prawnsambo wrote: » It's not that hard. You can use the search facility on Twitter to look for certain keywords in tweets to a particular handle. I could do it for you now, but I'd have to charge you.
Folkstonian wrote: » Diane Abbott gets a lot of attention and scrutiny because she is wheeled out by Labour for television and radio probably more than any other member of the shadow cabinet - I can’t think of another female politician other than the PM who does quite as much media work as her. My personal view is that she is uniquely unfit for office, based on some of her quite unpalatable views, her apparent inability to grasp basic issues, her lack of communication or leadership skills and so on. Nothing to do with her ethnic background or her gender. I think most of the ‘abuse’ she receives focuses purely on her politics - as I have done there - and people shouldn’t ever be rebuked for criticising the political statements and positions of elected politicians Where it crosses the line from political criticism and becomes a personal attack on her ethnicity, then absolutely it becomes a real problem and possibly even a hate crime, but I’m not convinced that most of that 40% of all criticism for female MPs that goes towards Abbott does indeed cross that line. If that’s not the case I’m always happy to be enlightened, but that’s personally what I see as the difference between a lot of the abuse copped by Luciana Berger, Margaret Hodge etc.. and Abbott
Havockk wrote: » This is nothing but thinly disguised racism. If no one else wants to call it out I will.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Well I wasn't there but the most important thing for workers would be wage growth and well, it was better than the 2010s and the 2000s.
"Globalisation and technology may have changed the relation between growth, labour markets and inflation in a way that challenges the existing monetary policy frameworks," notes Barclays head of economic research, Christian Keller. The famous Phillips Curve, which dictates that declining unemployment will ultimately trigger wage inflation, is flattening out. Consequently, interest rates are much lower than historic norms. In the US, Bernanke says the emergence of China as a global trading power was particularly disruptive, with adverse effects on the wages and employment opportunities of many American workers of moderate or lower skills.
prawnsambo wrote: » I've only seen her a few times on TV, but I wouldn't be impressed with her grasp of detail. But to be fair, that's a pretty low bar when you think of geniuses like Raab, Davis and of course our perennial favourite Nadine Dorries. I'm not including JRM or Johnson in that list because I don't know whether to be generous and call them a bit dumb or blatantly disingenuous.
markodaly wrote: » Diane Abbott is comes across terribly on TV, and she is always a second away from making a gaff. Why Labour put her forward all the time for media appearances baffles me.
Folkstonian wrote: » I just think that politicians, especially those who aspire to the ‘great offices of state’ need to have a certain sharpness and authority to them. They need to be able to walk into a meeting room full of civil servants, or address the public in front of a television camera, and be able to deliver the message with a high degree of confidence. I don’t see it with Diane Abbott and I never have. She’s generally slow, ponderous, and very light on any actual substance. The ‘10 thousand coppers at 30 pounds a head’ debacle before the last general election was a bit of a case in point. You mention the likes of Raab and Rees-Mogg and I agree to an extent, but even they (on a good day) can deliver a punchy, often relatively compelling message and look, at least for a few minutes like they know what they are doing. This is all before you get to things like her defence of Mao, her comments about Finnish nurses, West Indian mums, white people playing divide and conquer.. and so on. She honestly doesn’t seem like a particularly switched on, or particularly pleasant person. I get that she was a trailblazer for women of colour back in the 80s, and her place in labour history is assured for that reason. But is she really the best they have to offer in the here and now for the job of shadow home sec? I just can’t see how she can be.
markodaly wrote: » In other words, globalisation is THE biggest factor in determining wage growth in the West. Another factor would be record level of inward migration. (The 70's had net emigration), but no one wants to talk about that factoid. The rise of automation, technology also raises productivity without the wage growth of yesteryear. In other words, its complex.https://www.afr.com/news/economy/weak-wages-caused-by-technology-globalisation-20170709-gx7hts
Water John wrote: » OP better come up with a different Post Head or indent an updateable number. Three Conservatives may jump also, whether they stay as a separate group, isn't known.
Harry Palmr wrote: » Keir Starmer is just waiting to take over, Corbyn's inner circle doesn't want to give him any more screen time than possible. Another Labour party MP has quithttps://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1097980352008765440
markodaly wrote: » This is hilarious on your part.
You ignored all the points I made regarding the malaise of the 70's in the UK and the 'Britsh Disease', you pick one metric and base your opinion on that therefore the 70's were better because of that one metric.
On, wage growth, to compare the world economy of this decade to the 70's is a very clear cut example of wanton disregard of the facts and reality.
During this decade, China was still cut off from the world where its economy was still largely agrarian and feudal. It was only in the late 80's that they really started to drop the Marxism/Maoism and adopt a more practical approach to growth. When China woke up, it changed everything.
In other words, globalisation is THE biggest factor in determining wage growth in the West.
Another factor would be record level of inward migration. (The 70's had net emigration), but no one wants to talk about that factoid.
The rise of automation, technology also raises productivity without the wage growth of yesteryear. In other words, its complex.
If you don't want to engage in the reality of now versus the 70's, thats fine.
But dont engage in Trumpian soundbites of making the 'UK great again' and expect not to be called out on it.
Harry Palmr wrote: » Keir Starmer is just waiting to take over, Corbyn's inner circle doesn't want to give him any more screen time than possible.
Water John wrote: » The pro Corbyn guy interviewed on Newsnight was asked about the risk to 100 LB MPs of being deselected and he was completely unfazed. This looks like the beginning of a purge within LB. If you're not a Corbynite, you're out. Anyone who feels under this threat will jump.
Harry Palmr wrote: » Ruth George really helping the split.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47296591
Water John wrote: » I'm not saying any number but the attitude of the MP was staggering in it's consequence.
Havockk wrote: » Western investors didn't like inflation for in their eyes it hit their profits so they essentially went on strike in the 70's which caused the downturn.
Then comes neo-liberalism, everything was let loose and because investors didn't like inflation they set out to control it. Now globalisation comes into play (it's a factor, not a cause) which essentially upsets local labour power and disenfranchises swathes of people as they watch their jobs depart overseas to where wages are lower. However, the sting in the tail is Thatcher is now in power and she refuses to lift a finger to help the millions of her own people she has now disenfranchised. She believes the market will solve the problem.
Now here we are, wages have not risen since the 70's in real terms.
No one is trying to fix this and the Indy Group want to keep this status quo? They don't even understand the problem.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » The most important metric.
You just didn’t like those facts.
The 70s were better for workers in the UK than now. That was my initial claim. I then proved the claim with stats.
You don’t have a rebuttal so it’s just a list of excuses. If it is true that China is the reason that wages in the west are stagnating (and I don’t disagree that it’s a factor) then one of the shibboleths of free market theology is incorrect. Globalisation and trade were supposed to lift all boats.
Again that might be true but economics claims migration, open borders and free trade are what makes us richer.
Productivity should increase wages in real terms if distributed evenly. After all more stuff is being produced. And again this is arguing against another free market shibboleth - that technology raises living standards.
I’m not sure that Trump has anything to do with my position given that, like you, he is a free market fanatic.
judeboy101 wrote: » To me it seems that anything anti-Zionist is now conflated with anti-semitic. Not all jews are zionists and not all zionists are jews.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/284f2526e18ff7e4c08066f9ed850ed0.svg)
