[News] Nigel Farage and Reform

[Deportivo Seagull]

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.

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

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

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.

No need to apologise - certainly not to me. it was only supposition.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

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

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.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

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.

The irony is that London received much less investment from EU structural funds than other parts of the UK with lower levels of economic performance because it was assessed as lower priority.
For many areas, under the Tories, it was pretty much the only infrastructure investment they received. For years the government used the EU as a scapegoat and this investment as a way of quietly covering up their neglect. This was never a good position from which to launch a remain campaign.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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.

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.

 

[dsr-burnley]

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

"In real terms" means after allowing for inflation. That site takes average wages and adjusts them by the Retail Price Index (which takes into account inflation and cost of mortgages) to give a fair year-on-year comparison.

 

[dsr-burnley]

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

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.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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.

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

See Community

 

[BadFish]

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.

I agree to, and I believe in society with churches and charities being part of that.

My point was that Thatcher chose to frame society as a collection of individuals (I thought is was more about scroungers looking for help from the government (paraphrasing her)) and that the help must come from somewhere.

I question both the necessity and her motives for highlighting this.

 

[dsr-burnley]

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

See Community

Nonetheless, I reckon if these individual men and women had not made the decision to form a society, then society as a whole wouldn't have formed it for them. That was Margaret Thatcher's point. If individual men and women choose to do nothing, "society" won't do it either.

 

[BadFish]

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.

But society is the people who volunteer and donate. They are part of the society. So the society created by the people (very much including those who volunteer and donate) are the ones who are helping.

Thatcher had her view of the individual being more important than the collective. This is why she said what she did about society.

As we can see society can be viewed in different ways. I think that most of us can agree that Thatcher saw society the way you describe.

 

[The Clamp]

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

Quite.

And many businesses, large and small contribute to stock food banks. As well as people donating produce into the baskets found in nearly every supermarket Ive been into in the last five years or so.

That sounds like society to me!

 

[Peteinblack]

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.

'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.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

'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.

Bravo.

 

[Scappa]

'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.

And we're still waiting for any of the much vaunted 'trickle down' (apart from the effluent in Britain's waterways and coastline of course) to take effect after all these years

 

[beorhthelm]

'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.

someone provides solid data about average earnings, looks like you've wandered off into whataboutry of secondary issues. not so much politics of envy but politics of perpetual negativity, or the glass is empty. is there a dataset showing millions of workers have done worse over the decades? bonus for taking account of improving living standard from technology.

 

[dsr-burnley]

'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.

Average earnings statistics do tell us something. In this case, they tell us that wages have been falling in real terms for 17 years. You may dispute that (though it doesn't appear you do) but all that would mean is that stats don't tell the full story, not that they tell us nothing..

 

[El Presidente]

Holy mother of God

TwatTweet

 

[TomandJerry]

Holy mother of God

TwatTweet

The man of the people just telling us how it is...

 

[nicko31]

Holy mother of God

TwatTweet

Indian Mother, Jamaican father. Its Nige, same diff they're all the same