The great TP election thread

[big soft moose]

Ade is right, the NHS is in serious need of sorting out, the guys on the front line need funding, the executives sitting in offices dont need to be there, or have that level of wages.

he is - however the tory reforms 79-97 brought about the lard arses sitting in offices and cuts to the front line - the whole 'internal market' structure created huge layers of totally unecessary bureaucracy which had to be paid for from somewhere - and used money filched from front line services. I suspect a 'call me dave' led shake up would be more of the same

 

[Matt]

personal allowance is now £12500, labour had it as low as £4335. Balls could lower the higher rate threshold, so a reasonably well payed salesman with a company would be hit hard.

labour didnt reduce the numbers of managers between 97 and 2010 though, it went up. a quick bit of moosing brings up this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...HS-managers-outstrips-doctors-and-nurses.html

and then after the last election, this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...mbers-falling-after-66-rise-under-Labour.html

that said, its not been handled well so far, and needs better management. the labour method of just throwing money at it wont fix it.

 

[big soft moose]

as i said the blair govt was a shower of s*** and not remotely socialist (i have strong feeling that Milliband could be more of the same which is why i'm voting independent)

Incidentally personallowance for 15/16 is £10,600 - you need to learn to moose

 

[fracster]

The Blair/Brown axis was not a shower of s***, it was a national disgrace.

 

[Phil V]

serious question. Is the NHS not in dire need of a radical shake up?

I don't mean shafting the guys and ladies in the firing line, I mean slimming down the overladen management and non entities that are employed within our nhs.

Serious answer. No not radical.

It's better vfm than healthcare almost anywhere, of private or public provision.

It's one of those 'lies told often enough', of course it's not perfect, but what is really holding it back.

Of course you have to realise the simple truth at the heart of measuring the public sector, which is that it creates a massive layer of waste that exists to count the beans, and to make sure the beans are of the right shape and colour. That's the reason the present government hasn't cut the amount of 'bureaucratic waste' despite the silent moves into privatisation and the massive promises to do so.

When we start to contract out public services, the first thing that happens is the creation of a 'contract services' layer, that can be added to the profit a private company has to make, so that's 2 wedges of our cash that don't touch the service we're paying for, which equates to about a 20% cut from the front line before the provider has even to prove any savings. The contractor has a 20% diminished fund with which we can only hope they will be able to provide the same standard of service. For us to save money, the reduction to the front line will need to be greater.

 

[fracster]

Also, the SNP should not be allowed to stand for Westminster, they had their try at Independance, they failed. That door should be closed firmly and forever.

Let the SNP campaign for the Scottish Parliament. Not ours.

 

[rjbell]

as i said the blair govt was a shower of s*** and not remotely socialist (i have strong feeling that Milliband could be more of the same which is why i'm voting independent)

Incidentally personallowance for 15/16 is £10,600 - you need to learn to moose

I like to think with his background he will be more socialist. I won't hold my breath though.

 

[OldCarlos]

I know it shouldn't matter who the leader of any party is, it should be about policies, but if Ed's brother David had been leader, I'd have more faith.

 

[rjbell]

Also, the SNP should not be allowed to stand for Westminster, they had their try at Independance, they failed. That door should be closed firmly and forever.

Let the SNP campaign for the Scottish Parliament. Not ours.

Very democratic.

 

[Jelster]

Extremly left wing is where you nationalise absolutely everything, and implement a command economic model - pretty much like Stalin did. (its nearly always an abject failure which is why it doesnt happen much (even communist china is allowing some freemarket operations), and why when it does the state usually lies about its economic well being

That sounds like Harold Wilsons Labour party. If it generates revenue - Nationalise it. Coal, electricity, railways.....

Replacing the current government will undo all the (good) work they have done over the last 5 years.

 

[woof woof]

trouble is conservatives will fix the defecit by privatising the NHS (or doing so by stealth by condeming it to death by a thousand cuts) likewise masacring every other public service, deregulating the economy and s***ting all over both the environment and the working class, whilst providing tax breaks for the rich in order to help out their public school mates "attract investment in the economy"

Voting tory to protect public services makes as much sense as voting ukip because you love imigrants

The trouble is that we have to live in the real world and the truth of the matter is that after a Tory / Lib term in office the NHS is nowhere nearer to being privatised than it was under Labour.

don't have very many mines though , or steel works , or ship yards, or any heavy industry.. if white collar workers think that the tories won't do to them what they did to the blue collar they are sadly mistaken

I suppose you'd have been in favour of nationalising / keeping the mines, shipyards etc and paying for them with what? Good intentions? Borrowed money? Where would the NHS be now if successive governments had all the nationalised lame ducks to pay for? There's those pesky realities again.

We can't continue to live on credit forever. As I said ages ago in this thread, we can live on other peoples money for a long time if we choose to do so but future generations wont thank us for it.

I do regard myself as a socialist but I just can't see how running away from economic realities makes a good socialist.

There's a debt clock here...

http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

Don't know if it's accurate but it certainly makes me think that I don't want to be a socialist who passes this on to future generations. I'd rather be a socialist who thinks about the future and does something to ensure that we have sustainable wealth we can use to do more than pay interest payments.

 

[woof woof]

Of course you have to realise the simple truth at the heart of measuring the public sector, which is that it creates a massive layer of waste that exists to count the beans, and to make sure the beans are of the right shape and colour. That's the reason the present government hasn't cut the amount of 'bureaucratic waste' despite the silent moves into privatisation and the massive promises to do so.

Back when I worked in computers I looked after several national contracts for government departments and the waste I saw wasn't just massive it was criminal or at least it should have been and any right thinking person would think that it should be criminal and that people should not only have been sacked on the spot but prosecuted and imprisoned. I also heard horrific stories from a previous partner of mine who had a pointless but well paid job in local council.

I've absolutely do not doubt for a second that massive and criminal waste still occurs. Personally I think that the government should run it's affairs like a business and I can't see any reason why it shouldn't other than a thousand years of history.

If we had a government that could get to grips with the culture of waste and kill it think what services we could have. It'll never happen though as the vast army of government employees would vote them out as when it comes to a choice between a properly funded NHS (or other) and your own pay packet everyone turns into a rampant capitalist.

 

[Phil V]

Back when I worked in computers I looked after several national contracts for government departments and the waste I saw wasn't just massive it was criminal or at least it should have been and any right thinking person would think that it should be criminal and that people should not only have been sacked on the spot but prosecuted and imprisoned. I also heard horrific stories from a previous partner of mine who had a pointless but well paid job in local council.

I've absolutely do not doubt for a second that massive and criminal waste still occurs. Personally I think that the government should run it's affairs like a business and I can't see any reason why it shouldn't other than a thousand years of history.

If we had a government that could get to grips with the culture of waste and kill it think what services we could have. It'll never happen though as the vast army of government employees would vote them out as when it comes to a choice between a properly funded NHS (or other) and your own pay packet everyone turns into a rampant capitalist.

So 36 years of governments attacking the public sector and you think that 'criminal' amounts of waste are still a common occurrence?

I've worked for National government departments, the Local Authority, small and large private sector companies. Where I've met some awesome people, people who work very hard for little reward. I've also seen stupid things and met lazy bastards who are overpaid. But the media fed idea that any of that is a public / private sector divide is ridiculous to the point of laughable.

And ask any 'right thinking' person to really think about how human beings operate and they'd realise that. But just keep repeating the mantra 'private good - public bad' and they can get away with giving all out taxes away to their mates in the city.

BTW I'm not suggesting that there's no waste to be tackled, I'm suggesting we've spent 30 odd years going about it the wrong way. IMHO nothing creates more waste than pretending we can run a public sector organisation the way the private sector is run. Again, it's illogical but it's taken as a universal truth.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

So 36 years of governments attacking the public sector and you think that 'criminal' amounts of waste are still a common occurrence?

I've worked for National government departments, the Local Authority, small and large private sector companies. Where I've met some awesome people, people who work very hard for little reward. I've also seen stupid things and met lazy bastards who are overpaid. But the media fed idea that any of that is a public / private sector divide is ridiculous to the point of laughable.

And ask any 'right thinking' person to really think about how human beings operate and they'd realise that. But just keep repeating the mantra 'private good - public bad' and they can get away with giving all out taxes away to their mates in the city.

BTW I'm not suggesting that there's no waste to be tackled, I'm suggesting we've spent 30 odd years going about it the wrong way. IMHO nothing creates more waste than pretending we can run a public sector organisation the way the private sector is run. Again, it's illogical but it's taken as a universal truth.

Agree strongly, I think the public sector staff work extremely hard both ion the NHS, local Government and Emergencey Services. They have been stripped back to the bone and it's in danger of imploding. There is not much more left to strip away. I'm fed up with hearing the mantra 'work smarter not harder'but that's just a smokescreen people are still working bloody hard ! - they have to as their are less people doing the same jobs, covering the shifts etc.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Anybody interested in reducing waste and improving efficiency should read John Seddons 'lean thinking' and some of his other work.

 

[rjbell]

The trouble is that we have to live in the real world and the truth of the matter is that after a Tory / Lib term in office the NHS is nowhere nearer to being privatised than it was under Labour.



I suppose you'd have been in favour of nationalising / keeping the mines, shipyards etc and paying for them with what? Good intentions? Borrowed money? Where would the NHS be now if successive governments had all the nationalised lame ducks to pay for? There's those pesky realities again.

We can't continue to live on credit forever. As I said ages ago in this thread, we can live on other peoples money for a long time if we choose to do so but future generations wont thank us for it.

I do regard myself as a socialist but I just can't see how running away from economic realities makes a good socialist.

There's a debt clock here...

http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

Don't know if it's accurate but it certainly makes me think that I don't want to be a socialist who passes this on to future generations. I'd rather be a socialist who thinks about the future and does something to ensure that we have sustainable wealth we can use to do more than pay interest payments.

We've been in debt since 1692 I would image we always will be. Or are you talking about the deficit?

 

[big soft moose]

I suppose you'd have been in favour of nationalising / keeping the mines, shipyards etc and paying for them with what? Good intentions? Borrowed money? .

Personally i'd have kept them and run them as profitable enterprises, while whacking a large import tax on imported goods to level the playing field - if it was cheaper to buy british coal than it was to import it from poland/india etc then the business consumers would buy it and the british coal industry would run on its own profits

for coal also read steel and various other stuff we don't make any more.

I'd also then have saved a shed load in benefits, and in policing and health care because we'd have considerably more employment and not have created sink estates full of crime and drug addiction.

Same thing with the NHS , yes it definitely needs to be more efficient , but a Phil explained earlier you don't get efficiency by outsourcing services - what the NHS needs is to bin the internal market structure , lose the layers of bureaucracy and get back to what it was doing pre the thatcher years - ie treating patients. By doing that you could have a smaller budget but better paitent care, and wile you would create some unemployment unlike the miners the bureaucrats can readily go to other jobs or even retrain to do something useful like teaching shortage subjects

theres no way a right wing govt will take those steps (and personally i doubt labour have the balls either)

 

[Llamaman]

Let the SNP campaign for the Scottish Parliament. Not ours.

"ours" would include Scotland, no? It's attitudes such as yours that fuels the independence campaign.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Don't buy this, they were in charge from 79 till 97, yet we still have an nhs.

The public sector grew far too much over the last 10 years and was unsustainable.

Not convinced about the tax breaks either. While I was against the removal of the 50 or 45 rate (as it did not feel right), many economists said it would bring in more money by scrapping it? Who knows who is right on that one.

How much did to grow in the last 10 years?

 

[Llamaman]

Personally i'd have kept them and run them as profitable enterprises, while whacking a large import tax on imported goods

I agree with your comments about the NHS, but not the one I've quoted above. You don't make an industry more efficient by removing the competition. The US has tried this with it's steel industry and it's not working.

Imposing trade tariffs encourages inefficiency and laziness (why work harder if the government guarantees you a head start?) until you reach a point where foreign imports become attractive even with the trade tariffs. Plus, imposing such tariffs invites retaliatory tariffs from other nations/trading blocs, making it harder to export your goods.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Well, my theory is that the countries in Europe that are going down the tube are having to cut their health services and that's easy to understand as they're going bust and have no money.

If we put away party prejudices for a mo we might accept that it's a hard fact that if you want to put another £8bn into the NHS you need £8bn to put in.

At the moment that £8bn will have to come from the Germans or the Chinese and they wont pay for our lifestyle and NHS forever hence the massive and growing interest payments on our massive and growing debt and it's only a matter of time before the interest rate goes up or we simply can't meet the payments we have now and they simply say "No More" and when that happens NHS workers go home and say "I haven't been paid again this month." That's what's happened elsewhere and could happen here if we don't get our heads out of our you know whats and accept that we have problems to fix and can't live on borrowed money forever.

So, my hope is that if we can fix the deficit and get into profit we can then spend our profit on the good stuff instead of handing some future generation an outstanding bill for £2bn or whatever it is on their 18th birthday.

As a socialist I don't see ignoring the mess we're in and leaving it for our children / grand children / great grandchildren to sort out as a very socialist thing to do. I'd rather accept that we have to make a profit to be able to care for the ill and needy in our society as lets face it doctors and nurses and social workers and people who make incubators and all of the other kit will not work for nothing and insist on receiving that dirty capitalist thing, money.

So yes, I think that voting Conservative might just save the NHS as if some other lot get elected and decide that they're far too nice to balance the books it's only a matter of time before it all comes crashing down and that mess will be a lot worse than the one we're in now. As a Greek.

Which countries are you referring to (apart from the obvious Greece?)

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Personally i'd have kept them and run them as profitable enterprises, while whacking a large import tax on imported goods to level the playing field - if it was cheaper to buy british coal than it was to import it from poland/india etc then the business consumers would buy it and the british coal industry would run on its own profits

for coal also read steel and various other stuff we don't make any more.

I'd also then have saved a shed load in benefits, and in policing and health care because we'd have considerably more employment and not have created sink estates full of crime and drug addiction.

Same thing with the NHS , yes it definitely needs to be more efficient , but a Phil explained earlier you don't get efficiency by outsourcing services - what the NHS needs is to bin the internal market structure , lose the layers of bureaucracy and get back to what it was doing pre the thatcher years - ie treating patients. By doing that you could have a smaller budget but better paitent care, and wile you would create some unemployment unlike the miners the bureaucrats can readily go to other jobs or even retrain to do something useful like teaching shortage subjects

theres no way a right wing govt will take those steps (and personally i doubt labour have the balls either)

Not certain how sustainable a practice that would be. You are in effect still subsidising the coal industry by forcing other companies and industries to pay more for their coal / energy / chemicals etc. These companies are then at a disadvantage and may lose a lot of international sales due to a more expensive product. And large import taxes are likely to be met with a tit for tat response which will cause major problems across the globe.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

personal allowance is now £12500, labour had it as low as £4335. Balls could lower the higher rate threshold, so a reasonably well payed salesman with a company would be hit hard.

labour didnt reduce the numbers of managers between 97 and 2010 though, it went up. a quick bit of moosing brings up this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...HS-managers-outstrips-doctors-and-nurses.html

and then after the last election, this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...mbers-falling-after-66-rise-under-Labour.html

that said, its not been handled well so far, and needs better management. the labour method of just throwing money at it wont fix it.

To be fair those stories are straight from the torygraph and don't seem to that impartial, attributing the rise and fall directly to the party in power. I would welcome a more neutral source to investigate this numbers!

 

[StewartR]

This is absolutely brilliant. "The Emperor's New Clothes" by Cassette Boy on YouTube:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbLGG5UGEKw

 

[big soft moose]

Not certain how sustainable a practice that would be. You are in effect still subsidising the coal industry by forcing other companies and industries to pay more for their coal / energy / chemicals etc. These companies are then at a disadvantage and may lose a lot of international sales due to a more expensive product. And large import taxes are likely to be met with a tit for tat response which will cause major problems across the globe.

its what japan does, and china - and various other countries - the tat is already happening to british companies exporting to those markets, but we don't have the tit - which is ironic given how many complete tits there are in govt

also while you are forcing other companies to buy here to sell here that isnt imo a bad thing - as at least you are subsidising britisjh employment rather than british unemployment

 

[big soft moose]

I agree with your comments about the NHS, but not the one I've quoted above. You don't make an industry more efficient by removing the competition. The US has tried this with it's steel industry and it's not working.

Imposing trade tariffs encourages inefficiency and laziness (why work harder if the government guarantees you a head start?) until you reach a point where foreign imports become attractive even with the trade tariffs. Plus, imposing such tariffs invites retaliatory tariffs from other nations/trading blocs, making it harder to export your goods.

its not about giving a head start its about levelling the playing field - the only other option being complete deregulation allowing a level playing feild and competition on price - but that will result in near slave labour wages, and no H&S or environmental protection essentially a return victorian standards where the poor are expendable ... clearly not a sustainable situation (although that is where the far right parties would take us)

In theory british coal should be cheaper than chinese coal all other factors being equal - because chinese coal has to be shipped thousands of miles - the reason its not is that chinese miners get paid sweet FA and their mines don't have to meet H&S or environmental standards

 

[Deleted member 49549]

its what japan does, and china - and various other countries - the tat is already happening to british companies exporting to those markets, but we don't have the tit - which is ironic given how many complete tits there are in govt

also while you are forcing other companies to buy here to sell here that isnt imo a bad thing - as at least you are subsidising britisjh employment rather than british unemployment

I don't think this is a reasonable conclusion - you are subsidising inefficient british employment (e.g. coal industry that needs subsidies in the form of guaranteed sales to other UK companies at higher prices) at the expense of those competitive industries that do not need subsidies, but are being penalised by being forced to buy coal or energy at inflated prices to keep the coal industry afloat.
While I believe thatcher went to far in removing heavy industry from this country, propping up uncompetitive industries such as the the coal industry was crippling us as a country. And it will cripple us in the future if we put a ball and chain around the feet of the British industries / sectors that are doing well by forcing them to buy coal or energy at inflated prices.

In theory british coal should be cheaper than chinese coal all other factors being equal - because chinese coal has to be shipped thousands of miles - the reason its not is that chinese miners get paid sweet FA and their mines don't have to meet H&S or environmental standards

That really shouldn't matter, if we can use our limited pool of labour in the UK more efficiently in industries other than coal, then we should do so. Just because we have coal under our feet, does not mean we should be expending our resources in mining it if it is not the most efficient use of our labour. And keeping it there until the future when its value may well rocket due to global scarcity may be very beneficial to future generations.

 

[big soft moose]

IThat really shouldn't matter, if we can use our limited pool of labour in the UK more efficiently in industries other than coal, then we should do so. Just because we have coal under our feet, does not mean we should be expending our resources in mining it if it is not the most efficient use of our labour. And keeping it there until the future when its value may well rocket due to global scarcity may be very beneficial to future generations.

I agree - but thats not what happened , we didnt close the mines so that the miners could be used more effectively elsewhere - we closed them for soley economic reasons and created vast unemployment and deprivation - which the tax payer then had to subsidise, thus putting a ball and chain on public spending.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

I agree - but thats not what happened , we didnt close the mines so that the miners could be used more effectively elsewhere - we closed them for soley economic reasons and created vast unemployment and deprivation - which the tax payer then had to subsidise, thus putting a ball and chain on public spending.

Not immediately, but if we chose to continue subsidising the mines there would be many people involved in that industry today that would not be available for employment in other competitive industries which are beneficial to our economy rather than a drain. It does pain me to say it, but i am more convinced by the argument that the reduction of heavy industry was of economic benefit to our country, however badly it was handled at the time.

 

[Phil V]

Not immediately, but if we chose to continue subsidising the mines there would be many people involved in that industry today that would not be available for employment in other competitive industries which are beneficial to our economy rather than a drain. It does pain me to say it, but i am more convinced by the argument that the reduction of heavy industry was of economic benefit to our country, however badly it was handled at the time.

I'd like to see statistics to back that up. Since we lost a lot of industry, we have created a service based economy and a huge drop in the standard of living for lots of people.

Of course this drop is masked by the availability of cheap electronics from the Far East (the up side of globalisation). So I point at someone and say they're in poverty, but the Daily Mail brigade say they can't be they've got 2 TV's. The fact that a TV costs in real terms about a fifth of its price 30 years ago is lost on those folks. The fact is that the kids who get bullied because they haven't got the latest trainers and can't afford school trips puts them in the same 'poverty' that they were in in the 80's, but now they've got a mobile phone (not a good enough one to stop them getting bullied).

 

[Steve Smith]

I'd like to see statistics to back that up. Since we lost a lot of industry, we have created a service based economy and a huge drop in the standard of living for lots of people.

Agreed. If you want to make money, you need to make actual things to sell to people. Service industries cannot replace that.


Steve.

 

[OldCarlos]

This is absolutely brilliant. "The Emperor's New Clothes" by Cassette Boy on YouTube:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbLGG5UGEKw[/QUOTE]

Haha, 'kin brilliant!

 

[StewartR]

Since we lost a lot of industry, we have created a service based economy and a huge drop in the standard of living for lots of people.

Of course this drop is masked by the availability of cheap electronics from the Far East (the up side of globalisation). So I point at someone and say they're in poverty, but the Daily Mail brigade say they can't be they've got 2 TV's. The fact that a TV costs in real terms about a fifth of its price 30 years ago is lost on those folks. The fact is that the kids who get bullied because they haven't got the latest trainers and can't afford school trips puts them in the same 'poverty' that they were in in the 80's, but now they've got a mobile phone (not a good enough one to stop them getting bullied).

Phil, I think you're failing to draw a distinction between poverty and inequality.

Living standards in the UK have improved over the last 30 years, in the sense that people can afford to buy things (eg mobile phones, TVs) and do things (eg have someone do their nails, take foreign holidays) in Greater quantities than they used to be able to. It really doesn't matter whether that's because incomes have gone up or because prices of some things have gone down. Either way, living standards have improved, and that's before we even consider things like improved health care. By the standards of most of the world, and by the standards of the UK for most of history, there is little poverty here.

But of course there is inequality. The standard measures of inequality say that it has increased in recent years, but I don't know how much of that is driven by the super rich becoming much, much richer. What's arguably more relevant is whether the differences between, say, the 70th, 80th and 90th income percentiles have changed, and that's harder to dig out of the published figures. Inequality excluding the super rich is the kind that leads to kids being mocked because they've got cheap trainers or old mobile phones, but it's hard to know whether or not it has increased. If you have some data, do please share it.

The extent to which inequality of any kind is (a) inevitable and (b) desirable is of course a different question.

 

[Phil V]

Phil, I think you're failing to draw a distinction between poverty and inequality.

Living standards in the UK have improved over the last 30 years, in the sense that people can afford to buy things (eg mobile phones, TVs) and do things (eg have someone do their nails, take foreign holidays) in Greater quantities than they used to be able to. It really doesn't matter whether that's because incomes have gone up or because prices of some things have gone down. Either way, living standards have improved, and that's before we even consider things like improved health care. By the standards of most of the world, and by the standards of the UK for most of history, there is little poverty here.

But of course there is inequality. The standard measures of inequality say that it has increased in recent years, but I don't know how much of that is driven by the super rich becoming much, much richer. What's arguably more relevant is whether the differences between, say, the 70th, 80th and 90th income percentiles have changed, and that's harder to dig out of the published figures. Inequality excluding the super rich is the kind that leads to kids being mocked because they've got cheap trainers or old mobile phones, but it's hard to know whether or not it has increased. If you have some data, do please share it.

The extent to which inequality of any kind is (a) inevitable and (b) desirable is of course a different question.

I was discussing 'relative poverty' which I used to think of as a bit poncy until I considered it from the perspective above.

I'm avoiding discussing the super rich nowadays

 

[StewartR]

I was discussing 'relative poverty' which I used to think of as a bit poncy until I considered it from the perspective above.

Fair enough, but relative poverty is basically just inequality. Most people would agree that trying to eliminate poverty is unequivocally a good thing, but trying to eradicate relative poverty is a completely different kettle of fish. The countries which have tried that (USSR, China, Cambodia, etc) haven't had any particularly good experiences with it. That's why it's important to make the distinction.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

I'd like to see statistics to back that up. Since we lost a lot of industry, we have created a service based economy and a huge drop in the standard of living for lots of people.

Of course this drop is masked by the availability of cheap electronics from the Far East (the up side of globalisation). So I point at someone and say they're in poverty, but the Daily Mail brigade say they can't be they've got 2 TV's. The fact that a TV costs in real terms about a fifth of its price 30 years ago is lost on those folks. The fact is that the kids who get bullied because they haven't got the latest trainers and can't afford school trips puts them in the same 'poverty' that they were in in the 80's, but now they've got a mobile phone (not a good enough one to stop them getting bullied).

I not certain that is the case myself, and would also be interested in seeing any evidence either way.

Regarding poverty vs equality, I think most current definitions do measure poverty in terms relative terms.

 

[Phil V]

Fair enough, but relative poverty is basically just inequality. Most people would agree that trying to eliminate poverty is unequivocally a good thing, but trying to eradicate relative poverty is a completely different kettle of fish. The countries which have tried that (USSR, China, Cambodia, etc) haven't had any particularly good experiences with it. That's why it's important to make the distinction.

I said the same thing when the previous administration promised to take children out of poverty. Whilst poverty is measured in relative terms, it's impossible to eradicate. In short, no matter how rich you make the poorest 10%, there will still be a poorest 10%. It's nuts.

That said, they did succeed in improving the lives of a lot of poor kids, so 'swings and roundabouts '.

 

[StewartR]

Whilst poverty is measured in relative terms, it's impossible to eradicate. In short, no matter how rich you make the poorest 10%, there will still be a poorest 10%. It's nuts.

Spot on. It's amazing to consider how such an obvious concept can go over the heads of politicians. (Or perhaps not so amazing, when you look at what kinds of subjects they took at university.)

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Quick question. If the election goes to the current forecast - con winning the most seats, but lab taking power with a number of other parties, would anyone question the validity of the government?

 

[Steep]

Surely though there's a world of difference between the poorest 10% living in poverty and the poorest 10% having a decent income? To say that poverty is just a form of inequality shows a total lack of understanding of what poverty actually means.