time and inclination do for themselves, although I doubt any will - far easier, and probably more fun, to sit back and pooh-pooh others who have, I suspect.

For any who may be willing, as a starting point I'd recommend reading everything they can on Stephen Green, Camilla Cavendish, HSBC and drug cartels, Nafeez Ahmed and Nicholas Wilson, along with any other of the whistleblowers - you'll be amazed at the number of times one particular name crops up.

 

BB has an overseas member? - blimey!

 

Does he qualify for cheap radius season tickets?

 

If you are so confident you should start naming names and crimes.

 

Just how do do define what is poor BB? According to some respectable research organizations if a household does not have a car, a computer and can afford a two week holiday each year, then they are poor. When I was at school I had a friend who didn't own a coat and had shoes that were too small. He froze during the winter and was in pain from the shoes. He stole an egg from the girls cookery class simply because the family didn't have enough to eat. How many people are in that sort of poverty today?

I do not wish to see even 1% of people in poverty, but suggest that our goal lines have moved, quite rightly. Government of whatever party does not want to drive people away from them, they want to retain power. I would also suggest that if you look at the statistics over the past 60 years, the parties that have been the most left wing, eg the Labour Party under Micheal Foot, have not received popular support in the UK.

The left wing in France is split between the moderates and the extreme left to try and describe it simply and badly. The moderates have the power at present and we have more people out of work, more people using the food banks, and more people begging outside the supermarkets and churches than we saw four years ago. The extreme left are saying that we should simply borrow money and pay increased benefits. When asked how they can make the economy more productive to pay for this they are not interested about the future and the children and grand children who will have to pay for it.

The cost of living will vary considerably from one country to another. The people in the north of England and Scotland will probably spend more of their income on heating for example. There will never be a situation when everyone can live in comfort simply because some will spend their limited income as they choose, then complain that the rest of the population do not support them to live a more expensive lifestyle.

 

please log in to view this image

Don't want to inflame partisan thinking I know not all in the photo voted for it.... but it is still shameful. I have just spent half the w/e in hospital and I know where I would put a pay increase.

Should not all public servants have index linked pay rises.. unless there is good reason.... and I don't buy the rationale 'well our other colleagues in comparable sectors/countries get xxxx... so it is only fair and equitable' ...

I thought this was a time of austerity... should not our senior public servants set an example?

 

Most of the MP's have indicated they do not want to accept this independently awarded pay recommendation. Where the MP's have failed is to point out that this IPSA package would actually reduce their cost to the public.

The facts do not support your emotionally incorrect example. Oh well, on to the next lefty propaganda piece.!!

 

It doesn't look good does it? I know it was advised by an independent pay body etc. but in a time where we keep being told we're "all in this together" it does leave a bitter taste.

I don't really buy the "yes but it's now cheaper" argument either. Across Whitehall a lot of benefits (most notably overtime) have been cut but I don't see anyone ofering us an above inflation pay rise. I don't think they should and I don't actually moan about the changes implemented at work as i understand it's necessary - but this is still not very easy to stomach I'm afraid. Biased? Yes most definitely but I doubt I am the only one and I also don't think this is lefty propaganda as I am sure there will be plenty of conservative voters that don't agree with it either.

 

But, my friend, they have a accepted it....

So the MPS are worth more than the nurses??

I actually find your allusions to me being a 'lefty' all the time quite derogatory and conducive to constructive communication

 

I agree - it isn't necessary.

 

If you bother to study the proposed changes you will then understand why it could save the public money.

The MP's generous final salary pension scheme has been abolished
Resettlement payments have been sharply reduced
Expenses no longer allowed include 'hospitality' and mortgage payments on second homes

The government has in fact no legal right to reject it.

Do we really want our MP's paid less than half that GP's earn?

 

I described your article as 'lefty' not you.

 

well as you asked...

 

I think that is disingenuous..... you describe an article I write asking for parity for public servants and saying I don't want to polarise.. .as lefty....

 

The result of paying MP's a relative low salary will be to attract more of the 'political special advisers' types like the hapless Miliband. Less candidates with real work life experiences will be encouraged to apply. It will also be a barrier to the less well off hopefuls.

If you happy with that situation then fine but don't bemoan the lack of quality in parliament. You only have to look at the prospective candidates for the Labour leadership to be despondent for the future.

 

The argument in your first para.. was used by the board at my University to justify paying the vice chancellor £250k about 8 years ago.... otherwise people with calibre would not apply... they didn't apply the logic to rank and file pay rises.

Worth need not be valued in financial terms..... Gandhi was a great example

 

The ridicules overpayment of your vice chancellor has no bearing on the validity of my opinion regarding MP's except to show how underpaid MP's are by comparison.