National News Conservative Party

[Sheik djibouti]

Whats more, the Stock Market is holding up well....even in these turbulent times. You talk a lot of sense Essex.

Yep....look at all those lovely bonuses being shelled out

 

[Essexyellows]

There you go, turned it into a Tory benefit It's always the same section of society which end up making the sacrifices.

Define "poor" otherwise, you are just piddling into the wind.

Household Income Statistics | Personal Income Statistics UK

GoSimpleTax discusses recent UK household income statistics, personal income statistics, household expenditures, and the impact of COVID-19 on UK income.

www.gosimpletax.com

Seems a large majority, I know folk don`t like that word, are better off than they were.

 

[Essexyellows]

Yep....look at all those lovely bonuses being shelled out

Yep, good news.
Helps drive the economy you see.
The beneficiaries will spend and keep folk in employment

 

[Sheik djibouti]

Yep, good news.
Helps drive the economy you see.
The beneficiaries will spend and keep folk in employment

If you believe that, you'll believe anything....

ooops....too late

 

[QR]

People survived before foodbanks - we had a better society then.

Ignoring or denying the issue is one approach I suppose.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

And if you want a better measure of poverty, then you would do well to read this: https://socialmetricscommission.org.../SMC_measuring-poverty-201908_full-report.pdf and the follow up for 2020: https://socialmetricscommission.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Measuring-Poverty-2020-Web.pdf

It gives a pretty comprehensive definition and measures against it.

The key take away from both is that the levels of poverty have remained stubbornly high since the turn of the century.

But in that time we have created untold wealth for a few individuals and our lists of millionaires and billionaires grows by the day

The 2020 report also looks at the impact of Covid and, yes you've guessed it, all the data shows that the poorest have been hit the hardest.

It all comes down to what you think is more important - making rich people richer, or making poor people less poor.

So if you want to carry on thinking everything is rosy and life is getting sweeter for everyone, then you are fooling yourself, nobody else and probably basing it on an extremely narrow field of view.

 

[Essexyellows]

And if you want a better measure of poverty, then you would do well to read this: https://socialmetricscommission.org.../SMC_measuring-poverty-201908_full-report.pdf and the follow up for 2020: https://socialmetricscommission.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Measuring-Poverty-2020-Web.pdf

It gives a pretty comprehensive definition and measures against it.

The key take away from both is that the levels of poverty have remained stubbornly high since the turn of the century.

But in that time we have created untold wealth for a few individuals and our lists of millionaires and billionaires grows by the day

The 2020 report also looks at the impact of Covid and, yes you've guessed it, all the data shows that the poorest have been hit the hardest.

It all comes down to what you think is more important - making rich people richer, or making poor people less poor.

So if you want to carry on thinking everything is rosy and life is getting sweeter for everyone, then you are fooling yourself, nobody else and probably basing it on an extremely narrow field of view.

And well before that.

Ergo its only possible to make everyones lot a little better so those with most benefit more and those with little only gain a little.

That is called life, you`ll learn.

PS: There is nothing wrong with being a millionaire - it could just be on paper.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

And well before that.

Ergo its only possible to make everyones lot a little better so those with most benefit more and those with little only gain a little.

That is called life, you`ll learn.

PS: There is nothing wrong with being a millionaire - it could just be on paper.

Shame you're "too old" to learn.

Even though you're only mid 50's you act like you're some sort of Methuselah

Instead you're just wrong a lot with a propensity for making unpleasant comments

Your choice

 

[Essexyellows]

Shame you're "too old" to learn.

Even though you're only mid 50's you act like you're some sort of Methuselah

Instead you're just wrong a lot with a propensity for making unpleasant comments

Your choice

It's very simple, the primary person who can make your life better is you.
Yes, there will be other influences, some you can change and some you can not.
So do what you can to make your life better but don`t expect it to be given to you gift wrapped.
You either push on or fold and give up.... its a choice.
Not all my choices have been right but I know I`ve learned from every mistake.

PS: Much closer to 60 than 50.

 

[QR]

It's very simple, the primary person who can make your life better is you.

Or your old school chums.

So do what you can to make your life better but don`t expect it to be given to you gift wrapped.

That's weak, most don't. They just want a fair days pay so they don't have to use food banks/choose between food or heating/generally endure a falling quality of life.

You either push on or fold and give up.... its a choice.

Children don't have this choice.

 

[Essexyellows]

Or your old school chums.

That's weak, most don't. They just want a fair days pay so they don't have to use food banks/choose between food or heating/generally endure a falling quality of life.

Children don't have this choice.

1. Only works at the very top so is irrelevant to most of society.

2. Minimum wage ring a bell? If folk keep consuming more than they can pay for whose fault is that?

3. Nobody is forced to have children, the parents make a choice and with that choice comes parental responsibility and setting a good example.

The state provides a good safety net but some folk seem to think it is a lifestyle option rather than support mechanism....

 

[QR]

1. Only works at the very top so is irrelevant to most of society.

2. Minimum wage ring a bell? If folk keep consuming more than they can pay for whose fault is that?

3. Nobody is forced to have children, the parents make a choice and with that choice comes parental responsibility and setting a good example.

The state provides a good safety net but some folk seem to think it is a lifestyle option rather than support mechanism....

You'd embarrass an ERG member.

 

[chuckbert]

Yep, good news.
Helps drive the economy you see.
The beneficiaries will spend and keep folk in employment

I was waiting for you to add all the evidence that trickle down economics actually works. Good luck with that.

 

[QR]

Yep, good news.
Helps drive the economy you see.
The beneficiaries will spend and keep folk in employment

If it wasn't for the facts getting in the way your arguments would be quite compelling.

Trickle-down economics has failed, Michael Gove admits

Levelling-up secretary says Tory ‘traditional view’ of free market is wrong

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Essexyellows]

I was waiting for you to add all the evidence that trickle down economics actually works. Good luck with that.

Only works if people spend it and on a relatively small scale.

If we spend a few hundred quid on an extra holiday then lots of people get a little bit more than if we dont.

Trickle-down economics has failed, Michael Gove admits

Levelling-up secretary says Tory ‘traditional view’ of free market is wrong

www.independent.co.uk

On a large Governmental scale there will be too many people involved taking their wage/slice from the pot, a bit like pass the parcel with our money.

Take a local council that is Labour, they will squirrel the money into reserves and then blame the Government for not investing, rather than engaging with the processes to gain funding.

 

[Marked Ox]

Only works if people spend it and on a relatively small scale.

If we spend a few hundred quid on an extra holiday then lots of people get a little bit more than if we dont.



On a large Governmental scale there will be too many people involved taking their wage/slice from the pot, a bit like pass the parcel with our money.

Take a local council that is Labour, they will squirrel the money into reserves and then blame the Government for not investing, rather than engaging with the processes to gain funding.

But those people taking wages spend don't they?

Evidence that only Labour Councils do this?

Also, there is a legal requirement to repay reserves if they have been used previously. I can also think of Tory and Lib Dem Councils who have done the same, I've worked for them and Govt (Labour & Tory) weren't investing yet demanding Councils do extra.

However you try to bluster about it, Councils have had resources significantly cut especially since austerity. Hence why we have roads in poor state, limited social services support, mental health service cuts, children services cuts, limited youth services (if any) etc etc.

 

[Sheik djibouti]

1. Only works at the very top so is irrelevant to most of society.

2. Minimum wage ring a bell? If folk keep consuming more than they can pay for whose fault is that?

3. Nobody is forced to have children, the parents make a choice and with that choice comes parental responsibility and setting a good example.

The state provides a good safety net but some folk seem to think it is a lifestyle option rather than support mechanism....

How many copies of the Daily Mail do you have to consume each day to believe that tripe?

But those people taking wages spend don't they?

Evidence that only Labour Councils do this?

Also, there is a legal requirement to repay reserves if they have been used previously. I can also think of Tory and Lib Dem Councils who have done the same, I've worked for them and Govt (Labour & Tory) weren't investing yet demanding Councils do extra.

However you try to bluster about it, Councils have had resources significantly cut especially since austerity. Hence why we have roads in poor state, limited social services support, mental health service cuts, children services cuts, limited youth services (if any) etc etc.

And this is why the hard of understanding get all frothy when their council tax goes up every year and yet their services get worse....hmmm, wonder why that might be

 

[QR]

This is 100% a managerial decision and not one for a minister. The decision should be based on what gives the best value for money measured in terms of outputs (quality and quantity) v cost.

Oh to have ministers who want to reduce unnecessary government spending on expensive buildings leases (i.e working for the population they serve) rather than protect the financial interests/income streams of those who own the assets (Rees-Mogg and his chums).

And before anyone starts the element of the income that goes to pension funds is insignificant (given the diversity of investment across and within asset types) compared to the savings the government could make.

Civil service unions condemn Rees-Moggâs âvindictiveâ back-to-office drive

Bosses of FDA and PCS criticise attempt by efficiency minister to name and shame departments with more remote workers

www.theguardian.com

 

[Essexyellows]

This is 100% a managerial decision and not one for a minister. The decision should be based on what gives the best value for money measured in terms of outputs (quality and quantity) v cost.

Oh to have ministers who want to reduce unnecessary government spending on expensive buildings leases (i.e working for the population they serve) rather than protect the financial interests/income streams of those who own the assets (Rees-Mogg and his chums).

And before anyone starts the element of the income that goes to pension funds is insignificant (given the diversity of investment across and within asset types) compared to the savings the government could make.

Civil service unions condemn Rees-Moggâs âvindictiveâ back-to-office drive

Bosses of FDA and PCS criticise attempt by efficiency minister to name and shame departments with more remote workers

www.theguardian.com

However those people WFH will be increasing their personal overheads ........ while their employer continues to fund the space they previously occupied.

And if JRM proves that WFH actually improves efficiency watch the Unions scream when the buildings get downsized/sold off.

Not as simple as simple folk would make it look at either end of the scale.

 

[Marked Ox]

However those people WFH will be increasing their personal overheads ........ while their employer continues to fund the space they previously occupied.

And if JRM proves that WFH actually improves efficiency watch the Unions scream when the buildings get downsized/sold off.

Not as simple as simple folk would make it look at either end of the scale.

The Unions from what I've read are saying it is a way to lead to moving some of the Civil Service provision outside London which has been the plan for a long time. So on that basis I doubt the Unions will have a problem with buildings being downsized/sold off.

And JRM is wanting them in the office not WFH so if his approach is more efficient then they won't be downsizing or selling off any buildings.