Lots of people are limited in this country and anyone who says they're not is spouting bollocks and hasn't thought about the effects of income inequality.
Some food for thought on The Glasgow Effect:
http://www.bridgingthegap.scot.nhs.uk/health-in-scotland/the-%E2%80%98glasgow-effect%E2%80%99.aspx
He's done his job - deflected attention away from the increasing inequality gap.
As I've said before, the most dangerous man in UK politics - a rabid, hateful right winger who's dearest wish is to increase the wealth of the his own kind at the expense of everyone else.
A vile human being in every respect.
Boris proved on HIGNFY that despite the best education money can buy, reading off an auto cue was beyond the level of his abilities. I wouldn't trust him to run a bath!
Also, it's Eton not "Eaton". Pleb. 😛
Ha I never went see, I'm from Brixton!
Tom_W1987 - MemberAlso, it's Eton not "Eaton". Pleb.
It's 'my friends and I' and 'received', not 'me & my friends' & 'gotten'.
'Gotten'! Jesus H Corbett, I bet you say 'swap out' & 'cook off' too, don't you?
First against the wall when the revolution comes.
Double 😛 .
C'mon Rusty keep up, it's (high but) falling income inequality.
source:ONSDisposable incomes have fallen since the start of the economic downturn, with average equivalised income falling by £1,200 since 2007/08 in real terms. The fall in income has been largest for the richest fifth of households (6.8%). In contrast, after accounting for inflation and household composition, average income for the poorest fifth has grown over this period (6.9%).
Being Boris, I am surprised he didn't slip that in anywhere!!!
Yeah well, call that my desperate attempt to not sound like another hooray. 🙂
It's not really working, is it? 😀
Anyway the speech confirmed my opinion of him as a crypto-fascist. His latest rant sounded like a national socialist beer hall meeting.
That'll do it though. 🙂
Spot on.
Donald Gosling, Richard Branston, James Dyson
Wasn't Richard a member of the mighty pickle dynasty?
Seriously, Richard Branson is hardly a rag to riches story. He was the grandson of a Lord and High Court Judge FFS. Besides, Virgin a particularly ruthless business, they are getting very fat off dodgy NHS contracts. Like Apple they do a very good job of pretending they are so "right on".
He forgot the Sweenie and the Professionals. Other than that, spot on.
RIP Lewis Collins.
...and he (RB) did suffer a Stowe education 😉
All virgin do nowadays is hoover government subsidies! Richard Branson is a gold-plated, tax dodging **** of the highest order!!!
This thread is getting boring. Where are all the usual left wing suspects? Still down t'pit I guess! 🙂
All virgin do nowadays is hoover government subsidies! Richard Branson is a gold-plated, tax dodging **** of the highest order!!!
+10
I'm not so sure I am saying that, there are plenty of self made people in this country who do perfectly well and haven't had their "lot given to them" but instead earned it through heard graft.
They do exist, but they are largely an aberration. And it suits lots of people to propagate the myth of being 'self-made'. Dig a bit deeper and it's often utter bollocks.
Social mobility in this country is extremely poor. Your parents' income is still the best indicator of your likely income.
Boris just suggested he is going to do absolutely bugger all about that if he becomes PM. In fact he seems to welcome it, unsurprisingly.
Teamhurtmore
OECD kind of says otherwise
The biggest myth in politics is that right wing policies somehow enable social mobility.
They do the exact opposite - that's what they're designed for.
However, there are so many idiots of the 'I borrowed a pair of boots to walk 15 miles to vote Tory' variety that the right are able to get away with it.
The present government is stuffed with self-made men, isn't it? Oh.... Erm.... Hang on a minute....
Grum is correct a few get through but it is very few but it gets overstated in the "you have to be in it to win it"
What it ignores is that millions and millions dont.
Most are born of wealth and they retain it for their offspring as they pass on all the advantages that wealth gives to them.
Yes, his social mobility thing is shocking. I mean can you remember when we last had a PM who was not a bloke, was a scientist, didn't read PPE, didn't go to public school, wasn't upper/upper-middle class....
....oh wait a minute. Beware of what you wish for Grum, old chap!!! 😉
I crawled 15 miles on bloodied stumps, having not eaten for weeks, to vote Tory?
Hora to the forum please? Repeat: hora to the forum please?
You correct Tom and it will be interesting when they update the figures to illustrates the same period as the ONS, won't it?
But to their credit, they do have some very good analysis of the causes of inequality. Probably won't go down well on here though.
I still think we live in a country of the haves and the have mores, not the haves and have nots. As I said not perfect but generally if you're born in the UK you win before you've started. Also does anyone really think there is any appreciable difference between left and right in British politics.
When we get a decent representative of the left, I'll let you know.
At the moment, there is no 'left'.
There is no choice, just various shades of blue.
You mean right and more right?
Teamhurtmore, the point being look at the long term trends.
I don't find much really to dislike in the ONS report. I guess you mean the stats about hours worked.
Yes, his social mobility thing is shocking. I mean can you remember when we last had a PM who was not a bloke, was a scientist, didn't read PPE, didn't go to public school, wasn't upper/upper-middle class....
Middle-class people can be awful human beings too. And 'she' presided over inequality skyrocketing to previously unimaginable levels in the 80s.
I still think we live in a country of the haves and the have mores, not the haves and have nots. As I said not perfect but generally if you're born in the UK you win before you've started.
Yes generally pretty much everyone in this country is very lucky and we should all appreciate that more.
That doesn't mean we should just gladly accept massive social inequality though. There's all sorts of evidence showing that healthy, happy societies are more equal ones - and it's better for those at the top too.
Never mind the fact that he actually said that greed and envy are positive things. What a tool.
Middle-class people can be awful human beings too.
Now you are just being silly
Obviously all lower-class people are awful. That goes without saying.
No the reasons why income inequality has risen, why it is rising fastest among nations previously known for being rel equal (the Scandies), the lack of causality with governments/political parties in power... That kind if stuff. The factors don't fit the STW narrative that well.
Grum, do you count jabber John as being middle class?
Middle-class people can be awful human beings too. And 'she' presided over inequality skyrocketing to previously unimaginable levels in the 80s.
I know shocking isn't it. And then we get a bloke, who isn't a scientists, read PPE, went to public school, was upper/upper-middle class and those bloody income inequality figures improve. Funny old world.
Probably got nowt to do with them though hey!?!
the problem is you would need to persuade us all that reducing income inequality was one of CMD primary aims in office and that may well be rather difficult.
Its interesting to claim an artefact of the depression/recession as a success for him tbh and policy wise ,IIRC, the lib dems increased the threshold, ghe reduced top rate tax and aopposed a mansion tax,
Perhaps you could highlight his great struggle to achieve this political goal and all his speeches on this ?
The stats dont lie on what has happened but it would be disingenuous to claim it was a Tory/Cameron ideological goal [ or a labour one these days to be fair]
do you count jabber John as being middle class?
Well the tories sure as hell did not remind us all of the jibe they delivered to him - granted it was not as hilarious as your jabber joke but still.....
Which is more important? Reducing inequality, or making the poor better off?
Lets say, as a hypothetical situation, that:
option i) the poor end up 30% better off, but the rich end up 100% better off
option ii) the poor end up 10% better off, but the rich end up only 5% better off
Which would you prefer?
Which is more important? Reducing inequality, or making the poor better off?
The two are exactly the same thing because "Poor" is usually defined in relation to average earnings.
The best example of rising inequality: if the minimum wage had kept pace with average rises in boardroom pay since it was introduced in 1997, it would presently stand at £20 an hour. It's £6.15
Which is more important?
For the rich or for the poor?
a and a 95 % tax rate obviously thereby negating the riches gain.
a and a 95 % tax rate obviously thereby negating the riches gain.
"Let me tell you how it will be, there's one for you nineteen for me" - shortly followed by the fab four moving abroad and paying nothing into the exchequer - a salutory lesson, non? 😆
It does have a ripe stench of hipocrisy about it... is Boris' wealth and status merely a product of his evidently high IQ?
Well if anyone can mix: Victoirian imperialism, Van Huesan shirts, Watneys Pale Ale, the Vatican City, Neil Kinnoch, the word schwerpiunkt!, Clause 4, brick like mobile phones, Billy Elliot, Churchillian pluck, red Robbo, self loathing, Tapas and fleeing to Essex, in one speech they are either Nigella Lawson or a pretty good after dinner speaker! 😉
Not sure how that qualifies him to be a mayor or a possible future PM though!
I've seen the poor at the supermarket checkout and, more to the point, their junk filled trolleys. You should think very carefully before considering any redistribution of wealth.
Blimey, we are so dull on here and so is The Guardian. You have to go to Brogan's piece in the Torygraph and the comments below to get some decent fun reaction to big bad Boris!
THM - you'd think from some of the reactions that nobody had ever heard of John Rawls 😀
You know what ninfan, I was thinking about Rawls reading this earlier. Joking apart, it would be good for people to read a Theory of Justice again. I remember my old man reading it when I was little. I rescued his original copy recently and have yet to reread it.
Michael Sandel is a more up-to-date advocate of much the same kind of argument. Another v good read.
Not read it for years I shall also dig out a copy to re read
If we are going to be briefly serious there is no doubt some members of society who will struggle to thrive due to poor educational achievement /pure genetic bad luck.
We can either help them , ignore them or use eugenics. I opt for the first choice.
I would further argue that many at the top are just ****s or only slightly more eloquently
The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat.
Zulu the Beatles did not go on exile that I am aware of - link/info??- and they ended up quite wealthy - perhaps we should have taxed more?
