[News] Nigel Farage and Reform

dsr-burnley said:

The numbers show an average 28.4% increase in wages in real terms while Margaret Thatcher was PM. That's 2.1% p.a.

Measuring Worth - Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain

www.measuringworth.com

This compares with 1.1% p.a. under Major, 1.5% p.a. under Blair, and since then real wages have been falling - by 0.7% p.a. under Brown, 1.3% p.a. under the coalition, and 06.% p.a. under the Tories since then. That's what I mean by the increase in prosperity - nothing to do with GDP, just that wages rose.

Click to expand...

Right Brain Ronnie said:

Apologies if I read it that way, sounded like he was up for the scrap with them. I would never talk politics with friends or family. Because preaching is not my thing.

Click to expand...

Thunder Bolt said:

There is the Trussel Trust which is a charity, but I know of many churches running food banks so therefore part of society.

Click to expand...

nicko31 said:

My thinking would be more along the lines of "this is an example of London getting all the good stuff and we get nothing here".

Time to f**k em over, Leave Europe that will upset them.

The reality is London has weathered the storm and left behind areas have been hit the hardest.

Click to expand...

DavidinSouthampton said:

There were Churches or groups of Churches in Southampton and Winchester running food banks before the Trussell Trust was founded. In fact I believe they popped 20 miles down the road to Southampton from Salisbury, where the Trust is/was based, to see how they did it.

Click to expand...

Deportivo Seagull said:

how about inflation/cost of living/morgages for the same period? Context is everything When you start chucking stats about.

Click to expand...

Thunder Bolt said:

No food bank that I know of is run by an individual. Volunteers take it in turns to be present, and many people donate.

Click to expand...

dsr-burnley said:

People don't cease to be individuals just because they work together. The point is that the volunteers and the people who donate have made their decision as individuals to help out, and it is not a nebulous thing called "society" that has done it.

Click to expand...

Thunder Bolt said:

I agree.
During the miner’s strike up north in the 80s, they were called food parcels. The difference was that they were delivered to the homes.

Click to expand...

Thunder Bolt said:

Dictionary definition of society
an organization or club formed for a particular purpose or activity.

See Community

Click to expand...

dsr-burnley said:

People don't cease to be individuals just because they work together. The point is that the volunteers and the people who donate have made their decision as individuals to help out, and it is not a nebulous thing called "society" that has done it.

Click to expand...

Thunder Bolt said:

No food bank that I know of is run by an individual. Volunteers take it in turns to be present, and many people donate.

Click to expand...

dsr-burnley said:

The numbers show an average 28.4% increase in wages in real terms while Margaret Thatcher was PM. That's 2.1% p.a.

Measuring Worth - Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain

www.measuringworth.com

This compares with 1.1% p.a. under Major, 1.5% p.a. under Blair, and since then real wages have been falling - by 0.7% p.a. under Brown, 1.3% p.a. under the coalition, and 06.% p.a. under the Tories since then. That's what I mean by the increase in prosperity - nothing to do with GDP, just that wages rose.

Click to expand...

Peteinblack said:

'Average' earnings tell us nothing; millions of ordinary working people have had below-inflation pay rises for over a decade, but pay rises in boardrooms and City banks have been in the six/seven-figure range.

Two years ago, Sainsbury's shop-floor workers had a miniscule pay rise linked to an increase in the Living Wage, while the CEO had his pay increased by almost 300%, from £1.3 million to £3.9 million. Is he suddenly working 300% times harder?

In 1979, the 'pay ratio' (gap between highest and lowest-paid workers) was about 40:1.
Today, the 'pay ratio' is about 160:1.

And in addition to their ever-increasing salaries, corporate bosses and bankers have also benefitted from huge income tax cuts, whereas ordinary workers have had smaller income tax cuts and suffer more from increased VAT (8% in 1979, 20% since 2010) - for a low-paid worker or a pensioner, a £100 VAT bill is a much bigger chunk of their net income than it is for someone like Richard Branson or James Dyson, for whom £100 is effectively loose change down the back of the sofa.

Workers are always being told:

a) if you want better wages, work harder, but however hard they work, the rewards only seem to be paid to their bosses and shareholders.
b) if you want higher wages, you're being greedy, but bosses and bankers on £ multi-million salaries are never told that they are greedy.
c) If you get higher wages, you'll cause inflation and/or 'price yourself out of work', but, again, bosses paid £ millions are never accused of causing inflation, or of putting their jobs at risk.

Of course, you'll probably dismiss all of this as 'the politics of envy', which is how the Right always try to closed down (cancel!) any discussion about the scale of inequality and corporate greed in Britain today.

Click to expand...

Peteinblack said:

'Average' earnings tell us nothing; millions of ordinary working people have had below-inflation pay rises for over a decade, but pay rises in boardrooms and City banks have been in the six/seven-figure range.

Two years ago, Sainsbury's shop-floor workers had a miniscule pay rise linked to an increase in the Living Wage, while the CEO had his pay increased by almost 300%, from £1.3 million to £3.9 million. Is he suddenly working 300% times harder?

In 1979, the 'pay ratio' (gap between highest and lowest-paid workers) was about 40:1.
Today, the 'pay ratio' is about 160:1.

And in addition to their ever-increasing salaries, corporate bosses and bankers have also benefitted from huge income tax cuts, whereas ordinary workers have had smaller income tax cuts and suffer more from increased VAT (8% in 1979, 20% since 2010) - for a low-paid worker or a pensioner, a £100 VAT bill is a much bigger chunk of their net income than it is for someone like Richard Branson or James Dyson, for whom £100 is effectively loose change down the back of the sofa.

Workers are always being told:

a) if you want better wages, work harder, but however hard they work, the rewards only seem to be paid to their bosses and shareholders.
b) if you want higher wages, you're being greedy, but bosses and bankers on £ multi-million salaries are never told that they are greedy.
c) If you get higher wages, you'll cause inflation and/or 'price yourself out of work', but, again, bosses paid £ millions are never accused of causing inflation, or of putting their jobs at risk.

Of course, you'll probably dismiss all of this as 'the politics of envy', which is how the Right always try to closed down (cancel!) any discussion about the scale of inequality and corporate greed in Britain today.

Click to expand...

Peteinblack said:

'Average' earnings tell us nothing; millions of ordinary working people have had below-inflation pay rises for over a decade, but pay rises in boardrooms and City banks have been in the six/seven-figure range.

Two years ago, Sainsbury's shop-floor workers had a miniscule pay rise linked to an increase in the Living Wage, while the CEO had his pay increased by almost 300%, from £1.3 million to £3.9 million. Is he suddenly working 300% times harder?

In 1979, the 'pay ratio' (gap between highest and lowest-paid workers) was about 40:1.
Today, the 'pay ratio' is about 160:1.

And in addition to their ever-increasing salaries, corporate bosses and bankers have also benefitted from huge income tax cuts, whereas ordinary workers have had smaller income tax cuts and suffer more from increased VAT (8% in 1979, 20% since 2010) - for a low-paid worker or a pensioner, a £100 VAT bill is a much bigger chunk of their net income than it is for someone like Richard Branson or James Dyson, for whom £100 is effectively loose change down the back of the sofa.

Workers are always being told:

a) if you want better wages, work harder, but however hard they work, the rewards only seem to be paid to their bosses and shareholders.
b) if you want higher wages, you're being greedy, but bosses and bankers on £ multi-million salaries are never told that they are greedy.
c) If you get higher wages, you'll cause inflation and/or 'price yourself out of work', but, again, bosses paid £ millions are never accused of causing inflation, or of putting their jobs at risk.

Of course, you'll probably dismiss all of this as 'the politics of envy', which is how the Right always try to closed down (cancel!) any discussion about the scale of inequality and corporate greed in Britain today.

Click to expand...

Peteinblack said:

'Average' earnings tell us nothing; millions of ordinary working people have had below-inflation pay rises for over a decade, but pay rises in boardrooms and City banks have been in the six/seven-figure range.

Two years ago, Sainsbury's shop-floor workers had a miniscule pay rise linked to an increase in the Living Wage, while the CEO had his pay increased by almost 300%, from £1.3 million to £3.9 million. Is he suddenly working 300% times harder?

In 1979, the 'pay ratio' (gap between highest and lowest-paid workers) was about 40:1.
Today, the 'pay ratio' is about 160:1.

And in addition to their ever-increasing salaries, corporate bosses and bankers have also benefitted from huge income tax cuts, whereas ordinary workers have had smaller income tax cuts and suffer more from increased VAT (8% in 1979, 20% since 2010) - for a low-paid worker or a pensioner, a £100 VAT bill is a much bigger chunk of their net income than it is for someone like Richard Branson or James Dyson, for whom £100 is effectively loose change down the back of the sofa.

Workers are always being told:

a) if you want better wages, work harder, but however hard they work, the rewards only seem to be paid to their bosses and shareholders.
b) if you want higher wages, you're being greedy, but bosses and bankers on £ multi-million salaries are never told that they are greedy.
c) If you get higher wages, you'll cause inflation and/or 'price yourself out of work', but, again, bosses paid £ millions are never accused of causing inflation, or of putting their jobs at risk.

Of course, you'll probably dismiss all of this as 'the politics of envy', which is how the Right always try to closed down (cancel!) any discussion about the scale of inequality and corporate greed in Britain today.

Click to expand...

El Presidente said:

Holy mother of God

TwatTweet

Click to expand...

El Presidente said:

Holy mother of God

TwatTweet

Click to expand...