4.1 million working poor in britain

[truman 10]

3 hours ago, Anna B said:

It being a few years old is actually very important. You are talking about Tony Blair's 'Blairite' government which was almost Tory by any other name and the reason Jeremy Corbyn stood for leader to redress the balance and give the electorate a real choice. He has been soundly villified for this by the establishment elite who don't want the working class to have a real voice.

 

And yes Labour do take donations from like minded rich supporters, the poor one's don't have any money,

and in this world running a successful party costs .  

 

 

Without Blair I don't think Labour would have had a sniff of power let alone be in governmment fro as long as they were

[Anna B 1,414]

2 hours ago, alchresearch said:

Am I really talking about "Tony Blair's 'Blairite' government"?  In 2013.  Blair had been gone for years.

 

Stop repeating the same tired old cliches.  It was that change to Labour that made them electable. 

2013 was long before Corbyn took the leadership and took the party in a different direction.  At the time I think the media were busy rubbishing Ed Milliband, who was to the left of Blair (and therefore dangerous) remember the chip eating incident? The defamation of his parents? the 'headstone? But he was still part of the Oxbridge set, as were many of Labour's ministers. And I doubt he had the guts to stand up to them and change things.

 

You must see there is a pattern here; as Truman says, only Blair with his 'new' Labour was considered electable. That's because he was at heart a Tory  and could be manipulated by the elite,  therefore he didn't have the entire establishment/ media set against him .  As soon as someone comes along that wants to change the natural order ( - ie. it is only the rich and powerfull that have a devine right to rule,) then woe betide him if he tries to change the status quo and stick up for the little man. 

 

The public will be told he is a 'Marxist,' Communist, idiot, and worse, looks ridiculous, and has friends in all the wrong places. (MIlliband remember?) And be told it constantly until they are brainwashed into believing it.       

[alchresearch 214]

16 hours ago, Anna B said:

2013 was long before Corbyn took the leadership and took the party in a different direction.  At the time I think the media were busy rubbishing Ed Milliband, who was to the left of Blair (and therefore dangerous) remember the chip eating incident? The defamation of his parents? the 'headstone? But he was still part of the Oxbridge set, as were many of Labour's ministers. And I doubt he had the guts to stand up to them and change things.

Milliband was rubbish though.  They chose the wrong brother.  

 

I don't remember a chip eating incident though, and I don't think you do either.  Do you mean the bacon sandwich?

 

And the stone tablet of pledges was a stupid idea.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/11/ben-fogle-says-found-infamous-ed-stone-upmarket-restaurant-london/

[Anna B 1,414]

2 hours ago, alchresearch said:

Milliband was rubbish though.  They chose the wrong brother.  

 

I don't remember a chip eating incident though, and I don't think you do either.  Do you mean the bacon sandwich?

 

And the stone tablet of pledges was a stupid idea.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/11/ben-fogle-says-found-infamous-ed-stone-upmarket-restaurant-london/

You mean they chose the more Socialist, less compliant brother, who didn't fit the Blairite mould.

 

And yes it probably was a burger, my mistake, I just remembered he was eating something - but how bizarre is that? Picking on somebody over what or how they eat? 

 

The stone thing was meant to convey that unlike the Tories, Labour wouldn't break their manifesto promises = they were literally 'written in stone.' I agree, not the best idea in the world but no dafter than some of the Tories'.

[bendix 10]

On ‎12‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 12:54 AM, Anna B said:

Well done to Sajid Javid's father, but by the time Sajid Javid left his job as an investment banker at Deutsche Bank in 2009 he was estimated to be earning 3 million a year, (having started investing in stocks and shares at the age of 14 with a £500 loan.)

 

So, something of a prodigy, but poor he is not.

How about compaing Sajid Javid  with your beloved Corbyn?

 

Corbyn grew up in a 17th century country house and attended independent prep and grammar schools.  He now lives in a multi-million pound islington villa.

 

Hardly a working class hero, is he?

Edited December 20, 2018 by bendix

[Robin-H 11]

7 minutes ago, Anna B said:

You mean they chose the more Socialist, less compliant brother, who didn't fit the Blairite mould.

 

And yes it probably was a burger, my mistake, I just remembered he was eating something - but how bizarre is that? Picking on somebody over what or how they eat? 

 

The stone thing was meant to convey that unlike the Tories, Labour wouldn't break their manifesto promises = they were literally 'written in stone.' I agree, not the best idea in the world but no dafter than some of the Tories'.

Yes very bizarre. You’d never find the biased right wing media doing something like that against one of their own would you.. 

 

Oh look https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/02/theresa-may-awkwardly-eating-chips-could-be-2017s-bacon-sandwich

[woodview 10]

On 12/12/2018 at 4:54 PM, Cyclone said:

That isn't the definition used by the JRF.  Please read the thread.

I don't know, why not show instead that it they aren't rather than asking me to prove that they are...

I know that £350 pw isn't poverty. It isnt a comfortable family income, but 'poverty' is a ridiculous word for that income.

[Cyclone 10]

Don't worry, makapaka is convinced that poor people all shop where they like, drink where they like and generally find that having no money isn't a barrier to doing anything they want.

11 hours ago, woodview said:

I know that £350 pw isn't poverty. It isnt a comfortable family income, but 'poverty' is a ridiculous word for that income.

The thing is that you don't "know" that, and can't "show" it...

 

Partly because that's all about averages isn't it.  And you seem to basing your opinion entirely on Sheffield.

So whilst £1400 a month might be fine for a family in Sheffield (that was for a family of 4 wasn't it).  It won't go so far for a family of 4 living in London.