Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » My Christmas eve bet that TMay will still be PM at the end of

13

Comments

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,009

    More than double the amount of homeless though, I believe?

    Well, in England anyway.
    TUD, you should know the new Softer Tory expression is "Rough Sleeper", just so you know that it is actually a lifestyle choice and these people are emulating Bear Grylls and suchlike.
    Bit like eschewing Waitrose and going to the foodbank instead.
  • stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    For all the predictable jibes and sneers against Laura Pidcock, it's a point. Not the party political sniping but there is an overall point about relative poverty which we shouldn't forget at this time of year (and indeed at any time of year).

    There are many people who find it economically tough going for whatever reason and Christmas, with its gaudy commercialism and siren calls for consumption and expenditure, can be doubly hard.

    Political people of all persuasions should make the alleviation of this poverty a priority but I confess neither preaching about self-responsibility nor expecting the State to do it all seem to cut the mustard.

    I applaud those who do their bit to help, whether through charitable donation, volunteering, hosting a lonely elderly person or just being there. They deserve our support and praise. Being alone at Christmas, particularly after a bereavement, can be especially distressing.


    Pidcock is any idiot. Had she made a sensible policy proposition, that would be different, but Labour don’t have any. All she did take a cheap shot at the Tories which showed her own intellectual bankruptcy.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,009
    edited December 2018
    RobD said:

    Quite pleased :smiley:
    I will not have Labour lefties nicking my Turnips. They are not going to be allowed to nationalise them and pay me a pittance for my stocks.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    For all the predictable jibes and sneers against Laura Pidcock, it's a point. Not the party political sniping but there is an overall point about relative poverty which we shouldn't forget at this time of year (and indeed at any time of year).

    There are many people who find it economically tough going for whatever reason and Christmas, with its gaudy commercialism and siren calls for consumption and expenditure, can be doubly hard.

    Political people of all persuasions should make the alleviation of this poverty a priority but I confess neither preaching about self-responsibility nor expecting the State to do it all seem to cut the mustard.

    I applaud those who do their bit to help, whether through charitable donation, volunteering, hosting a lonely elderly person or just being there. They deserve our support and praise. Being alone at Christmas, particularly after a bereavement, can be especially distressing.

    "Relative poverty" - a term invented to redefine not-poverty as "poverty"...
  • Donny43 said:

    I'm guessing that wasn't the exact terminology used.

    https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1077172056247226370

    By whom?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840

    With LD and UKIP both becalmed it wouldn't be weird to see something like Lab 47, Con 32. But I don't think a merely competent Labour leader would be enough for that, I think you'd need someone positively charismatic, like Blair at the height of his powers.

    But like I say, this argument really needs some polling data.
    Whilst I have no problem with Starmer and I really don't care about charisma it is something that will affect votes. I don't want to insult the guy but he hasn't got the spark that would get you a 47% type score.

    I'm also unsure about the Conservatives going to 32% If Starmer is hard remain then the Conservatives are fighting for Brexit on top of holding the usual Tory votes.

    If Starmer doesn't go hard remain he loses potential support from people who wanted to see him instead of Corbyn. What happens with the left wing policies recently brought in? Do they go like some moderates want or stay like some on the left want?

    It is far from impossible but I can see lots of problems with the idea.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,184

    By whom?
    Not by the government I bet :wink:
  • Scott_P said:
    Wanting to change the relationship with the EU to a trading one rather than political absorption is hardly giving up. Miliband is simply politicking.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,184
    Donny43 said:

    "Relative poverty" - a term invented to redefine not-poverty as "poverty"...
    Easy to judge if you've never experienced it.
  • malcolmg said:

    I will not have Labour lefties nicking my Turnips. They are not going to be allowed to nationalise them and pay me a pittance for my stocks.
    In an independent Scotland the SNP government would pay you with Unicorns.
  • Donny43 said:

    I'm guessing that wasn't the exact terminology used.

    https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1077172056247226370

    The exact terminology used was: Oh yeah, that stupid people left Chris Grayling in charge of trains, planes and drones. What did she expect would happen?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,398
    Donny43 said:


    "Relative poverty" - a term invented to redefine not-poverty as "poverty"...

    No, a term to differentiate the poverty we see in Britain with that in other parts of the world. It's not to downgrade the misery of the existence or the need to help those affected but I would like to think the vast majority of people in the UK have, for example, access to clean water.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,184
    malcolmg said:

    TUD, you should know the new Softer Tory expression is "Rough Sleeper", just so you know that it is actually a lifestyle choice and these people are emulating Bear Grylls and suchlike.
    Bit like eschewing Waitrose and going to the foodbank instead.
    Quite. They'll be moving on to the term Urban Adventurer soon.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    Easy to judge if you've never experienced it.
    Speak for yourself.

    The problem with treating "relative poverty" as a target is that it means it is better for everybody in the country to be worse off, provided only that the richest are hurt the worst, than it is for everybody in the country to be better off with the richest benefiting most.
  • In your inability to understand statistical data and its practical application.

    It doesn't matter, If Labour get more seats, which they could do come the next election if doesn't matter if the one leader has a positive rating and the other a negative rating.

    All that matter in terms of the leader and his electoral effect is how that affects votes and in the last election it had a positive effect. Someone voting Conservative liking him or someone voting Conservative not liking him means the same thing in the end.
    That really takes the biscuit. Corbyn a disasterous net 35% behind on net favourability and your response is that "it doesn't matter".

    I am quite happy to engage in rational debate with others on this site, but that is something you are clearly incapable of, so I'm not going to waste my time further with you.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,098
    malcolmg said:

    TUD, you should know the new Softer Tory expression is "Rough Sleeper", just so you know that it is actually a lifestyle choice and these people are emulating Bear Grylls and suchlike.
    Bit like eschewing Waitrose and going to the foodbank instead.
    'Rough sleeper' is the technically correct expression for what most people consider 'homeless' - which also describes a whole bunch of (far from ideal normally) situations where one is sleeping with a roof over your head.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,381
    Donny43 said:

    Speak for yourself.

    The problem with treating "relative poverty" as a target is that it means it is better for everybody in the country to be worse off, provided only that the richest are hurt the worst, than it is for everybody in the country to be better off with the richest benefiting most.
    Destitution scarcely exists in the UK, but there are still several million for whom life is a struggle to get by.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,317

    Quite. They'll be moving on to the term Urban Adventurer soon.
    I don't think it's a new term, and it certainly doesn't sound soft.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,317
    Scott_P said:
    The head of a French bank, no less.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,184
    Pulpstar said:

    'Rough sleeper' is the technically correct expression for what most people consider 'homeless' - which also describes a whole bunch of (far from ideal normally) situations where one is sleeping with a roof over your head.
    I disagree. Whether you're sleeping in a hostel, sofa surfing, or sleeping on park benches or in shop doorways, 'homeless' sounds like a good description to me.

    Rough sleeping however probably doesn't include those in hostels or sofa-surfing in most people's minds. As such I think it's the wrong term and seems designed to include fewer of the genuinely homeless in the statistics.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,600
    malcolmg said:

    British and American always dump their partners in these situations , why anybody deals with them it is hard to believe. Hopefully the Kurds will give them a bloody nose, they will not give it up easily.
    Macron and May have committed this week to maintain a military presence in Syria ie in alliance with the Kurds, unlike Trump
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,317

    I disagree. Whether you're sleeping in a hostel, sofa surfing, or sleeping on park benches or in shop doorways, 'homeless' sounds like a good description to me.

    Rough sleeping however probably doesn't include those in hostels or sofa-surfing in most people's minds. As such I think it's the wrong term and seems designed to include fewer of the genuinely homeless in the statistics.
    But those without shelter are most in need of support.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Wanting to change the relationship with the EU to a trading one rather than political absorption is hardly giving up. Miliband is simply politicking.
    Political absorption? What does that even mean?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,317

    Political absorption? What does that even mean?
    EU integration/federalisation.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,398
    As a non-Conservative Leaver, I'm a little perplexed by all this talk around Corbyn and Labour's "epochal" mistake. Labour has always faced both ways on Europe - the 1983 Manifesto contained a clear commitment to leave the then-EEC and Europe was one of the causes of the schism in 1981 which formed the SDP.

    The roots of that schism were sown in the 1975 Referendum when you had the likes of Roy Jenkins appearing alongside William Whitelaw and Jo Grimond on the YES platform while Tony Benn. Peter Shore were more at home supporting the post-Powellite Conservatives on the NO side.

    If I were Vince Cable or Layla Moran, I'd be thrilled at the prospect of the LDs having a USP as the only pro-REMAIN party but will it get to that point - will both the Conservative and labour parties fracture down the EU line? It seems improbable to this observer.

    There are presumably plenty of REMAIN supporters in the Conservative Party (a third perhaps) and I suppose they can live with the WA but could they live with a No Deal? We don't know as the YouGov hypothetical polling concentrated on identifying weaknesses in the Labour position rather than weaknesses in the Conservative position.

    It may be as Nick P opines it's just not that important to the bulk of Labour's supporters and members though clearly it's very important to some.

    It has been mooted on here that a significant number of Labour MPs will break ranks and either support the WA or abstain - that will be the acid test of Labour's unity or otherwise (as it will for the Conservatives too).
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    RobD said:

    EU integration/federalisation.
    As opposed to disintegration and balkanisation?

    If we trade with Europe we are integrating with them. You can't get the politics out of the situation. And you can't avoid what happens on the continent affecting what happens in the UK.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,972
    Labour supporters fear a Tory Brexit .

    Brexit delivered by a Labour government is easier to stomach because fundamentally it’s not about turning the UK into a low tax less regulation race to the bottom .

    Labour cannot support a Tory Brexit . I expect Labour will follow the Tories and implode in January as the divisions over Brexit reach boiling point .

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,317

    As opposed to disintegration and balkanisation?

    If we trade with Europe we are integrating with them. You can't get the politics out of the situation. And you can't avoid what happens on the continent affecting what happens in the UK.
    As opposed to just trading. We can trade with other countries on the planet and not politically integrate with them.
  • nico67 said:

    Labour supporters fear a Tory Brexit .

    Brexit delivered by a Labour government is easier to stomach because fundamentally it’s not about turning the UK into a low tax less regulation race to the bottom .

    Labour cannot support a Tory Brexit . I expect Labour will follow the Tories and implode in January as the divisions over Brexit reach boiling point .

    nico67 said:

    Labour supporters fear a Tory Brexit .

    Brexit delivered by a Labour government is easier to stomach because fundamentally it’s not about turning the UK into a low tax less regulation race to the bottom .

    Labour cannot support a Tory Brexit . I expect Labour will follow the Tories and implode in January as the divisions over Brexit reach boiling point .

    So what would like to do that's different from the current deal? I've not heard anything specific that would be different.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207

    As opposed to disintegration and balkanisation?

    If we trade with Europe we are integrating with them. You can't get the politics out of the situation. And you can't avoid what happens on the continent affecting what happens in the UK.
    You equate trading with a country to integrating with them?

    Bloody hell, I wonder if China and the USA know this......
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,600

    So what would like to do that's different from the current deal? I've not heard anything specific that would be different.
    A permanent Customs Union rather than May's temporary one and a bit more on workers' rights
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    Sean_F said:

    Destitution scarcely exists in the UK, but there are still several million for whom life is a struggle to get by.
    I think it will get worse for people in their mid to late sixties in the future.
    As many will not have pensions , that working for 30 to 40 years in the same occupation provided for previous generations.
  • FPT

    I am not sure I would call Philip's worldview 'sick'. But certainly I think his is wrong and yours is right. Though I would add that one other factor that does involve the Government is the place of benefits. We do hear all too often that local unskilled labour are generally unwilling to go out and do certain jobs because they are hard and unpleasant and it is easier to stay on benefits rather than do that work. Certainly that is a driving factor in farming. I am not sure that it is a situation we should be perpetuating. But the answer to that is not to put artificial barriers in the way of the movement of labour but to make 'not working' less attractive.


    Of course to do that requires a flexible, imaginative and proactive Government who recognise the need for benefits when work is not available but also recognise that those benefits need to be withheld to some extent when work is available. Unfortunately we have one party who believes benefits should always be available as an alternative to work and another party who believes that benefits should be almost non existent. Both are wrong.
    Though I said that people should be free to move here so long as they support themselves without eligibility to in work benefits.

    The flaw with comparing EU and non EU migration is that non EU migrants AFAIK can not claim in work benefits while EU migrants can.

    If an EU migrant wants to come here and support themselves on minimum wage I have no problem with that. If they want to come here, work minimum wage and claim child benefits, tax credits etc I do.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Scott_P said:
    Come on Scott - define "not very well"

    You give me every impression of not understanding a lot of the stuff you retweet.

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,975

    If we trade with Europe we are integrating with them.

    Are you seriously proposing that we cease to trade with every EU country?

    Even by PB standards, that's insane.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,009

    Thinking isn’t your strong point though is it.
    So says "Cretin of the Year" winner for the last 10 years. Back under your rock it is daylight.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,515
    Sean_F said:

    Assad is horrendously cruel. But ISIS are even worse.
    Saying he's as bad as ISIS is a risible assertion. He's an Erdogan.
  • malcolmg said:

    So says "Cretin of the Year" winner for the last 10 years. Back under your rock it is daylight.
    You make my point.
  • As opposed to disintegration and balkanisation?

    If we trade with Europe we are integrating with them. You can't get the politics out of the situation. And you can't avoid what happens on the continent affecting what happens in the UK.
    We export more to the rest of the world than we do with Europe.
    We export more to the USA than we do any other country in the world including any in Europe.

    So under your logic we are integrating more with the rest of the world than Europe? We are integrating with the USA?

    You want President Trump to set our laws?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,009

    In an independent Scotland the SNP government would pay you with Unicorns.
    That is a Westminster Tory promise, you are getting confused.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794
    rcs1000 said:

    To repeat my earlier comment with slightly more detail, given how much of the FTSE-100's earnings are in currencies outside sterling, you also need to constant currency the FTSE total return and the DAX, otherwise you are mainly measuring sterling depreciation.
    It depends on the point of view of the investor, a UK based retail investor has done a lot better from the main index than a retail German investor has done from the DAX. The international picture is more mixed I'd have to get the calculator out to do a USD adjusted gain and given that I'm not working again until the 2nd of Jan it seems unlikely...
  • As opposed to disintegration and balkanisation?

    If we trade with Europe we are integrating with them. You can't get the politics out of the situation. And you can't avoid what happens on the continent affecting what happens in the UK.
    Really ? The same way that we integrate with China and the US when we trade with them ?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,009
    RobD said:

    I don't think it's a new term, and it certainly doesn't sound soft.
    Rob, Don't be a silly boy , they are trying to make it sound like a glamping holiday choice.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,009
    Pulpstar said:

    'Rough sleeper' is the technically correct expression for what most people consider 'homeless' - which also describes a whole bunch of (far from ideal normally) situations where one is sleeping with a roof over your head.
    No, it is made to not sound as bad as HOMELESS, it sounds nothing like as bad. Typical politician weasel words.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Floater said:

    You give me every impression of not understanding a lot of the stuff you retweet.

    At least I understand what retweet means
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,353
    Scott_P said:
    Someone should have told them that before they (mostly) voted to trigger A50.

    But I don't think it is that much of a mistake really. For one because Corbyn still has wiggle room, he is just doing the May thing of trying to pretend some options are still on the table to avoid making a decision long past the point it makes sense. He will probably modulate his position. Yes, he does do that - he stated he voted Remain for a starter. And for Two, 'reluctantly' going for leave as they promised the electorate they would might well upset a lot of people who thought Labour were lying about being for leave, but they will depart en masse, really? Not likely.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,009
    stodge said:

    No, a term to differentiate the poverty we see in Britain with that in other parts of the world. It's not to downgrade the misery of the existence or the need to help those affected but I would like to think the vast majority of people in the UK have, for example, access to clean water.
    Whoopee , we have water, bless the good old Tories. What planet do you people live on , there is no point trying to say to someone , "think yourself lucky if you were in Africa you would not even have that water", you are only relatively poor.
  • malcolmg said:

    No, it is made to not sound as bad as HOMELESS, it sounds nothing like as bad. Typical politician weasel words.
    No it is what everyone thinks of when they think of homeless. If you say someone is homeless you picture them rough sleeping not in a temporary home. Those in temporary homes getting called homeless is what causes the confusion. Being in a temporary home may not be ideal but it is worlds apart from not having any home at all.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,252
    Scott_P said:
    The wish is father to the thought. Both from the French banker and the retweeter....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,353
    malcolmg said:

    Whoopee , we have water, bless the good old Tories. What planet do you people live on , there is no point trying to say to someone , "think yourself lucky if you were in Africa you would not even have that water", you are only relatively poor.
    Sure, an individual will not react well to hearing that and that's fair enough for them. But it is important to differentiate from actual global experiences of poverty because to confuse the two, deliberately, for political purposes, would be hugely and irresponsibly cynical, and damaging in highlighting the scale of the problems here and abroad, and how to combat them.

    Yes, politicians will use them to weasel word things as well. But that doesn't make the differentiation unimportant, when to confuse the relative issues we have vs global issues would be completely idiotic.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,353
    Scott_P said:

    At least I understand what retweet means
    You've made that point before and it is still silly - the reposting of a tweet, even if not on twitter itself, is perfectly well understood by saying it has been 'retweeted' and to quibble that is to defend oneself with semantic silliness, a distraction.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    kle4 said:

    You've made that point before and it is still silly - the reposting of a tweet, even if not on twitter itself, is perfectly well understood by saying it has been 'retweeted' and to quibble that is to defend oneself with semantic silliness, a distraction.
    And just encourages people to keep describing it thus...
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006
    malcolmg said:

    No, it is made to not sound as bad as HOMELESS, it sounds nothing like as bad. Typical politician weasel words.
    No. Homelessness has a clear legal definition. Someone who has presented themselves as homeless at their local council and have had that presentation accepted. This is how the data in homelessness has been collected since 1978. It can carry from 160,000 in 2005 to 60,000 in 2015. Rough sleeping is the term used to describe those sleeping rough. Outside. This is a much smaller number. Less than 10,000. It is measured by “rough sleeper counts’ again carried out by local authorities.
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006
    Yorkcity said:

    I think it will get worse for people in their mid to late sixties in the future.
    As many will not have pensions , that working for 30 to 40 years in the same occupation provided for previous generations.
    You can take an s off generations. It’s only one generation who will retire with such plentiful provision. Not the one before or one after. They are stuck funding it.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,398
    malcolmg said:

    Whoopee , we have water, bless the good old Tories. What planet do you people live on , there is no point trying to say to someone , "think yourself lucky if you were in Africa you would not even have that water", you are only relatively poor.
    I wouldn't insult people in those terms either but terms like "absolute" and "relative" poverty do have some meaning.

    However, as you say, that's not the point.

    The point should be how we bring everyone's quality of life to an acceptable standard in terms of housing, education, access to health etc. Every party and every Government should have that as its single most important goal.

    I'd also add the need to combat the scourges of mental health problems and addiction both of which, I think, are huge factors in determining poverty and undermining quality of life. We are starting to make headway in ending the taboo of talking about mental health but I've yet to see much progress in tackling addictions to drugs, alcohol, gambling, pain killers and a raft of other things.

    This isn't wholly about the prescriptive "nanny state" though it has a role but it's about health education and the cuts to that when it was transferred from the NHS to local councils have been deeply damaging.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,381
    notme2 said:

    No. Homelessness has a clear legal definition. Someone who has presented themselves as homeless at their local council and have had that presentation accepted. This is how the data in homelessness has been collected since 1978. It can carry from 160,000 in 2005 to 60,000 in 2015. Rough sleeping is the term used to describe those sleeping rough. Outside. This is a much smaller number. Less than 10,000. It is measured by “rough sleeper counts’ again carried out by local authorities.
    That's it. Being in temporary accommodation due to eviction or repossession is homelessness. Doing as my brother did, and moving out at 16 and living with various friends, is not homelessness.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    RobD said:

    As opposed to just trading. We can trade with other countries on the planet and not politically integrate with them.
    You think? Good luck with that.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,381
    stodge said:

    I wouldn't insult people in those terms either but terms like "absolute" and "relative" poverty do have some meaning.

    However, as you say, that's not the point.

    The point should be how we bring everyone's quality of life to an acceptable standard in terms of housing, education, access to health etc. Every party and every Government should have that as its single most important goal.

    I'd also add the need to combat the scourges of mental health problems and addiction both of which, I think, are huge factors in determining poverty and undermining quality of life. We are starting to make headway in ending the taboo of talking about mental health but I've yet to see much progress in tackling addictions to drugs, alcohol, gambling, pain killers and a raft of other things.

    This isn't wholly about the prescriptive "nanny state" though it has a role but it's about health education and the cuts to that when it was transferred from the NHS to local councils have been deeply damaging.

    I don't think it's useful to define relative poverty as 60% of the average income.

    But, I accept that ideas of what constitutes poverty will change as societies become wealthier.
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634
    stodge said:

    I wouldn't insult people in those terms either but terms like "absolute" and "relative" poverty do have some meaning.

    However, as you say, that's not the point.

    The point should be how we bring everyone's quality of life to an acceptable standard in terms of housing, education, access to health etc. Every party and every Government should have that as its single most important goal.
    The point being that this is at any given time an absolute measure (though it will increase with time).
  • notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006
    The definition of relative poverty in uk is thus, net disposable income:

    Couple with two children over 5 £413 a week
    Single with two children over 5 £306 a week
    Couple with no children £255 a week
    Single with no children £148 a week.

    This is a net amount including income from employment, pensions and benefits, and also after income tax, council tax and national
    Insurance contributions.
    “These income levels are measured after housing costs, rent (before any housing benefit) water rates, mortgage interest payments and ground rents”
  • Donny43 said:

    I'm guessing that wasn't the exact terminology used.

    https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1077172056247226370

    I think a 'Grayling' is the approved term.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Saying he's as bad as ISIS is a risible assertion. He's an Erdogan.
    Wow.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,320

    I think a 'Grayling' is the approved term.
    ...and Dad's Army is the appropriate template
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited December 2018

    So what would like to do that's different from the current deal? I've not heard anything specific that would be different.
    They would like to be in charge instead of the Tories.

    Errr....

    That's it!

    :D
  • RobD said:

    As opposed to just trading. We can trade with other countries on the planet and not politically integrate with them.
    Look forward to you repeating that when a future independent Scotland aspires to a sensible trading relationship with rump UK.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,820

    The exact terminology used was: Oh yeah, that stupid people left Chris Grayling in charge of trains, planes and drones. What did she expect would happen?
    Don't be so harsh. Failing Grayling is tasked with putting the "Managed" into No Deal Brexit. With his quiet competence and skilled execution we will barely notice the lack of customs arrangements, transport agreements and the like.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,317

    Look forward to you repeating that when a future independent Scotland aspires to a sensible trading relationship with rump UK.
    Given that they would have just voted for independence I can't see there being any appetite for political integration! I'd be more than content with a free trade arrangement with an independent Scotland.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,317

    You think? Good luck with that.
    We trade with a lot of other non-EU countries, without needing a Commission or Parliament.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,184
    Donny43 said:

    Speak for yourself.

    The problem with treating "relative poverty" as a target is that it means it is better for everybody in the country to be worse off, provided only that the richest are hurt the worst, than it is for everybody in the country to be better off with the richest benefiting most.
    I do see that that is a danger. But let me ask you this:

    Do you think the rise in food banks over the past 10 years indicates levels of poverty (or relative poverty, call it what you will) we should be happy with?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,317

    I do see that that is a danger. But let me ask you this:

    Do you think the rise in food banks over the past 10 years indicates levels of poverty (or relative poverty, call it what you will) we should be happy with?
    It’s werid, poverty (both ‘absolute’ and relative) have barely moved.

    Suspect true absolute poverty is near zero though.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,820
    malcolmg said:

    No, it is made to not sound as bad as HOMELESS, it sounds nothing like as bad. Typical politician weasel words.
    I disagree with you here. Homelessness and Rough Sleeping mean what they suggest but they are also legal terms with different specific meanings. The absence of a legal or suitable place to live makes you homeless. You sleep rough when you spend the night outside without shelter. You can deal with rough sleeping by building more shelters so people at least can get into the warm and dry. Homelessness is a more general problem with complex causes. Both problems need to be addressed, but don't get a lot of priority.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,555
    notme2 said:

    The definition of relative poverty in uk is thus, net disposable income:

    Couple with two children over 5 £413 a week
    Single with two children over 5 £306 a week
    Couple with no children £255 a week
    Single with no children £148 a week.

    This is a net amount including income from employment, pensions and benefits, and also after income tax, council tax and national
    Insurance contributions.
    “These income levels are measured after housing costs, rent (before any housing benefit) water rates, mortgage interest payments and ground rents”

    What is the equivalent level of relative poverty in a similar country to ours, say France?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,252
    kle4 said:

    You've made that point before and it is still silly - the reposting of a tweet, even if not on twitter itself, is perfectly well understood by saying it has been 'retweeted' and to quibble that is to defend oneself with semantic silliness, a distraction.
    It's what passes for a Big Point in Scott World.

    When you understand this, you understand how his lot got beaten by a bus.....
  • Donny43Donny43 Posts: 634

    I do see that that is a danger. But let me ask you this:

    Do you think the rise in food banks over the past 10 years indicates levels of poverty (or relative poverty, call it what you will) we should be happy with?
    The rise in food banks shows mostly that they are relatively newly invented.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited December 2018
    RobD said:


    It’s werid, poverty (both ‘absolute’ and relative) have barely moved.

    Suspect true absolute poverty is near zero though.

    What has increased drastically is in-work poverty. A decade of wage stagnation and cheap money leading to asset inflation has made the Working Man feel much poorer, at the same time as politicians keep crowing how fucking lucky we are to be a cog in the capitalist machine.

    It really is no wonder that reactionary movements have swept across the western world. Everyone feels poorer, and we're told we're supposed to be happy about that.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    you understand how his lot got beaten by a bus.....

    LOL

    It was Leave voters that were duped by the bus, not my lot...
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited December 2018
    Scott_P said:
    Reminds me of one of my favourite passages in the English language, from Hope: A Tragedy by Shalom Auslander:

    We are rational creatures, Professor Jove explained: hope is irrational. We thus set ourselves up for one dispiriting fall after the next. Anger and depression are not diseases or dysfunctions or anomalies; they are perfectly rational responses to the myriad of avoidable disappointments that begin in thoroughly irrational hope.
    Kugel wasn’t sure he understood. Professor Jove smiled warmly.
    Tell me, he said. Hitler was the last century’s greatest what?
    Kugel had shrugged.

    Monster?

    Optimist, said Professor Jove. Hitler was the most unabashed doe-eyed optimist of the last hundred years. That’s why he was the biggest monster.

    Hitler was the most blatant, optimistic innocent in the last hundred years. That's why he became the biggest monster. Have you ever heard of something so outrageously optimistic as the final solution ? Not only that there might be a solution to anything, when we still have yet to cure the common cold - but on top of it all, a final one! So much hope that Führer had ... What a dreamer! It's even romantic, isn't it? If I kill this guy, if I gas that one, then everything will be as it should be .

    I say this with absolute certainty: Every morning when Adolf Hitler woke up he made ​​coffee and asked what he could do to improve the world ... It does not matter where you were born, whenever you see someone stand up and promise that things are going to get better in this world, run. Hide. Pessimists do not build gas chambers.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453


    I say this with absolute certainty: Every morning when Adolf Hitler woke up he made ​​coffee and asked what he could do to improve the world ... It does not matter where you were born, whenever you see someone stand up and promise that things are going to get better in this world, run. Hide. Pessimists do not build gas chambers.

    c.f. Trump
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    Scott_P said:

    c.f. Trump
    Trump is an optimist and a narcissist which makes him especially dangerous.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,009
    edited December 2018

    No it is what everyone thinks of when they think of homeless. If you say someone is homeless you picture them rough sleeping not in a temporary home. Those in temporary homes getting called homeless is what causes the confusion. Being in a temporary home may not be ideal but it is worlds apart from not having any home at all.
    Going round begging to sleep on people's couches is not a bundle of laughs , you can only do that for a short time. Better than sleeping in a doorway but still homeless.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,317
    Scott_P said:
    There are much bigger freeloaders out there than the U.K. :p
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,317

    What has increased drastically is in-work poverty. A decade of wage stagnation and cheap money leading to asset inflation has made the Working Man feel much poorer, at the same time as politicians keep crowing how fucking lucky we are to be a cog in the capitalist machine.

    It really is no wonder that reactionary movements have swept across the western world. Everyone feels poorer, and we're told we're supposed to be happy about that.
    How can that increase yet poverty remain static?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    On the subject of homelessness, this is exceptional

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Stuart-Life-Backwards-Alexander-Masters/dp/0007200374
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,009

    What is the equivalent level of relative poverty in a similar country to ours, say France?
    £400 pound a week left after all your bills are paid is pure bollox. Average wage is about £26K in Scotland so that would mean just about everybody is in poverty.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    malcolmg said:


    Going round begging to sleep on people's couches is not a bundle of laughs , you can only do that for a short time. Better than sleeping in a doorway but still homeless.

    Rough sleeping and homelessness are not the same thing, and whilst one is demonstrably worse than the other, both are shameful in a wealthy society like ours and neither should be tolerated.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,009
    RobD said:

    How can that increase yet poverty remain static?
    Fiddled statistics.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    We are now a government of the Twitter, by the Twitter and for the Twitter.

    At least that is how it felt at the end of a week in which President Trump used the social communications medium and was used by it in ways that the founders never would have envisioned.

    There is one positive way of looking at this whole situation: The smoky back rooms are all gone now, making way for a 24-hour feed that chronicles every bit of the action under klieg lights. There are no secrets, no side deals in the shadows, no quiet signaling. Instead, it is all text and no subtext, moving from action, reaction, reaction to the reaction and so on.

    We used to say no one should see the sausage being made. But the digital age of Twitter and Trump turns that on its head. You see not only the making of the sausage, but also the goring of the pig and the butchering, too, followed by the eating of the sausage and then what happens after that. Nothing is left unsaid, even if nothing that’s being said means much at all.


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/24/opinion/trump-twitter-wall-shutdown.html
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,009

    Rough sleeping and homelessness are not the same thing, and whilst one is demonstrably worse than the other, both are shameful in a wealthy society like ours and neither should be tolerated.
    Neither have a home , so splitting hairs. No matter the pc titles they make up it is still people without homes.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    We have never witnessed a president of the united states live-tweet their own descent into isolation, madness, and ejection from office before. Hopefully we never will again.

    But this one's gonna be a doozy.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    malcolmg said:

    Neither have a home , so splitting hairs. No matter the pc titles they make up it is still people without homes.
    Quite. Also enforced over-occupancy. Children of different sexes above puberty age sharing bedrooms. People sleeping in kitchens and bathrooms (when it's not Christmas).

    There are many people affected by the horrors of homelessness even if they do have a permanent or semi-permanent residence.
  • malcolmg said:

    Going round begging to sleep on people's couches is not a bundle of laughs , you can only do that for a short time. Better than sleeping in a doorway but still homeless.
    It's my understanding that even someone who has an indefinite agreement to remain in someone else's spare room if they have one until a permanent solution is found is called homeless. It's not ideal but to me there should be another word for that.
This discussion has been closed.