GRcade

Moggy wrote:We are in a time of relative prosperity and yet people voted for Brexit and Trump.

Are we really though? What with the recession, austerity, etc, it certainly doesn't feel like it.

Drumstick wrote:

Moggy wrote:We are in a time of relative prosperity and yet people voted for Brexit and Trump.

Are we really though? What with the recession, austerity, etc, it certainly doesn't feel like it.

As I replied to OR, when have we been more prosperous? The only time I can think of is the late 90s/early 00s, but that wasn't really prosperity, that was sticking everything on the credit card.

I am not saying everyone is well off or that the streets are paved with gold. Lots of people have it very tough at the moment. But have people ever really been much better off?

May only wants it to pass unammended because she's a stone cold banana split who's so far up her own arse she can see out her mouth.

This bitch is going to be worse than Thatcher. Women shouldn't be prime minister is my sexist but totally fair conclusion.

Blue Eyes wrote:This bitch is going to be worse than Thatcher. Tories shouldn't be prime minister is my class warrior but totally fair conclusion.

FTFY.

Blue Eyes wrote:This bitch is going to be worse than Thatcher. Women shouldn't be prime minister is my sexist but totally fair conclusion.

Thing is - I think Thatcher was actually compotent.

May doesn't seem that - she just seems hard head/belligerent and thinking that makes her "a leader"

Moggy wrote:Well it all comes down to what you mean by relative and we can all pick and choose eras. The late 90s/early 00s was a 10 year period where the world built up vast amount of debt and then it came crashing down on us.

Wages and public services have been cut, but are people actually any worse off than they have been in other eras in history? Are we worse off than people living in the early 20th or in the 19th century (or earlier?). Are we worse off than those in the post war generation? Are things worse than in the 70s when we had a 3 day week? The 80s when we had several recessions or the early 90s when we continued to have financial hardships and lack of investment in the public sector?

Name me the time in Britain when people were worse off than now and voted for more extreme measures than we are currently seeing

I don't think it's a static measure, and it's also in the context of recent living memory.

Increasing standards of living are an expected result of cultural, scientific and technological progress. When living standards stagnate or even drop for the majority despite the fact that scientific and technological progress is continuing at an ever quickening pace then their is understandable dissatisfaction. It feels unfair that the cumulative progress of society is only improving the life of those at the top. When we have high social mobility and lower inequality everything feels more fair and most people feel like they are benefiting or can benefit from society. At the moment we have high (and widening) inequality with falling social mobility. This contrasts against the turn of the millennium, the post war period and the beginning of the 20th century.

So I think I would describe those as eras of relative prosperity because of that positive trend in living standards, equality and social mobility. It's not an absolute measure of prosperity but a measure of how it is changing.

The question is not necessarily about whether the developed world is more prosperous or not. The question is why, when productivity has been so massively improved over the last few decades by a diligent and adaptable workforce, have those same workers seen so little of the resulting growth? Capitalism came to be the dominant system in the world because it delivered the promise of rising prosperity in return for effort. The fact that workers are being expected to constantly do more with less and get paid pennies more as a reward is throwing that consensus into a crisis. Most people have stopped giving a gooseberry fool about growth forecast because most of the rewards of that growth go to the top 20% of the population whilst the bottom 20% have actually seen a downturn. All evidence shows that wages have 'decoupled' from growth and one does not necessarily relate to the other any more.

People are being asked to work harder for no personal benefit so it's hardly surprising that they furious at the establishment.

As far as I can see the main thing that changed since this trend began was the collapse of the Soviet Union. Perhaps without having any ideological opposition the capitalists decided they no longer had to honour their end of the bargain? Maybe they believed all that bollocks about the "end of history" and decided they could just exploit the proletariat without mercy because "there is no alternative"?

Hexx wrote:We're never going to agree.

You're right, we aren't.

Your view of the whole situation is so totally polarised, which shouldn't be much of a surprise after the campaign and the fallout from it, or the general tone even in this thread, most of the time. I understand your desire to see leave voters suffer as a consequence of their actions, I just don't believe that's either a good thing, or that they would even deserve it.

Qikz wrote:May only wants it to pass unammended because she's a stone cold banana split who's so far up her own arse she can see out her mouth.

Spot on Stay Dead.

Blue Eyes wrote:This bitch is going to be worse than Thatcher. Women shouldn't be prime minister is my sexist but totally fair conclusion.

Unfortunately I think you may be right. The power they know hold seems to go to there head.

Dinoric wrote:

Blue Eyes wrote:This bitch is going to be worse than Thatcher. Women shouldn't be prime minister is my sexist but totally fair conclusion.

Unfortunately I think you may be right. The power they know hold seems to go to there head.

Or, you know, people with short hair shouldn't be Prime Minister as both May and Thatcher had short hair.

This has got strawberry float all to do with gender.

Dinoric wrote:

Blue Eyes wrote:This bitch is going to be worse than Thatcher. Women shouldn't be prime minister is my sexist but totally fair conclusion.

Unfortunately I think you may be right. The power they know hold seems to go to there head.

Yeah, male politicians would never make bad decisions.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Dinoric wrote:

Blue Eyes wrote:This bitch is going to be worse than Thatcher. Women shouldn't be prime minister is my sexist but totally fair conclusion.

Unfortunately I think you may be right. The power they know hold seems to go to there head.

Or, you know, people with short hair shouldn't be Prime Minister as both May and Thatcher had short hair.

This has got strawberry float all to do with gender.

I don't get how someone can believe that kind of utterly shameful horseshit.

Dinoric wrote:

Blue Eyes wrote:This bitch is going to be worse than Thatcher. Women shouldn't be prime minister is my sexist but totally fair conclusion.

Unfortunately I think you may be right. The power they know hold seems to go to there head.

As people who have both posted to deride the beliefs that many leave voters have about people from other countries, this view is particularly astounding.

Dinoric wrote:

Blue Eyes wrote:This bitch is going to be worse than Thatcher. Women shouldn't be prime minister is my sexist but totally fair conclusion.

Unfortunately I think you may be right. The power they know hold seems to go to there head.

That's a bit harsh, I think it probably more Conservative women shouldn't be PM, we have no proof a non-tory would also be a banana split.

twitter.com/NoToFeminism/status/564764588986494976

Nicola Sturgeon seems to be pretty decent as politicians go. I think your problem is them being conservatives than being women

Errkal wrote:

Dinoric wrote:

Blue Eyes wrote:This bitch is going to be worse than Thatcher. Women shouldn't be prime minister is my sexist but totally fair conclusion.

Unfortunately I think you may be right. The power they know hold seems to go to there head.

That's a bit harsh, I think it probably more Conservative women shouldn't be PM, we have no proof a non-tory would also be a banana split.

I dunno....that Angela Eagle...

Prime Minister Theresa May has called on her fellow Conservatives to continue "loudly and clearly" putting the case for the "precious Union" of the UK.

During a speech to the Scottish Tory conference in Glasgow she said "we are four nations, but at heart one people".

Mrs May had earlier criticised the SNP-led government at Holyrood for having tunnel vision over a second Scottish independence referendum.

The PM insisted that "logic and facts" were on the side of the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-s ... s-39151250

Yeah but logic and facts don't always stop people destroying a union does it Theresa?

"enduring" economic strengths of the UK linked to its integrated domestic market for businesses meaning "no barriers to trade within our borders".

Yeah no barriers to trade would be a good idea Theresa.