Good Morning Britain - Boris Johnson Interview

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

They have 'limited' the price cap and provided £150 to lower income homes, so that isn't nothing but I take your point.

The reality is until the market stabilises there probably is little they can do. Unfortunately wars do cause things like this.

Like I said, I'm open to the idea of a windfall tax, I can just recognise the issue comes with pros and cons, especially when considering things in the long term.

Short term decisions aren't always the best - look at Germanys short termism on nuclear. The result has been high prices and funding a despots war.

Thankfully UK gas wholesale prices are the lowest since september, which is better news.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/uk-natural-gas

---

Limited the price cap :hehe: Oh, come on. For a lot of people the energy prices may as well be £1,000 p/m for as good as it does them.

£150 isn't nothing, you're right. It's a slap in the face and, what's that term you keep using... A short term solution.

I don't know why you're just throwing all short term solutions together as if they somehow correspond.

As we stand today there are millions of people unable to afford to live on a basic level whilst oil companies are showing unheard of profits.

I'm not sure how the outcome of taxing them more/a windfall tax could be worse than the British public literally starving and freezing - which they are doing.

Maybe they could be starving and freezing and sat uncomfortably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tito Fuente

Limited the price cap :hehe: Oh, come on. For a lot of people the energy prices may as well be £1,000 p/m for as good as it does them.

£150 isn't nothing, you're right. It's a slap in the face and, what's that term you keep using... A short term solution.

I don't know why you're just throwing all short term solutions together as if they somehow correspond.

As we stand today there are millions of people unable to afford to live on a basic level whilst oil companies are showing unheard of profits.

I'm not sure how the outcome of taxing them more/a windfall tax could be worse than the British public literally starving and freezing - which they are doing.

Maybe they could be starving and freezing and sat uncomfortably.

---

I'm confused. You are angry at this ladies 500% increase, but then don't seem to recognise that the 50% price cap mitigates rises at all, recognising that the 50% price cap has also led to numerous companies going bust?

Do you want the price cap or not? Or do you want it to be far less, in which case we wouldnt be talking about tax rises on oil companies at all, cos the good old british taxpayer would just cover it, or better still, we could borrow the difference and pass the problem onto our kids.

The fact is, unless she was on an exceptional deal at £17 a month (Which she likely was) no ones bills should have gone up 500%. If they have, then something is up and she should seek support or help. There's thousands of examples of this every day, I'm not sure what good it is landing it at the PM's door.

It just sounds to me that you aren't that interested in a genuine recognition of the issues to trying to get to the bottom of it, you just want a sensational story to bash the PM with.

Surely otherwise you would recognise a 500% increase when the cap is 50% sounds very suspicious, no?

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you on a windfall tax, but you are no energy expert and neither am I, but i recognise that decisions need to be made in the long term as well as short term.

I'm getting the classic 'you can't increase taxes on rich people, they will leave' vibes here. Here is the reality, in a time of need, if you don't increase or enforce taxes on super wealthy people and corporations then people like Elsie (imaginary or not) get wrung out like a cloth until there isn't a drop left.

And if you constantly parrot these tropes when anybody suggests a solution that involves super wealthy people and corporations paying a bit more, then you might as well be wringing Elsie's neck yourself.

If you don't like the truth you will lean on another of the rights favourite get out clauses when they **** people over, 'stop using x for political gain'

This is a strange hill for you to choose to die on James. Without a shadow of a doubt, the 150 quid rebate and 200 quid loan is not coming close to covering the average rise in the cost of living and yet instead of acknowledging that lots of people will be struggling, your first move is to laser in on the credibility of the anecdote in the interview. Also, you couldn't be any more transparent in your fence sitting on a windfall tax if you tried. Let me guess, you lean to oppose it now but if the government decide it's a good idea then you are ready to spring back in the other direction? That's a big surprise.

As for you LOM, embarrassing once again. I am glad someone pointed out how stupid it is to 1) blame and 2) sacrifice investment into green energy. The UK could be powered by green energy and fully self-sufficient, it chooses not to be, because of people like you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Presumably, that 80 year old also remembers a time when she could afford to heat her entire house.

---

No they could not afford it as the country was in real poverty , folk would live and sleep in one or two rooms ,
and like it or not its a lot better now where you can get radiators in rooms and double glazing , inside toilets, cars etc etc .

Like it or not we have moved on as a society

and it wasn't Boris's fault

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

I'm getting the classic 'you can't increase taxes on rich people, they will leave' vibes here. Here is the reality, in a time of need, if you don't increase or enforce taxes on super wealthy people and corporations then people like Elsie (imaginary or not) get wrung out like a cloth until there isn't a drop left.

And if you constantly parrot these tropes when anybody suggests a solution that involves super wealthy people and corporations paying a bit more, then you might as well be wringing Elsie's neck yourself.

If you don't like the truth you will lean on another of the rights favourite get out clauses when they **** people over, 'stop using x for political gain'

This is a strange hill for you to choose to die on James. Without a shadow of a doubt, the 150 quid rebate and 200 quid loan is not coming close to covering the average rise in the cost of living and yet instead of acknowledging that lots of people will be struggling, your first move is to laser in on the credibility of the anecdote in the interview. Also, you couldn't be any more transparent in your fence sitting on a windfall tax if you tried. Let me guess, you lean to oppose it now but if the government decide it's a good idea then you are ready to spring back in the other direction? That's a big surprise.

As for you LOM, embarrassing once again. I am glad someone pointed out how stupid it is to 1) blame and 2) sacrifice investment into green energy. The UK could be powered by green energy and fully self-sufficient, it chooses not to be, because of people like you.

---

I've not chosen to die on this hill. What I'm doing is pointing out that the energy price cap is 50% and this ladies bills have supposedly risen 500% and therefore there may be something more to this story.

I also point out that slapping a windfall tax on energy producers may be a bad decision in the long run. It's not just me saying that - I am merely listening to experts in the field as opposed to those trying to win local elections on Thursday.

I have also said I am open to the idea of a windfall tax anyway - I just recognise it's no silver bullet.

What I don't buy is that somehow the fact that this womans bills have risen 500% is all down to the government. Thats an argument I would expect Labour activists to make in the run up to an election (or Tory activists if the roles were reversed) but I don't think it's conducive to a particularly interesting or enlightening debate.

The reality is if you want to solve these problems in the long run they need to be properly understood which is what we should all be trying to do, no? Just saying "slap a windfall tax on them" may not work.

The reality is war is f-ing shit. 99% of the shitness is borne by people in warzones, but it does screw over certain industries, and energy production is one of them.

We need a solution, but a windfall tax may not be the solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

No they could not afford it as the country was in real poverty , folk would live and sleep in one or two rooms ,
and like it or not its a lot better now where you can get radiators in rooms and double glazing , inside toilets, cars etc etc .

Like it or not we have moved on as a society

and it wasn't Boris's fault

---

She's 80. You're saying at no point in her life she has been able to heat her whole house, or at least can't remember it. But then go on to say times have changed, we've moved on; which presumably means she should be able to?

So I'm confused by this.

I'll be less subtle with my point. When she was young, she couldn't heat her whole house. At some point in her adult life (I would imagine) she was able to. Now she's not able to.

For her, things are going backwards.

It doesn't have to be Boris's fault, but it is his job to fix it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

No they could not afford it as the country was in real poverty , folk would live and sleep in one or two rooms ,
and like it or not its a lot better now where you can get radiators in rooms and double glazing , inside toilets, cars etc etc .

Like it or not we have moved on as a society

and it wasn't Boris's fault

---

You do this in almost every thread, there has to be a point. Can you let the rest of us in on the secret?

Is the point, poverty only matters as an absolute and not in relative terms? Because if so, you are just advocating for larger and larger wealth inequality and we all know where that ends up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I've not chosen to die on this hill. What I'm doing is pointing out that the energy price cap is 50% and this ladies bills have supposedly risen 500% and therefore there may be something more to this story.

I also point out that slapping a windfall tax on energy producers may be a bad decision in the long run. It's not just me saying that - I am merely listening to experts in the field as opposed to those trying to win local elections on Thursday.

I have also said I am open to the idea of a windfall tax anyway - I just recognise it's no silver bullet.

What I don't buy is that somehow the fact that this womans bills have risen 500% is all down to the government. Thats an argument I would expect Labour activists to make in the run up to an election (or Tory activists if the roles were reversed) but I don't think it's conducive to a particularly interesting or enlightening debate.

The reality is if you want to solve these problems in the long run they need to be properly understood which is what we should all be trying to do, no? Just saying "slap a windfall tax on them" may not work.

The reality is war is f-ing shit. 99% of the shitness is borne by people in warzones, but it does screw over certain industries, and energy production is one of them.

We need a solution, but a windfall tax may not be the solution.

---

I'm afraid the long term solution was to invest more heavily in and prioritise green energy many years ago.

You might want a long term solution but whether you chose to believe it or not, there are people who need a short term solution.

Also, I don't think anybody needs to be an 'energy industry expert' to know categorically that the big firms do not act in the interests of us. So when they announce 'record investment' and a 'commitment to Britain', forgive me for being suspicious about whether we are getting a good deal or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I'm confused. You are angry at this ladies 500% increase, but then don't seem to recognise that the 50% price cap mitigates rises at all, recognising that the 50% price cap has also led to numerous companies going bust?

Do you want the price cap or not? Or do you want it to be far less, in which case we wouldnt be talking about tax rises on oil companies at all, cos the good old british taxpayer would just cover it, or better still, we could borrow the difference and pass the problem onto our kids.

The fact is, unless she was on an exceptional deal at £17 a month (Which she likely was) no ones bills should have gone up 500%. If they have, then something is up and she should seek support or help. There's thousands of examples of this every day, I'm not sure what good it is landing it at the PM's door.

It just sounds to me that you aren't that interested in a genuine recognition of the issues to trying to get to the bottom of it, you just want a sensational story to bash the PM with.

Surely otherwise you would recognise a 500% increase when the cap is 50% sounds very suspicious, no?

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you on a windfall tax, but you are no energy expert and neither am I, but i recognise that decisions need to be made in the long term as well as short term.

---

I'm angry that the costs were allowed to double. How hasn't that been clear?

Do I want a price cap or not? Yes please, but can it be one that allows the general public to afford to use their heating and run a bath without going into debt.

You seem adverse to the idea that the gargantuan corporations whose profits have soared (from BBC article today "BP's profits for the first three months of this year have more than doubled after oil and gas prices soared. The energy giant reported an underlying profit of $6.2bn (£4.9bn) compared to $2.6bn in the same period last year - ahead of expectations.")
pay a bit more so that Elsie and co. don't have to ride the bus to stay warm during the day or a mum with 3 kids doesn't have to skip meals so that one of her kids doesn't miss out.

We're living in the shit now, James. Why can companies make billions in profits while people starve? Tax them and ensure that the money goes to affordable energy. If they threaten to pull money out of green energy, tax them even more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

I'm afraid the long term solution was to invest more heavily in and prioritise green energy many years ago.

You might want a long term solution but whether you chose to believe it or not, there are people who need a short term solution.

Also, I don't think anybody needs to be an 'energy industry expert' to know categorically that the big firms do not act in the interests of us. So when they announce 'record investment' and a 'commitment to Britain', forgive me for being suspicious about whether we are getting a good deal or not.

---

1 - We have invested in green energy. More than almost anywhere else - check it out. Our energy use is transformed.
2 - I compltetely understand people not short term help
3 - I agree - their priority is always to profit and shareholders, employees, customers etc. They are private businesses. It doesnt make them immoral or not part of the solution though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tito Fuente

I'm angry that the costs were allowed to double. How hasn't that been clear?

Do I want a price cap or not? Yes please, but can it be one that allows the general public to afford to use their heating and run a bath without going into debt.

You seem adverse to the idea that the gargantuan corporations whose profits have soared (from BBC article today "BP's profits for the first three months of this year have more than doubled after oil and gas prices soared. The energy giant reported an underlying profit of $6.2bn (£4.9bn) compared to $2.6bn in the same period last year - ahead of expectations.")
pay a bit more so that Elsie and co. don't have to ride the bus to stay warm during the day or a mum with 3 kids doesn't have to skip meals so that one of her kids doesn't miss out.

We're living in the shit now, James. Why can companies make billions in profits while people starve? Tax them and ensure that the money goes to affordable energy. If they threaten to pull money out of green energy, tax them even more.

---

It's so simple isn't it! I don't need lecturing on the morality of it all - I agree with you on that. It's how to properly fix it in the real world.

Like I said, I am open to the idea. Discussing it is no bad thing and at least we have moved on from the tone earlier which was descending into the usual "BLoNdE mAn BaD" stuff.

What you will never do is eradicate every single story like the one in question here. There may be specific circumstances here that we aren't aware of and no government can protect every single person from any price rises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

It's so simple isn't it! I don't need lecturing on the morality of it all - I agree with you on that. It's how to properly fix it in the real world.

Like I said, I am open to the idea. Discussing it is no bad thing and at least we have moved on from the tone earlier which was descending into the usual "BLoNdE mAn BaD" stuff.

What you will never do is eradicate every single story like the one in question here. There may be specific circumstances here that we aren't aware of and no government can protect every single person from any price rises.

---

This situation is a lot simpler than BlOnDe MaN makes out though.

For far too long these corporations treat us like we're in an abusive relationship, basically telling us "you think things are bad now but you're lucky I don't leave you. Nobody else will love you".

If they paid their "fair share" and the money went to subsidising the costs of living then I would hazard a guess that we'd be living in a more affordable society (that includes affordable housing).

I don't know what the alternative is. I guess it's what's happening now so I'd rather take the risk of pissing off some CEOs who will ultimately know that their shareholders will still get huge dividends regardless (maybe one less yacht in each financial year though).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

1 - We have invested in green energy. More than almost anywhere else - check it out. Our energy use is transformed.

---

How is that measure relevant, we were less shit than everyone else? We are at quite a significant natural advantage when it comes to renewables because of our geography. You asked for a long term solution, that was it and many people have called for it for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

2 - I compltetely understand people not short term help

---

That didn't really come across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

3 - I agree - their priority is always to profit and shareholders, employees, customers etc. They are private businesses. It doesnt make them immoral or not part of the solution though

---

You said immoral, not me. It's why taxing them and spending the revenue on things we need is a better idea than just trusting they will invest in the right things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

What you will never do is eradicate every single story like the one in question here. There may be specific circumstances here that we aren't aware of and no government can protect every single person from any price rises.

---

Oh look another straw man

Did they ask him why theres an NI increase when he stood by a bus saying Brexit lets fund the NHS.?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I think it's actually worth noting, because if there weren't free buses then she wouldnt be riding them.

Nonetheless, I agree, it shouldnt be happening. The question is why, and how do we solve it.

I'll repeat what I asked lardy:

The energy price cap went up 50%. Her bills went up 500%. Ten times the rate. Now if she came to you for help, would you throw your hands in the air and blame the Prime Minister, or would you try and find out the reason for a rise that is ten times above what it should be?

---

I’ve not blamed Johnson for the rise in energy costs, all I’ve done in this thread is express my incredulity that his first instinct is to claim credit for a free bus scheme when asked a question like that. Typically, Johnson’s first instinct was to think of himself and produce a crass reply that had nothing to do with the point at issue. Furthermore, when put in an awkward position, it’s all about self preservation, not party considerations - he introduced the scheme, not the Conservative party, the man is not fit to run a bath, let alone this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I’ve not blamed Johnson for the rise in energy costs, all I’ve done in this thread is express my incredulity that his first instinct is to claim credit for a free bus scheme when asked a question like that. Typically, Johnson’s first instinct was to think of himself and produce a crass reply that had nothing to do with the point at issue. Furthermore, when put in an awkward position, it’s all about self preservation, not party considerations - he introduced the scheme, not the Conservative party, the man is not fit to run a bath, let alone this country.

---

It's a fair criticism. The bloke is unquestionably egotistical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

How is that measure relevant, we were less shit than everyone else? We are at quite a significant natural advantage when it comes to renewables because of our geography. You asked for a long term solution, that was it and many people have called for it for years.



That didn't really come across.



You said immoral, not me. It's why taxing them and spending the revenue on things we need is a better idea than just trusting they will invest in the right things.

---

You are somewhat unfair there. The UK has halved it's use of fossil fuels since 2012 and the use of renewables have grown five fold. It's a quite spectacular change. And it all costs a lot of money to implement. It seems you want cheap energy and for it to be developed at no cost? Utopian.



https://grid.iamkate.com/?msclkid=a7...648dc9d13484d4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hilts

Did they ask him why theres an NI increase when he stood by a bus saying Brexit lets fund the NHS.?

---

Healthcare spending in 2022: £213bn
Healthcare spending in 2019 (last year of being in the EU): £152bn
Difference: increase of £61bn (increase of £20.3bn a year on average)
£20.3bn a year / 52 weeks = £390m a week.

Of course, they haven't just taken the cheque we gave the EU, crossed out EU and written NHS on it. It's far more complex than that, but the UK is now spending far more per week on the NHS than even the bus proclaimed we would before we left the EU.

This is a simple fact. You may not like the NHS receiving this money, you may feel that the leave campaign used the NHS, you may feel it should have had increases sooner, but it is a fact nonetheless. And it's good too.

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/r..._a_e_g&inline=

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tito Fuente

This situation is a lot simpler than BlOnDe MaN makes out though.

For far too long these corporations treat us like we're in an abusive relationship, basically telling us "you think things are bad now but you're lucky I don't leave you. Nobody else will love you".

If they paid their "fair share" and the money went to subsidising the costs of living then I would hazard a guess that we'd be living in a more affordable society (that includes affordable housing).

I don't know what the alternative is. I guess it's what's happening now so I'd rather take the risk of pissing off some CEOs who will ultimately know that their shareholders will still get huge dividends regardless (maybe one less yacht in each financial year though).

---

I just read for every £100 Norway gets in tax revenue in the North Sea we get £8. Is it any wonder basically everything in Norway is better than here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

You are somewhat unfair there. The UK has halved it's use of fossil fuels since 2012 and the use of renewables have grown five fold. It's a quite spectacular change. And it all costs a lot of money to implement. It seems you want cheap energy and for it to be developed at no cost? Utopian.



https://grid.iamkate.com/?msclkid=a7...648dc9d13484d4

---

Precisely my point, why did it take us until 2012 to do it? I will tell you why, because governments around the world are in the pockets of companies, how do we change that? I don't know, but you seem to freely support it.

As a poster said earlier, it is like an abusive relationship. If all of us ordinary folk stop perpetuating these myths and doing the corporations bidding for them that will help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

Precisely my point, why did it take us until 2012 to do it? I will tell you why, because governments around the world are in the pockets of companies, how do we change that? I don't know, but you seem to freely support it.

As a poster said earlier, it is like an abusive relationship. If all of us ordinary folk stop perpetuating these myths and doing the corporations bidding for them that will help.

---

God knows what you are on about here to be honest, but you now seem to be unhappy that the UK is in the process of decarbonising at a much more rapid rate than others.

If you can't see a success story for what it is then so be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

God knows what you are on about here to be honest, but you now seem to be unhappy that the UK is in the process of decarbonising at a much more rapid rate than others.

If you can't see a success story for what it is then so be it.

---

You keep believing that climate change started in 2012 and I will keep believing that we should have acted sooner.

If you were half as good at scrutinising politicians as you are at scrutinising pensioners in fuel poverty, you would be a force to reckon with (and also you wouldn't come across as a bit of a twat)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Healthcare spending in 2022: £213bn
Healthcare spending in 2019 (last year of being in the EU): £152bn
Difference: increase of £61bn (increase of £20.3bn a year on average)
£20.3bn a year / 52 weeks = £390m a week.

Of course, they haven't just taken the cheque we gave the EU, crossed out EU and written NHS on it. It's far more complex than that, but the UK is now spending far more per week on the NHS than even the bus proclaimed we would before we left the EU.

This is a simple fact. You may not like the NHS receiving this money, you may feel that the leave campaign used the NHS, you may feel it should have had increases sooner, but it is a fact nonetheless. And it's good too.

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/r..._a_e_g&inline=

---

A pinch of salt would probably be good considering the two years you use to prove your calculations were during a pandemic. I think an analytical mind like yours would reserve judgement on healthcare spending, but thank you for reminding me of my favourite quote:

'He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Presumably, that 80 year old also remembers a time when she could afford to heat her entire house.

---

Lets hope all 80 year olds that are struggling can reach our to friends, family and neighbours, its interesting how the UK compares to our European neighbours when it comes to care , they don't all see the responsibility of every issue as the governments .

About time we heard for that alleged “bigoted woman” Gillian Duffy she must be in her 80's one of life hero's .

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-bigoted-woman

Politicians hey ,wonder what they really think of us ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

Lets hope all 80 year olds that are struggling can reach our to friends, family and neighbours, its interesting how the UK compares to our European neighbours when it comes to care , they don't all see the responsibility of every issue as the governments .

About time we heard for that alleged “bigoted woman” Gillian Duffy she must be in her 80's one of life hero's .

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-bigoted-woman

Politicians hey ,wonder what they really think of us ??

---

Of all the people for LOM to bring up :hehe:

You can work out her current age from the article. Have a go and let us know the answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

You keep believing that climate change started in 2012 and I will keep believing that we should have acted sooner.

If you were half as good at scrutinising politicians as you are at scrutinising pensioners in fuel poverty, you would be a force to reckon with (and also you wouldn't come across as a bit of a twat)

---

Thanks for the kind words.

I don't believe that climate change began in 2012, but the source provided demonstrates the dramatic changes since 2012. If you cared as much about the environment as you did hating the government you would also recognise that as good news - and it's been done in conjunction with Scottish, N.Irish and Welsh governments too.

I'm not scrutinising the pensioner. I'm saying the story that you lot seem to think it's a damning endictment of the government sounds a bit fishy to me, given her costs rose at ten times the rate of the energy price cap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

Lets hope all 80 year olds that are struggling can reach our to friends, family and neighbours, its interesting how the UK compares to our European neighbours when it comes to care , they don't all see the responsibility of every issue as the governments .

---

So pensioners in poverty who are struggling (or failing) to pay for fuel and food should rely on help from friends, family and neighbours - not the state (the means by which society collectively supports its members in need)?

That is the essence of Toryism.

Small state, individualism, 'there is no such thing as society' and 'deserving poor' supported by the discretionary charity of the better off - leaving them constantly insecure and vulnerable.

No thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

So pensioners in poverty who are struggling (or failing) to pay for fuel and food should rely on help from friends, family and neighbours - not the state (the means by which society collectively supports its members in need)?

That is the essence of Toryism.

Small state, individualism, 'there is no such thing as society' and 'deserving poor' supported by the discretionary charity of the better off - leaving them constantly insecure and vulnerable.

No thanks!

---

Toryism in a nutshell! Bang on and it stinks. I'm alright Jack, screw you!

Johnson going all Chubby Brown: "Who the f**k is Alice?" That'll win him votes amongst the hoi polloi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorcus

Toryism in a nutshell! Bang on and it stinks. I'm alright Jack, screw you!

---

Sorry to facts get in the way of your and Jon1959's political prejudices, but pensioner poverty has significantly reduced under the Tories.

Again, don't argue with me, argue with those notorious Tory rotters at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

https://www.jrf.org.uk/data

Indeed, whilst poverty rates are fairly consistent across the board, it's generally recognised that older person poverty rates have improved in recent years with things like the triple lock pension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Sorry to facts get in the way of your and Jon1959's political prejudices, but pensioner poverty has significantly reduced under the Tories.

Again, don't argue with me, argue with those notorious Tory rotters at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

https://www.jrf.org.uk/data

Indeed, whilst poverty rates are fairly consistent across the board, it's generally recognised that older person poverty rates have improved in recent years with things like the triple lock pension.

---

Absolute Bo****ks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorcus

Absolute Bo****ks

---

Do you listen to the classified football scores on a saturday evening and shout out the same if you don't like it?

Weird that you are upset to see poverty rates declining for older people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Sorry to facts get in the way of your and Jon1959's political prejudices, but pensioner poverty has significantly reduced under the Tories.

Again, don't argue with me, argue with those notorious Tory rotters at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

https://www.jrf.org.uk/data

Indeed, whilst poverty rates are fairly consistent across the board, it's generally recognised that older person poverty rates have improved in recent years with things like the triple lock pension.

---

You are not getting in the way of anything.

You are, though, changing the subject - again. Is deflection your middle name?

Changing rates of pensioner poverty is an interesting subject.

It just isn't the one Dorcus and I were commenting on. That was LOM's Tory world view and opposition to collectivism or an active state - despite his constant denials!

Joseph Rowntree showing rates of pensioner poverty rising. What it doesn't show is the effect of 12 years of hollowed out public services that leave the growing poor (pensioners or otherwise) increasingly dependent on friends, family, neighbours or foodbanks where they are 'lucky' enough to have that.

https://www.jrf.org.uk/data/pensioner-poverty-rates

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

You are not getting in the way of anything.

You are, though, changing the subject - again. Is deflection your middle name?

Changing rates of pensioner poverty is an interesting subject.

It just isn't the one Dorcus and I were commenting on. That was LOM's Tory world view and opposition to collectivism or an active state - despite his constant denials!

Joseph Rowntree showing rates of pensioner poverty rising. What it doesn't show is the effect of 12 years of hollowed out public services that leave the growing poor (pensioners or otherwise) increasingly dependent on friends, family, neighbours or foodbanks where they are 'lucky' enough to have that.

https://www.jrf.org.uk/data/pensioner-poverty-rates

---

It's not changing the subject. You and Dorcus turned it into a party political issue and the fact is that poverty rates under the current administration is lower than it was under the previous.

Of course, there are lies, damned lies and statistics, and depending on the time frame nearly every statistic can tell an opposite story.

Pensioner poverty is slightly rising for example - True
Pensioner povery is also consistently lower under the Conservatives than Labour - also true.

What isn't true, or helpful, is too purely suggest the answer lies in party politics, because plainly it doesnt. THAT is selling a lie to pensioners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

It's not changing the subject. You and Dorcus turned it into a party political issue and the fact is that poverty rates under the current administration is lower than it was under the previous.

Of course, there are lies, damned lies and statistics, and depending on the time frame nearly every statistic can tell an opposite story.

Pensioner poverty is slightly rising for example - True
Pensioner povery is also consistently lower under the Conservatives than Labour - also true.

What isn't true, or helpful, is too purely suggest the answer lies in party politics, because plainly it doesnt. THAT is selling a lie to pensioners.

---

To quote another contributor from this parish: 'Absolute bollocks!'

I was talking about political values not individual policies. Although I am certain that poor pensioners would get more support and respect under a Labour government than a Tory one - even if only marginally.

The issue you commented on (quoting Dorcus who quoted me in response to LOM) was about whether the government (the state, collective responsibility and provision) should be the answer to individual hardship and distress, or whether it should fall to friends, family or neighbours. LOM thinks the latter. He thinks we should not always expect our government to act. You clearly share that view - although you come at it from the angle that it makes little or no difference what sort of government we have.

THAT is selling a lie to pensioners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Sorry to facts get in the way of your and Jon1959's political prejudices, but pensioner poverty has significantly reduced under the Tories.

Again, don't argue with me, argue with those notorious Tory rotters at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

https://www.jrf.org.uk/data

Indeed, whilst poverty rates are fairly consistent across the board, it's generally recognised that older person poverty rates have improved in recent years with things like the triple lock pension.

---

I must be looking in the wrong place on that link, because I see something different to you. What it shows to me is that pensioner poverty was very high when the Blair Government came into office in 1997, then started to fall dramatically before a bit of a rise around the 2008 crash, but then started dropping again by 2010. The downward trend continued through the years of the coalition Government, but ever since we’ve had a majority Tory Government (and for the two years of the May minority Government) the trend has been upwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I must be looking in the wrong place on that link, because I see something different to you. What it shows to me is that pensioner poverty was very high when the Blair Government came into office in 1997, then started to fall dramatically before a bit of a rise around the 2008 crash, but then started dropping again by 2010. The downward trend continued through the years of the coalition Government, but ever since we’ve had a majority Tory Government (and for the two years of the May minority Government) the trend has been upwards.

---

Yep,

Two ways of looking at it; Higher and stable under Major. Generally consistently fell under Labour, but still higher on average than the post 2010 Tories, who generally kept it stable with slight rise recently.

Both are of these statements are true: Labour generally lowered pensioner poverty. Pensioner poverty rate generally lower under the Tories.

It's almost as if reality is not black and white, and these are nuanced issues that can be interpreted in different ways.

If I'm perfectly honest I think both parties do 'okay' on pensioner poverty. The bigger issue for me is child poverty. On that, as you can see both parties have resolutely failed to make much of a dent into it.

It's worth noting this is relative poverty too.

While I agree with what you say about comparing stats, that doesn’t apply here because you’ve got one set of figures (which you selected to prove a point), so you can make a direct comparison. Let’s have a look at specifics in that graph regarding pensioner poverty.

The graph starts at 94/95 with a pensioner poverty rate of 28 per cent. By the time the Major Government was voted out it had risen to 29 per cent, so I would suggest that “high and stable” when you’re discussing something like pensioner poverty would be better described as failure.

By 05/06, Labour had almost halved the figure to 16 per cent, only for it to rise a year later to 19 per cent, but, by the time they left office, it was 15 per cent, so the rate fell by 14 per cent in the thirteen years they were in power.

For the five years we had a coalition Government, the rate continued downwards, but at a much slower rate and it was down to 14 per cent when the Lib Dems left Government. Since then, with the Tories solely in charge, it had risen to 18 per cent by 19/20 and, with all that has happened since then, it’s hard to imagine that they’ve headed in any direction other than up.

Let’s leave guesswork out of it though, you posted the link to this chart to show that what you call the facts proved
that pensioner poverty had “significantly reduced” under the Conservatives - that’s simply not true, the most sympathetic interpretation I can put on it is that the modern day Tories have come pretty close to maintaining the levels Labour took it to after inheriting a failing system. They’ve come pretty close, but they haven’t succeeded - by any interpretation you care to make of those figures, they show that Labour Governments have been more successful than Conservative ones in tackling pensioner poverty in the last thirty years or so.

Even the most die hard Tory twat would have to concede that the Triple Lock Pension was introduced in 2010 as a sop to the Liberal Coalition demands. Tories would only be interested in the project if it secured more grey votes.

Having said that they run fast and loose with the policy. They abandoned it last year to suit themselves and there's every chance they'll abandon it this year if inflation peaks in September as projected. There is nothing more rotten in the State of Denmark than a rich Tory.