The Politics Thread

And the only reason for that poverty is of the ugly culture of greed among shareholders who are so fanatically obsessed by more and more profit that they don't pay people a proper wage. Why should people be in poverty so that greedy businessmen who don't actually add any value to the economy as a whole can line their own pockets?

Oh. If only you’d asked that hundreds of [censored] times before.
This isnt the CUSG thread.
Bore off.

Laffy what are you thoughts on the "working poor"? That's people who are in work, yet they are still trapped in poverty. Do you believe that everybody who works should be guaranteed a decent standard of living so that nobody has to suffer being in poverty?

Kes you are obsessed.
We have the National Minimum Wage, National Living Wage, a welfare system who many think is over generous and too easily abused - and what do you class as a 'decent standard of living' anyway ? ...........a nice 3 bedroomed semi detached perhaps, Sky TV, Takeaways every night, nice car on the drive, as many kids as you like?
Live within your means and take some responsibility instead of blaming others.
And before you start, yes I know there are instances where people may fall on hard times through no fault of their own.

When I was a kid growing up people leaving uni went into white-collar jobs. Within a couple of years, they were on the housing ladder, they could afford a Ford Escort and they had the perspective of career growth. Kids who didn't went to factories, more mundane office jobs but got on the council house list, and they still earned enough to have a least one night a week out.
That was underpinned by a Government system that provided decent transport, schools and medical services.

Wages have fallen over 10% since 2010 and 30% for contractors. Tesco till operators are graduates. Kids without degrees are looking at a life of living hand to mouth. Buying a 3 bedroom semi?! The Tories have slashed every Government service and then having promised an end to austerity have just announced further 5% cuts.

We have post after post about the decline at BP but look around you. Mirrored in everything you see. The saddest thing is that the hope and optimism that used to exist has gone. Who on here actually thinks things are going to get better?

Marko, most Leavers would love to return to your first paragraph. Life was so straightforward then. Working class kids lived on council estates, were in the B stream at junior school, went to secondary moderns and got a job at the local factory. Later they got a decent pension and died in their 70s. However since then we have had 'social mobility', comprehensive schools, a huge expansion in the university sector, massive uncontrolled immigration combined with people living much longer. The irony is that this 'progress' has caused greater inequality as life becomes a struggle for many more people while the rich get richer. I would close half the university sector - other than educating Chinese students it is a waste of economic resources. You shouldn't need a degree to stack shelves at Tesco. Hopefully Boris will be radical in his approach to levelling up the country while accepting the rich have to pay more in tax.

Totally agree-the irony is that the gap between rich and poor was closing until they introduced QE-which has had the effect of widening the gap.Sunderland uni have decided to ditch a number of their courses and focus on a few subjects-the argument being to focus on the relevant ones and not the periphory rubbish.

Kes-you keep asking me about the poor as if I’m some Dickensian mine owner.Im not-the businesses I have or am a director of employ hundreds of people and we look after them very well.Despite this you still get employees who think they are owed or are entitled-let me tell you I have no interest in entitlement and spend a lot of time weeding this out.

I have suggested you read The Future of Capitalism by Paul Collier.It pretty much says how I think the world goes forward.There should be a shift in emphasis from the existing pure shareholder value to a wider combination of covering the interests of shareholders, employees and customers.This transition has already started but hopefully will accelerate under Boris.

You're just a modern version of a Dickensian mill owner at the end of the day though Laffy however you dress it up. Just without the mill!

Keep the peasants in their place and everything will be fine and dandy. :-D

It's the way the world works. Always has been and always will be.

I'd rather sleep in a shop doorway than work 40 hours a week for minimum wage. It's just slavery without the chains.

Totally agree-the irony is that the gap between rich and poor was closing until they introduced QE-which has had the effect of widening the gap.Sunderland uni have decided to ditch a number of their courses and focus on a few subjects-the argument being to focus on the relevant ones and not the periphory rubbish.

Kes-you keep asking me about the poor as if I’m some Dickensian mine owner.Im not-the businesses I have or am a director of employ hundreds of people and we look after them very well.Despite this you still get employees who think they are owed or are entitled-let me tell you I have no interest in entitlement and spend a lot of time weeding this out.

I have suggested you read The Future of Capitalism by Paul Collier.It pretty much says how I think the world goes forward.There should be a shift in emphasis from the existing pure shareholder value to a wider combination of covering the interests of shareholders, employees and customers.This transition has already started but hopefully will accelerate under Boris.

I agree with the last part about there should be a shift, but as part of that we need to clamp down on unearned wealth. You said you would put a high tax on people selling their council houses to discourage it. I actually agreed with that point but I found it interesting that you don't want to do the same to the big businesses. Billionaires don't really add anything of value to the economy, they are just lining their own pockets at the expense of everybody else. Nobody "earns" that kind of wealth, it only comes from not giving your staff fair payment for their labour. Shouldn't we clamp down on that unearned wealth in the same way we should discourage selling council houses?

I am aware of the book you mention, but I suspect I know a lot more about economics than you.

You don’t know me so to suggest that is utterly pathetic.One of the key motivations for me is seeing people/employees around the things I’m involved in getting a chance and taking it.Its actually humbling and a reminder that most people in this country are as good as their next mortgage or rent payment.

As for regarding people as peasants, it’s not worthy of a response.

I think if you bother to read that book that you will see that Collier does indeed argue for higher taxation on what he calls ‘rent’By that,he means unearned income.

I agree with that analogy.

No go and pick on someone else as I’m taking a day off for a long ride-the sun is out, and it’s a beautiful crisp day.

You're just a modern version of a Dickensian mill owner at the end of the day though Laffy however you dress it up. Just without the mill!

Keep the peasants in their place and everything will be fine and dandy. :-D

While I don't agree with a lot of what Laffy says, I don't think that's fair. He does seem to genuinely believe in paying his staff a fair wage. We agree that someone who sets up and runs a business deserves higher pay than the average employee. If I worked for Hyperdrive I wouldn't object to Laffy having more pay than me, as he has taken risks I haven't. What we disagree on is how much more they should be allowed to make. Laffy seems to think it should be uncapped, whereas I believe that there should be something like a maximum wage which is calculated based on how much extra risk and work the owner does relative to the entry level workers. In some of the really big businesses the CEO gets paid hundreds of times more than the entry level worker, but they aren't actually working hundreds of times harder, so in my view that wealth is unearned, and has been stolen from the workers who generated it.

You don’t know me so to suggest that is utterly pathetic.One of the key motivations for me is seeing people/employees around the things I’m involved in getting a chance and taking it

What if that person is a socialist, do they deserve a chance too? As I seem to remember you saying you wouldn't hire me because of my political beliefs.

No-I suspect you are a militant troublemaker

I object to paying tax on my pensions and savings to keep some jobshy layabout in the custom which unfortunately he has come to expect. No rent no council tax etc. There are jobs to be had but they don't want to work. If I have to go into care I will have to pay. They won't.

No-I suspect you are a militant troublemaker

So when you say that you like see employees get a chance and taking it, you only mean the employees who share your political views? I resent what you're saying here Laffy. I'm not a troublemaker, I work hard. It seems like you're saying I don't deserve the same opportunities as others just because I have a different political opinion. If I recall you even said you wouldn't hire me because I'm a socialist. Are you aware that political beliefs have been held in some cases to be a protected characteristic under the Equality Act? Would you refuse to hire a black person because of their skin colour?

In the context of employment and the work environment, political views shouldn't come into it. I'm a socialist, but I'm just as good a worker as any capitalist and I leave my personal/political views at the door when it's time to start a shift. Take the best person for the job, don't exclude people because they have a different political view.

I object to paying tax on my pensions and savings to keep some jobshy layabout in the custom which unfortunately he has come to expect. No rent no council tax etc. There are jobs to be had but they don't want to work. If I have to go into care I will have to pay. They won't.

Do you object to paying for the very comfortable lifestyle that billionaires like Philip Day enjoy?

Grow up you tart-I employ many people.Never thought about their colour, background, whatever.But you do get to know people who we call ‘terrorists’-corrosive, argumentative, disruptive individuals who are entitled and frankly unemployable.Thankfully not many out there but you come across them from time to time.

As for billionaires-the ones I know employ many thousands of people and pay their taxes.

Have a good day Kes

Grow up you tart-I employ many people.Never thought about their colour, background, whatever.But you do get to know people who we call ‘terrorists’-corrosive, argumentative, disruptive individuals who are entitled and frankly unemployable.Thankfully not many out there but you come across them from time to time.

Surely it depends what they are arguing about? If an employee is being mistreated or not paid enough, then I would say they are right to "argue" against that and to challenge the employer about it. On the other hand if they come into an entry level job and demand £40 an hour, then I would agree with you that it is argumentative and corrosive. But you can't just say someone is unemployable without actually getting to know them and see how hard they work, it's wrong to deny people opportunities because of their political views. Surely as a businessman you want the best person for the job, and if that person is a socialist then so be it. I resent you implying I'm a troublemaker, and if I worked at Hyperdrive you would see that I work hard, but in return I would expect to be treated equally and allowed the same opportunities as anyone else. Political views shouldn't matter in the workplace, as long as someone works and they work well.

As for billionaires-the ones I know employ many thousands of people and pay their taxes.

Some of the ones I know live a life of luxury while paying their staff minimum wage. In other words, scrounging off the hard work of others. But it's easier for people to vilify benefit claimants than billionaires.

Well go and hassle a billionaire-I’m not one as you know

The answer Kess is no, he worked for it,he will have to pay his staff the legal wage. Envy is a sin and you come across as a very envious individual. Shame on you. Did you ever answer the question " is stewarding your only source of income" If I missed the answer my apologies, so is it

The answer Kess is no, he worked for it

Rubbish. Nobody "worked for" a billion. If you have that much money then your staff aren't being paid a fair wage.

Envy is a sin and you come across as a very envious individual. Shame on you.

Is it envy if you just want what is rightfully yours? If I stole your wallet, you'd feel entitled to demand that money back. But let's imagine that instead of giving it back, I claimed I had "worked hard" for that money, I had "earned" it, and that you were just a bone idle scrounger for expecting me to hand you money rather than get out and earn it yourself. That's how I view capitalism in a nutshell. The rich steal the wealth of the working class, and then call us scroungers when we ask for our fair share of our own money.

You're deluded Kess, I worked hard, definitely played hard , I'm now comfortable in my retirement but I'll continue condemning commited scroungers of which I know plenty.

You're deluded Kess, I worked hard, definitely played hard , I'm now comfortable in my retirement but I'll continue condemning commited scroungers of which I know plenty.

Scroungers like Mike Ashley and Philip Day?

Poor response