Indeed you are. You too are re-stating the point I have already acknowledged, but without addressing the question as to why some areas are improving.
"* But in the last year falling unemployment has reignited wage growth, with earnings now rising at the fastest rate in eight years. The number of people switching jobs, a measure of labour market tightness, has risen to its highest level since 2008.
* Challenges remain, not least in terms of high rates of long-term and youth unemployment. Yet all too often in economics we are inclined to see problems and ignore the things that go right. The UKâs record in creating jobs and getting people into work in recent years stands as a very significant success."
Source: Ian Stewart, Chief Economist, Deloitte, 23 November 2015. 8am.
1 Like
I think the thing that raises heckles is:-
a) demanding proof
b) providing none of your own
c) empathy with the establishment, instead of the affected.
You are priceless Pap. You started the discussion. Where is your evidence that govt policy is the sole cause? Either it is not the case that it is all down to the govt, or, if it is, why do you keep on ducking the point as to whether govt policy is the sole reason some stats are improving?
I have just given you some evidence on wage growth in the last year by the way. You are welcome.
1 Like
I am, but first, letâs discuss the part where I said âgovernment policy is the sole causeâ. I must have said that, because you are saying that I did, and youâre holding me to my âquotationâ.
Letâs have it, then 
What other factors are involved then Pap?
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
What other factors are involved then Pap?
Strawmen, apparently.
1 Like
Originally posted by @pap
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
What other factors are involved then Pap?
Strawmen, apparently.
Come on, either you are blaming it all on the Government, or there are other factors involved. As with elsewhere on this thread, stop sidestepping questions you canât answer.
1 Like
Again, succinctly self-defeating. Bucks had to provide your evidence 
Youâve also just sidestepped the strawman issue.
I am more than willing to discuss other factors if youâre happy to admit to a count of Worzel construction. Can ye be humble enough?
Funnily enough Iâm working, so donât have the time to search the Internet for quotes.
Oh yeah, more than happy to admit that, itâs something we all do. So letâs have the Pap summary.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Funnily enough Iâm working, so donât have the time to search the Internet for quotes.
Oh yeah, more than happy to admit that, itâs something we all do. So letâs have the Pap summary.
Youâd never have enough time, because I didnât say it. I have been around far too long on this Internet forum lark to make such sweeping statements without qualification, because I know thereâs no fucking way I can justify it, and would get pulled from it. Still, itâs nice to know that in the absence of me actually saying stuff, other people just say I did anyway.
Fair play to you for admitting it, though. Iâm still waiting for the retraction on bombing Syria from other parties.
Other factors, sure. We can talk about the indifference of the free market, the effects of globalisation, the transition out of a complete economy into one that mainly provides services, and how well that turned out. The problem with that though, is that you inevitably work your way back to a point where a government was responsible, either through instituting programmes of privatisation and deregulation, or to speak of a more present issue, the tolerance of big corporates that pay very little tax in this country.
Now, being fair, itâs not correct to lay all of this at the foot of the Tories. Blair went full-steam ahead with the vast majority of neo-liberal agenda. Even when New Labour was being nicer, building hospitals and shit, it was still privatisinâ like a motherfucker (assuming motherfuckers are in the business of privatisation). Itâs more accurate to say that neo-liberalism infected all three major parties, which is probably why Thatcher lists âTony Blair and New Labourâ as her finest achievement.
However, part of leadership is accountability, even if youâre not directly accountable (although I would argue that the Tories most definitely are for the majority of stuff on this thread) youâll still catch shit for stuff people under you do. Thereâs also stuff that just happens on your watch and would have happened to any sitting government. This isnât what is happening here, and this thread is not entitled âgovernment is the sole cause of all our woesâ.
Itâs called Tories in trouble; the vast majority of things discusssed here are cuts to benefits and public services, the perception of the public and the reaction of those that are accountable for the policy. What I really dislike is the blind apologism. When Labour were in power, I was just as critical of the stuff that they did that I didnât like as I am of the Tories. How many times have you seen me mention that fucking enabling act, for example?
I thought that Jack Straw man was a labour bro?
1 Like
Originally posted by @pap
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Funnily enough Iâm working, so donât have the time to search the Internet for quotes.
Oh yeah, more than happy to admit that, itâs something we all do. So letâs have the Pap summary.
Youâd never have enough time, because I didnât say it. I have been around far too long on this Internet forum lark to make such sweeping statements without qualification, because I know thereâs no fucking way I can justify it, and would get pulled from it. Still, itâs nice to know that in the absence of me actually saying stuff, other people just say I did anyway.
This âsearching the net for quotesâ was in relation to the part where Bucks proved my point.
Fair play to you for admitting it, though. Iâm still waiting for the retraction on bombing Syria from other parties.
Other factors, sure. We can talk about the indifference of the free market, the effects of globalisation, the transition out of a complete economy into one that mainly provides services, and how well that turned out. The problem with that though, is that you inevitably work your way back to a point where a government was responsible, either through instituting programmes of privatisation and deregulation, or to speak of a more present issue, the tolerance of big corporates that pay very little tax in this country.
Now, being fair, itâs not correct to lay all of this at the foot of the Tories. Blair went full-steam ahead with the vast majority of neo-liberal agenda. Even when New Labour was being nicer, building hospitals and shit, it was still privatisinâ like a motherfucker (assuming motherfuckers are in the business of privatisation). Itâs more accurate to say that neo-liberalism infected all three major parties, which is probably why Thatcher lists âTony Blair and New Labourâ as her finest achievement.
However, part of leadership is accountability, even if youâre not directly accountable (although I would argue that the Tories most definitely are for the majority of stuff on this thread) youâll still catch shit for stuff people under you do. Thereâs also stuff that just happens on your watch and would have happened to any sitting government. This isnât what is happening here, and this thread is not entitled âgovernment is the sole cause of all our woesâ.
Itâs called Tories in trouble; the vast majority of things discusssed here are cuts to benefits and public services, the perception of the public and the reaction of those that are accountable for the policy. What I really dislike is the blind apologism. When Labour were in power, I was just as critical of the stuff that they did that I didnât like as I am of the Tories. How many times have you seen me mention that fucking enabling act, for example?
Thatâs just a bunch of guff youâve just written on why you have an issue with the World at the moment. Itâs a standard, âwell these are all the issues that I currently have an issue with. That can probably be applied to this problemâ. So, letâs try this again, and perhaps you could bullet point it, what other factors, apart from the Government are to blame for malnutrition in some areas of the country (youâre still yet to tell us why this seems to be a localised, rather than national, problem)? Iâll start you off:
- Increase in food prices (whether due to standard market forces or capitalisation).
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Thatâs just a bunch of guff youâve just written on why you have an issue with the World at the moment. Itâs a standard, âwell these are all the issues that I currently have an issue with. That can probably be applied to this problemâ. So, letâs try this again, and perhaps you could bullet point it, what other factors, apart from the Government are to blame for malnutrition in some areas of the country (youâre still yet to tell us why this seems to be a localised, rather than national, problem)? Iâll start you off:
And that is an entirely prickish response from someone that canât be arsed.
- Increase in food prices (whether due to standard market forces or capitalisation).
Sorry mate. Thatâs just a load of guff. Source? You.
Other factors, sure. We can talk about the indifference of the free market , the effects of globalisation, the transition out of a complete economy into one that mainly provides services, and how well that turned out. The problem with that though, is that you inevitably work your way back to a point where a government was responsible, either through instituting programmes of privatisation and deregulation, or to speak of a more present issue, the tolerance of big corporates that pay very little tax in this country.
I think youâll find thatâs your example, more concisely worded.
Youâre getting chippy about a prickish response to a post, how very droll!
You are very good at not answering questions, Iâll give you that.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Youâre getting chippy about a prickish response to a post, how very droll!
You are very good at not answering questions, Iâll give you that.
Calling as I see it sir, and doing a considerably better job of justifying my position than you have managed to date.
I got miffed because you clearly prejudged my post without actually reading and/or comprehending it, something of a shame. I went to lengths to demonstrate that I was considering other factors and am cross-party critical, even if that means being criticising Labourâs historical performance on legislation.
Chippy? Yah. I was disappointed that my sometimes honourable friend on the other side of the house failed to spot the olive branch.
Originally posted by @pap
Fair play to you for admitting it, though. Iâm still waiting for the retraction on bombing Syria from other parties.
Aha - I assume this references me!
Pap, if you feel Iâve misunderstood or misinterpreted your posts on the Russia thread youâre very welcome to correct me, or add more nuance to it.
You certainly appeared to be enthusiastic about the prospect of Russia bombing Syria, and I appreciate that in the early days people were hopeful that those bombs were targeted at IS. But even when the media was consistently reporting that the focus of those bombs wasnât actually IS but in fact that Assad opposition and civilians in those areas, you still posted an article that said how much Iraqâs were supportive of the Russian bombs. So at that stage it was natural for me assume you think bombs can/might work. Then more recently, when youâre talking about Western tactics, you state bombs donât work.
Which leads me to the conclusion that Papâs view on events is often shaped first by an anti Western Establishment viewpoint, rather than an open minded view on what is or isnât the right approach for a particular scenario.
If you want to tell me Iâm wrong on this, and this isnât your view, Iâm more than happy to accept it on face value.
Originally posted by @Coxford_lou
Aha - I assume this references me!
Pap, if you feel Iâve misunderstood or misinterpreted your posts on the Russia thread youâre very welcome to correct me, or add more nuance to it.
You certainly appeared to be enthusiastic about the prospect of Russia bombing Syria, and I appreciate that in the early days people were hopeful that those bombs were targeted at IS. But even when the media was consistently reporting that the focus of those bombs wasnât actually IS but in fact that Assad opposition and civilians in those areas, you still posted an article that said how much Iraqâs were supportive of the Russian bombs. So at that stage it was natural for me assume you think bombs can/might work. Then more recently, when youâre talking about Western tactics, you state bombs donât work.
My qualifying text more than justified the âBombing rarely solves anythingâ text you quoted, with several historical examples of a bombing campaign being conducted in isolation and failing to make the decisive outcome in war.
More to the point, Russiaâs involvement in Syria is not one of bombing in isolation. Theyâre working in conjunction with forces on the ground, and are re-taking ground, something bombing alone fails to do.
The joint effort is more than costly assassination and rubble-isation.
At this stage, the world needs a political solution, and whether you like him or not, Assad is the legimitate political entity at the moment. Russia are legally invited to assist. Any enthusiasm was at the mere prospect of someone, anyone, making progress.
Youâve diagnosed completely different military scenarios as mere bias against the West, despite the aforementioned qualification.
Which leads me to the conclusion that Papâs view on events is often shaped first by an anti Western Establishment viewpoint, rather than an open minded view on what is or isnât the right approach for a particular scenario.
I can see why youâve reached that conclusion, but itâs not where Iâm coming from. Iâve got a set of values, ironically instilled by the West, that many Western countries have fallen so very far short of.
If you want to tell me Iâm wrong on this, and this isnât your view, Iâm more than happy to accept it on face value.
I thought I qualified my position pretty well in the first place, tbh - and am wondering why you drew the conclusions you did, but we wonât fall out over it.
Iâm going to try and see the better angels in people. Good advice for all, I reckon.
1 Like
Well, fair go, Pap.
I will point out, because I feel I should, that Assad is a murderous dictator. Mustnât forget that detail in all the debate around events being lawful or not. But I donât want to rehash that debate and as Iâve said before, I still donât know whatâs the right way or wrong way to resolve these issues. Iâm generally finding the debate around Syria, Daesh and all things connecting, depressing to say the least. So Iâm stepping politely out of it.
I can see why Lou is confusion cos I read all that and pap does sound like he is ok with Russia bombing bros