Are the rich getting rich and the poor getting poorer?

OK, let's talk substance then: as a good spokesman for the Corbynista movement, tell us what the plan to 'end poverty' is then. It is my contention such populist statements are mere political quackery but let's give it a chance, how is that going to be achieved by you guys?

Given that more workers, both full time and part time voted for Labour than for the Tories, please explain how labour voters have 'no life experience'.

The Tories did not get more votes than Labour across the age groups until voters turn 47.

Do only people 47 and above have 'life experience'?

They have more of it and it is equally relevant that those with a longer life experience are more likely to vote Tory, if we are to get technical about it. They have seen past politicians promise the moon and know how much substance there may be to their grandiose electoral slogans, it is not to be held against a young person that they may sound appealing on an idealistic basis. Older people know much better who Corbyn and McD are, they remember them in the old days. Young people don't, it is totally irrelevant to them but not older people.

So how is Labour going to 'end poverty' again, where is the substance to that claim? Brown promised to abolish b&b and ended up supervising the biggest bust in living memory, how do we know Labour won't end up making everyone poorer instead of what they promise?

So i'll ask again. Do full time workers have no life experience?

It is an odd question to ask, how could anyone say no to that? Alright, they do have life experience.

Now, and for the third time in succession, how can we expect Labour to better everyone's lot?

For some reason my post got moved to Freshers Blogs (lol) so I'm reposting it.



Oh get off your high horse. I have seen you personally say the right don't care about the poor more than once. You routinely ascribe sinister motives to people you disagree with, you utter hypocrite.

TSR's advanced search function can be useful sometimes.

True, but it was such a nice encapsulation of the viewpoint. There were more recent examples but they weren't quite so neat.

And while your rhetoric may have changed after the past few years, I don't think your views have particularly. I mean, our conversation about Rees-Mogg a couple of weeks ago made it perfectly clear you thought his motives were suspect. Or am I wrong and you do believe he wants to help the poor?

But even if you have modified your opinion, it's still rather galling to see you getting all pious over something you've been guilty of in the not distant past.

I think the age divide is in part reflective of the receding memory of the damage wrought upon Britain by socialism in the 70s, rather than life experience per se. I also think younger voters are more prone to naivity than their more cynical elders, but that's obviously not always true.

Don't get me wrong, I think socialism is a cancer. I think people who are seduced by it are severely mistaken, but I have never doubted they care.

The rich are certainly getting better at hiding their wealth looking at the latest "paradise papers" leak.

I don't see how pointing to countries such as Norway and Finland, which have adopted such a model successfully and outperform us in all sorts of measures, is naive.

I agree socialism is an abused word, and as a case in point I don't think people understand what's really going on in Scandinavia economies. Despite high taxes they are frequently ranked as being amongst top of the economic freedom indices, not as hight as places like Singapore but a long, long way ahead of France. That's because they're good places to do business with pretty low regulation by European standards (and of course, Denmark is outside the Euro and Norway the whole EU, not to my mind unrelated).

And yes they're fairly redistributive, but their tax levels aren't actually substantially higher than here or the US. The difference is that our taxes are stealthier (so they look lower if you just look at the headline rate) and their governments are more efficient. Whilst Danish taxes may not be low they are much simpler and more transparent than ours.

So to me the lesson is that you can only afford a high tax economy if you're willing to cut businesses a break in other ways.

Out of curiosity I just wanted to ask what everyone's opinion is on the current government and the way they have tackled the issue of poverty.

Part of the problem is that the word socialism is thrown about so loosely by those across the political spectrum to the point where I'm not even sure what people mean when they say it anymore. The term has been used to describe anyone from Blair to Stalin.

In my opinion, the vast majority of those on the left do not want revolutionary socialism but rather want us to adopt the Scandinavian model. High tax, high spend, low inequality, strong trade union rights and public ownership of key industries. Whether that counts as socialism, I don't know but it seems vastly preferable to the current system.

I don't see how pointing to countries such as Norway and Finland, which have adopted such a model successfully and outperform us in all sorts of measures, is naive.

I would repeat that Labour had a lead among 35-44 year olds. These are not naive young voters, but people with jobs, mortgages and kids.

I could equally point to 2008 to show the devastation that free market capitalism can cause.

Too often we look at wealth and income distribution in nominal terms and not material terms. Anybody would be a fool to say that the poorest members of society today aren't better off than the poorest 20 or 30 years ago. This absurdity of relative poverty creates shifting goalposts which never end, demands for wealth redistribution continue, it is almost as if socialists intentionally want us to measure wealth and income deprivation by the relative to one day force us into their communistic vision of economy.