There are more in employment this Christmas than at Christmas 2010 though the last time Labour were in power
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.
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.
Under Labour comrades will each be able to enjoy one state-funded turnip every Christmas! No more will the capitalist boss class be able to festoon their tables with decadent crackers and bourgeois turkeys! Everyone will be united in happy culinary unity of the workers' turnips!
Our malcolmg will be quite pleased with that arrangement.
I thought he owned all the turnips. ALL THE TURNIPS.
Quite pleased
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.
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"...
Mr. City, whilst not a Starmer fan myself, Labour would likely be 15 points or so ahead if he were leading.
How does the 15 point lead happen exactly?
Labour are on close to 40% already and I assume a Starmer led Labour party isn't being predicted to be hitting 55%...
You can't even count. If Labour are on 45 and Tories on 30, they're 15 points ahead!
The Tories being on 30 would be part of the explanation of what happens, they aren't on 30 at the moment.
Saying the Tories would lose 10 (ish) and Labour gain 5 (ish) is a fairly big shout.
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.
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"...
Under Labour comrades will each be able to enjoy one state-funded turnip every Christmas! No more will the capitalist boss class be able to festoon their tables with decadent crackers and bourgeois turkeys! Everyone will be united in happy culinary unity of the workers' turnips!
Our malcolmg will be quite pleased with that arrangement.
I thought he owned all the turnips. ALL THE TURNIPS.
Quite pleased
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.
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?
"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.
There are more in employment this Christmas than at Christmas 2010 though the last time Labour were in power
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.
Quite. They'll be moving on to the term Urban Adventurer soon.
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"...
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.
It is a truth generally acknowledged that there is a tranche of traditionally Labour voters who won't vote for us while Corbyn is leader. They tell canvassers this on the doorstep in no uncertain terms.
While Jezza-sceptics share these anecdotes, Corbynites just pretend it isn't happening.
We need the next leader to be someone who can bring these voters back on board while making sure that the purple haired crowd stay with us too.
To me Starmer is the obvious choice.
I've never hidden away from it. I just always thought it was worth the trade off for the greater numbers brought in instead.
Basically I'd rather win without them than lose with them.
In your dreams.
YouGov political tracker favourability ratings:
Do you have a favourable or unfavourable opinion of Jeremy Corbyn...
Dec 2018: Favourable 26%, Unfavourable 61%, Net -35%
On the eve of the last GE, at the end of May 2017 it was Net -14%
Corbyn is a huge drag on Labour's polling and the only thing preventing double digit leads for the Conservatives is that May's own favourability ratings are almost as bad.
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.
There are more in employment this Christmas than at Christmas 2010 though the last time Labour were in power
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.
'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.
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"...
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.
Destitution scarcely exists in the UK, but there are still several million for whom life is a struggle to get by.
There are more in employment this Christmas than at Christmas 2010 though the last time Labour were in power
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.
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.
There are more in employment this Christmas than at Christmas 2010 though the last time Labour were in power
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.
'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.
This story is in part the reason why US banks are having meetings with the Treasury Secretary so that they can be reassured.
It is worrying because the entire financial system is based on trust and confidence. Any problems in the US will rapidly affect us here.
Trump has upset the Iraqis and the Afghans, has likely made it easier for IS to regroup, has sold out the Kurds and is now, at best, careless of the effects his words can have on the financial system. Alastair is right. 2019 could easily look a whole load worse than 2018.
If the Turks go after the Kurds, Europe could well see another wave of refugees next year.
Regular readers may remember me warning about what would happen to the Kurds when the sick pro-Assad asshats on here got their way. I fear that I'm going to be proved right, and that the Kurds, perhaps the cleanest side in that nasty little conflict, and who fought on 'our' side, are going to be abandoned.
As for it causing a wave of refugees through Europe; it might not. The Kurdish areas are away from the Mediterranean, and would have to pass through Assad-held territory. Likewise, the other easy route through Turkey will prove difficult for Kurds, especially non-Turkish kurds. Unless Assad or Erdogan want to cause mischief - but that might not be in their interests.
Instead, expect problems to spread to Iraqi and Iranian Kurdish areas, and for increased terrorism by the Kurdish PKK in Turkey itself. Which itself would play into Erdogan's hands ...
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
There are more in employment this Christmas than at Christmas 2010 though the last time Labour were in power
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.
'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.
But those without shelter are most in need of support.
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).
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?
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.
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 .
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?
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.
As opposed to just trading. We can trade with other countries on the planet and not politically integrate with them.
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 .
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.
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?
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.
You equate trading with a country to integrating with them?
Bloody hell, I wonder if China and the USA know this......
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 .
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.
A permanent Customs Union rather than May's temporary one and a bit more on workers' rights
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"...
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.
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.
No I am saying there is a supply of unskilled labour already and we should apply the economics of supply and demand to that. I see no need to artificially inflate our supply of unskilled labour.
If a company wants to hire unskilled labour then they can compete based on supply and demand with other companies to attract that labour from the unskilled we already have and not import new unskilled labour.
This whole worldview is so sick. You're talking as if a huge government bureaucracy preventing people from going where the work is across an inaginary line is the natural state of affairs and people going to work somewhere if their own free will is someone "importing" them, as if they have no agency of their own. Supply and demand isn't what you think it is. It doesn't involve a huge government bureaucracy at all. If people go where the work is, *that's supply and demand in action*.
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.
I do hope you are wrong. Cox was quoted as saying she’ll be gone by April. I hope he is right. May is a disaster and has been since she called the snap election. She has achieved nothing in office.
Mogg might have made a total pratt of himself recently but the Tories need someone with a lot more charisma than May and someone with a much broader policy horizon than Brexit, important though Brexit is. The Tories also need someone who is not a control freak in charge. A new leader would get rid of all the dead wood like Grayling, Smith, Clark, Hunt, etc
I suppose it’s all going to come down to whether she gets her deal. If she loses that, she’ll lose the subsequent VONC. If she wins she has a chance of surviving. Personally, I hope her deal gets well beaten. It’s a terrible deal.
Given May gave jobs to the likes of Boris and Davis, I find the idea a new leader would get rid of all the dead wood in cabinet unlikely. Some will be kept.
If that was the case there would be no-one left, I cannot think of any that are not dead wood.
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.
This story is in part the reason why US banks are having meetings with the Treasury Secretary so that they can be reassured.
It is worrying because the entire financial system is based on trust and confidence. Any problems in the US will rapidly affect us here.
Trump has upset the Iraqis and the Afghans, has likely made it easier for IS to regroup, has sold out the Kurds and is now, at best, careless of the effects his words can have on the financial system. Alastair is right. 2019 could easily look a whole load worse than 2018.
I do hope you are wrong. Cox was quoted as saying she’ll be gone by April. I hope he is right. May is a disaster and has been since she called the snap election. She has achieved nothing in office.
Mogg might have made a total pratt of himself recently but the Tories need someone with a lot more charisma than May and someone with a much broader policy horizon than Brexit, important though Brexit is. The Tories also need someone who is not a control freak in charge. A new leader would get rid of all the dead wood like Grayling, Smith, Clark, Hunt, etc
I suppose it’s all going to come down to whether she gets her deal. If she loses that, she’ll lose the subsequent VONC. If she wins she has a chance of surviving. Personally, I hope her deal gets well beaten. It’s a terrible deal.
Given May gave jobs to the likes of Boris and Davis, I find the idea a new leader would get rid of all the dead wood in cabinet unlikely. Some will be kept.
If that was the case there would be no-one left, I cannot think of any that are not dead wood.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Under Labour comrades will each be able to enjoy one state-funded turnip every Christmas! No more will the capitalist boss class be able to festoon their tables with decadent crackers and bourgeois turkeys! Everyone will be united in happy culinary unity of the workers' turnips!
Our malcolmg will be quite pleased with that arrangement.
I thought he owned all the turnips. ALL THE TURNIPS.
Quite pleased
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.
That is a Westminster Tory promise, you are getting confused.
In the last five years, on a total return basis the FTSE has gone from 4,750 to 5,904, a rise of 24% or 4.4% compound.
The DAX has gone from 9,589 to 10,633, a rise of 10.8% or about half what you got on the FTSE.
SInce March 2017 the FTSE is down about 2% and the DAX is down 13-14%.
I think the picture becomes even more lopsided once you take dividends into account.
Dividends are why superficial analysis of the FTSE against the Dax are wrong, but using total return accounts for them.
Well my point was that the raw number for the FTSE doesn't include divis but the DAX does include them as reinvestments.
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...
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?
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.
Really ? The same way that we integrate with China and the US when we trade with them ?
There are more in employment this Christmas than at Christmas 2010 though the last time Labour were in power
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.
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.
Rob, Don't be a silly boy , they are trying to make it sound like a glamping holiday choice.
There are more in employment this Christmas than at Christmas 2010 though the last time Labour were in power
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.
'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.
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.
"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.
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.
There are more in employment this Christmas than at Christmas 2010 though the last time Labour were in power
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.
'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.
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.
"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.
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.
You give me every impression of not understanding a lot of the stuff you retweet.
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.
You give me every impression of not understanding a lot of the stuff you retweet.
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.
And just encourages people to keep describing it thus...
There are more in employment this Christmas than at Christmas 2010 though the last time Labour were in power
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.
'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.
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.
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"...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are more in employment this Christmas than at Christmas 2010 though the last time Labour were in power
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.
'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.
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.
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?
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.
As opposed to just trading. We can trade with other countries on the planet and not politically integrate with them.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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”
This story is in part the reason why US banks are having meetings with the Treasury Secretary so that they can be reassured.
It is worrying because the entire financial system is based on trust and confidence. Any problems in the US will rapidly affect us here.
Trump has upset the Iraqis and the Afghans, has likely made it easier for IS to regroup, has sold out the Kurds and is now, at best, careless of the effects his words can have on the financial system. Alastair is right. 2019 could easily look a whole load worse than 2018.
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.
They would like to be in charge instead of the Tories.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
We trade with a lot of other non-EU countries, without needing a Commission or Parliament.
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"...
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.
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?
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"...
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.
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.
There are more in employment this Christmas than at Christmas 2010 though the last time Labour were in power
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.
'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.
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.
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?
You give me every impression of not understanding a lot of the stuff you retweet.
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.
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.....
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"...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Trump is an optimist and a narcissist which makes him especially dangerous.
There are more in employment this Christmas than at Christmas 2010 though the last time Labour were in power
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.
'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.
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.
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.
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?
£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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Neither have a home , so splitting hairs. No matter the pc titles they make up it is still people without homes.
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.
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.
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.
There are more in employment this Christmas than at Christmas 2010 though the last time Labour were in power
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.
'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.
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.
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.
Comments
Bit like eschewing Waitrose and going to the foodbank instead.
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.
https://twitter.com/GOsborneGenius/status/1077027737448005633
https://twitter.com/GOsborneGenius/status/1077177459244556290
https://twitter.com/GOsborneGenius/status/1077188562594873346
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.
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 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.
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.
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).
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.
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 .
Bloody hell, I wonder if China and the USA know this......
As many will not have pensions , that working for 30 to 40 years in the same occupation provided for previous generations.
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.
You give me every impression of not understanding a lot of the stuff you retweet.
Even by PB standards, that's insane.
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?
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.
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.
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.
But, I accept that ideas of what constitutes poverty will change as societies become wealthier.
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”
Errr....
That's it!
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?
Suspect true absolute poverty is near zero though.
When you understand this, you understand how his lot got beaten by a bus.....
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.
It was Leave voters that were duped by the bus, not my lot...
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.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1077231267559755776
WHO SPEAKS LIKE THAT?!
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1077172056247226370
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Stuart-Life-Backwards-Alexander-Masters/dp/0007200374
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
But this one's gonna be a doozy.
There are many people affected by the horrors of homelessness even if they do have a permanent or semi-permanent residence.