Good Morning Britain - Boris Johnson Interview

[jon1959]

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.

[the other bob wilson]

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.

[JamesWales]

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.

[the other bob wilson]

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.

[Dorcus]

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.

[JamesWales]

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.

I agree, my wording was not correct. It didn't significantly reduce, but it broadly remained at the lower level (lets say 13-16%) as opposed to the 28-16% level of the previous decade, which you rightly say, Blairs government made great strides in reducing.

Nonetheless, it is a fact that less pensioners were in poverty under this government than under Blairs. Just as Blair deserved credit for lowering the pensioner poverty rate, so too do successive Tory govts for (hitherto at least) keeping it at lower levels than before, especially as a poverty rate, unlike say health or education is something that neednt be cyclical - great sweathes could be put into or removed from poverty under any one policy decision.

I just disagree, as you know, with this idea that one party is good and one is bad. It simply isn't true, and people like Dorcus above labelling people 'tory twats' completely in the face of the stats before him.

[the other bob wilson]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61330552

[life on mars]

Another Boris crime is he didn't know who Lorraine Kelly was hopefully Sir Kier jumps on this when in power

[life on mars]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61330552

Shell made $9.13bn (£7.3bn) in the first three months of the year, nearly triple its $3.2bn profit it announced for the same period last year.

But the firm said pulling out of Russian oil and gas due to the Ukraine conflict had cost it $3.9bn (£3.1bn).

Let the profit grown then tax it , or better still take down VAT and green levy.

Shell has already said it will invest £20bn to £25bn in the UK in the next decade in low carbon energy and in UK gas and oil supplies.

[the other bob wilson]

Shell made $9.13bn (£7.3bn) in the first three months of the year, nearly triple its $3.2bn profit it announced for the same period last year.

But the firm said pulling out of Russian oil and gas due to the Ukraine conflict had cost it $3.9bn (£3.1bn).

Let the profit grown then tax it , or better still take down VAT and green levy.

Shell has already said it will invest £20bn to £25bn in the UK in the next decade in low carbon energy and in UK gas and oil supplies.

So, leave the money that they lost pulling out of Russia out and they “only” made £5 billion in the first three months of this year. Therefore, it will take them a whole year to make the money they tell us they will be investing in the country over a decade.

[Dorcus]

So, leave the money that they lost pulling out of Russia out and they “only” made £5 billion in the first three months of this year. Therefore, it will take them a whole year to make the money they tell us they will be investing in the country over a decade.

And VAT is negligible at only 5% and take out the green levy and we won't have a world left to fight for! In all fairness these right wingers don't half come up with some clever ruses.

[JamesWales]

And VAT is negligible at only 5% and take out the green levy and we won't have a world left to fight for! In all fairness these right wingers don't half come up with some clever ruses.

Are you capable of viewing any debate openly, as opposed to dumping an idea or position into one of two archaic terms (right or left wing) and then only considering the issue within those confines?

[Dorcus]

Are you capable of viewing any debate openly, as opposed to dumping an idea or position into one of two archaic terms (right or left wing) and then only considering the issue within those confines?

Yes thank you but I'm not interested in any of the rubbish you regurgitate which is usually patched up quips from Guido Fawkes. If you believe right or left wing is archaic then you are an even bigger fool than I take you for. The left right struggle is the essence of the human condition. Apart from that you bore me.

[JamesWales]

Yes thank you but I'm not interested in any of the rubbish you regurgitate which is usually patched up quips from Guido Fawkes. If you believe right or left wing is archaic then you are an even bigger fool than I take you for. The left right struggle is the essence of the human condition. Apart from that you bore me.

I always imagine you typing these things all spluttering and waving your hands in the air. Your keyboard must be soaking.

[Dorcus]

I always imagine you typing these things all spluttering and waving your hands in the air. Your keyboard must be soaking.

Well you've obviously got an overactive imagination. Sorry to dampen your spirits but I don't use a keyboard; I use a phone like many people do these days.

As I say I find you a totally boring jerk who is an attention seeker. But as it happens you have something of a fan in my wife who finds you hilarious. So all is not lost. I think of you as a complete loser but the wife has noticed you spend all your time on here so we think you don't work. Alternatively, given your pathetically outdated political views we view you as the thick kid who Daddy keeps in riches but doesn't allow to work in his company. Having read the nonsense you promulgate your Dad has got it right.

[Tito Fuente]

Well you've obviously got an overactive imagination. Sorry to dampen your spirits but I don't use a keyboard; I use a phone like many people do these days.

As I say I find you a totally boring jerk who is an attention seeker. But as it happens you have something of a fan in my wife who finds you hilarious. So all is not lost. I think of you as a complete loser but the wife has noticed you spend all your time on here so we think you don't work. Alternatively, given your pathetically outdated political views we view you as the thick kid who Daddy keeps in riches but doesn't allow to work in his company. Having read the nonsense you promulgate your Dad has got it right.

You talk to your wife about James' posts?! I think you've lost any and all of the high ground that you thought you had over James

[Dorcus]

You talk to your wife about James' posts?! I think you've lost any and all of the high ground that you thought you had over James

Ha ha, fair point, no she talks to me over them 😀

[Doucas]

You talk to your wife about James' posts?! I think you've lost any and all of the high ground that you thought you had over James

I'll go tell my partner about life on mars now!

[TWGL1]

You talk to your wife about James' posts?! I think you've lost any and all of the high ground that you thought you had over James

I’ve just showed my wife your post, she thinks you’re old.

[JamesWales]

Well you've obviously got an overactive imagination. Sorry to dampen your spirits but I don't use a keyboard; I use a phone like many people do these days.

As I say I find you a totally boring jerk who is an attention seeker. But as it happens you have something of a fan in my wife who finds you hilarious. So all is not lost. I think of you as a complete loser but the wife has noticed you spend all your time on here so we think you don't work. Alternatively, given your pathetically outdated political views we view you as the thick kid who Daddy keeps in riches but doesn't allow to work in his company. Having read the nonsense you promulgate your Dad has got it right.

Jesus Christ

Your phone will get water damaged.

[Tito Fuente]

I’ve just showed my wife your post, she thinks you’re old.

I showed your wife my post too. She wants a divorce.

[JamesWales]

I showed your wife my post too. She wants a divorce.

I couldnt hear perfectly from under the bed but I don't think she said it with enormous conviction

[cyril evans awaydays]

I couldnt hear perfectly from under the bed but I don't think she said it with enormous conviction

Not my business but where was TWGL1's mum when this was happening?

[JamesWales]

Not my business but where was TWGL1's mum when this was happening?

Ask Sludge

[life on mars]

Are you capable of viewing any debate openly, as opposed to dumping an idea or position into one of two archaic terms (right or left wing) and then only considering the issue within those confines?

Simple answer no he can't, it's a blinkered world, and it's everyone's else fault.