The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[kukushkin88]

i think its time to cede that the nhs model of universal health care free at the point of use simply doesnt work.

we just increase demand when you have untrammeled zero cost supply. the is no mechanism to direct treatment to those that would value it most - that's what prices should be doing.

i'm massively in favour of charging for most treatments, especially for conditions that are not massively impactful on quality of life. where to draw the line on cost / what treatments to charge for i'm not sure. but i am sure that having all treatments free of charge is simply not sustainable, nor should we desire it to be.

I largely agree. Surely it’ll be means tested though and some will qualify for free treatment? How will we avoid becoming the American model? (assuming we want to avoid that)

[Woodsey]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/08/austerity-kills-life-expectancy-standstill-britain

From the guy who received the ultimate journalistic accolade, vitriolic/asinine abuse from Woodsey.

Didn't we already cover this?

Yes, cuts to NHS funding will definitely cause some deaths but the alternative is to only ever increase funding at an ever increasing rate - and that's just not possible. In addition to the fact that the level that this is down to austerity and the level that it is down to the same global trend that everywhere else is having is completely unknown.

This article skates over every other country being in the same boat, as it does that the only country that is doing worse than us is the US - who didn't have austerity measures. It also overlooks some salient points like the measure they are using has only been consistently used since the 1980's, a period which encompasses a massive decrease in smoking as well as lead free petrol being introduced (bizarrely he even argues that not many people smoking currently means that smoking can't be the reason why life expectancy isn't increasing as fast when it would seem to me to argue the opposite point).

In a similar way  - yes some of the poor have been affected by austerity, some people have had benefits cut and some of them have taken out extra credit to cover it.

But in almost all the cases we can find evidence for online they are referencing the trial of Universal credit - the trial, so not affecting a significant proportion of the population - and the devastating effects of benefit  changes with figures and percentages are all predictions for when everyone is on it. If the government didn't change anything (some elements have already been changed) and implemented the same thing across the UK to every DWP benefit claimant and if the predictions were accurate - this would be devastating to the poor; but that's not the same as the statement that austerity was already devastating to the poor.

Pretty much all the figures you supply, or are in the link you supply lack context - or don't really show anything useful.

"The ONS said the poorest 10% of UK households spent 250% of what they earnt in financial year ending in 2017."
So what you're saying is - the poor are poor; because that's all that statistic proves.
What was the figure in 2009 (post crash pre austerity), or 2006 (pre crash) - or at a point during earlier recessions? - what is the figure in other countries? The figure by itself is just like the figure saying half of the poorest 20% in society are defaulting on debts - the only thing it shows without context are that the poor are poor.

In summary (on the evidence supplied):
1. austerity has killed people - but the amount is unclear, it's unclear whether austerity had any material effect on life expectancy
2. austerity has affected some poor people - but the amount is unclear, and whether it's enough to move percentage points on a national scale is also unclear
3. Poor people are definitely poor.

Nailed it.

As always the Owen Jones fanboy only posts stuff from google that supports his argument. If he had even bothered to read a couple of articles beyond the result he was looking for on his google search he would have found this also.

https://fullfact.org/health/austerity-120000-unnecessary-deaths/

In fact I’m sure he’s seen it before, but as it casts doubt on the agenda he is pushing he couldn’t be honest enough with himself to post it.

It’s kind of how it works, there are usually two sides to discussions, I put across one side of the argument, everybody else (pretty much) does the other. It would be kind of weird if we all continually tried to refute our own argument. I do try, on my own argument but I don’t find much.

It’s very Donald Trump, you calling someone out for only having an interest in one side of a discussion. Have you read your own posts? I’m not that busy today, I’ll go and find a top 25 most idiotic and one eyed if you’d like?

It’s your Owen Jones way of saying things, like there is simply only one way of doing things, how Could there possibly be another way  

Knock yourself out, there’s no shortage of idiotic and abusive things you have said also....

[Woodsey]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/08/austerity-kills-life-expectancy-standstill-britain

From the guy who received the ultimate journalistic accolade, vitriolic/asinine abuse from Woodsey.

Didn't we already cover this?

Yes, cuts to NHS funding will definitely cause some deaths but the alternative is to only ever increase funding at an ever increasing rate - and that's just not possible. In addition to the fact that the level that this is down to austerity and the level that it is down to the same global trend that everywhere else is having is completely unknown.

This article skates over every other country being in the same boat, as it does that the only country that is doing worse than us is the US - who didn't have austerity measures. It also overlooks some salient points like the measure they are using has only been consistently used since the 1980's, a period which encompasses a massive decrease in smoking as well as lead free petrol being introduced (bizarrely he even argues that not many people smoking currently means that smoking can't be the reason why life expectancy isn't increasing as fast when it would seem to me to argue the opposite point).

In a similar way  - yes some of the poor have been affected by austerity, some people have had benefits cut and some of them have taken out extra credit to cover it.

But in almost all the cases we can find evidence for online they are referencing the trial of Universal credit - the trial, so not affecting a significant proportion of the population - and the devastating effects of benefit  changes with figures and percentages are all predictions for when everyone is on it. If the government didn't change anything (some elements have already been changed) and implemented the same thing across the UK to every DWP benefit claimant and if the predictions were accurate - this would be devastating to the poor; but that's not the same as the statement that austerity was already devastating to the poor.

Pretty much all the figures you supply, or are in the link you supply lack context - or don't really show anything useful.

"The ONS said the poorest 10% of UK households spent 250% of what they earnt in financial year ending in 2017."
So what you're saying is - the poor are poor; because that's all that statistic proves.
What was the figure in 2009 (post crash pre austerity), or 2006 (pre crash) - or at a point during earlier recessions? - what is the figure in other countries? The figure by itself is just like the figure saying half of the poorest 20% in society are defaulting on debts - the only thing it shows without context are that the poor are poor.

In summary (on the evidence supplied):
1. austerity has killed people - but the amount is unclear, it's unclear whether austerity had any material effect on life expectancy
2. austerity has affected some poor people - but the amount is unclear, and whether it's enough to move percentage points on a national scale is also unclear
3. Poor people are definitely poor.

Nailed it.

As always the Owen Jones fanboy only posts stuff from google that supports his argument. If he had even bothered to read a couple of articles beyond the result he was looking for on his google search he would have found this also.

https://fullfact.org/health/austerity-120000-unnecessary-deaths/

In fact I’m sure he’s seen it before, but as it casts doubt on the agenda he is pushing he couldn’t be honest enough with himself to post it.

It’s kind of how it works, there are usually two sides to discussions, I put across one side of the argument, everybody else (pretty much) does the other. It would be kind of weird if we all continually tried to refute our own argument. I do try, on my own argument but I don’t find much.

It’s very Donald Trump, you calling someone out for only having an interest in one side of a discussion. Have you read your own posts? I’m not that busy today, I’ll go and find a top 25 most idiotic and one eyed if you’d like?

It’s your Owen Jones way of saying things, like there is simply only one way of doing things, how Could there possibly be another way?  

Knock yourself out, there’s no shortage of idiotic and abusive things you have said also....

[tikay]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/08/austerity-kills-life-expectancy-standstill-britain

From the guy who received the ultimate journalistic accolade, vitriolic/asinine abuse from Woodsey.

Didn't we already cover this?

Yes, cuts to NHS funding will definitely cause some deaths but the alternative is to only ever increase funding at an ever increasing rate - and that's just not possible. In addition to the fact that the level that this is down to austerity and the level that it is down to the same global trend that everywhere else is having is completely unknown.

This article skates over every other country being in the same boat, as it does that the only country that is doing worse than us is the US - who didn't have austerity measures. It also overlooks some salient points like the measure they are using has only been consistently used since the 1980's, a period which encompasses a massive decrease in smoking as well as lead free petrol being introduced (bizarrely he even argues that not many people smoking currently means that smoking can't be the reason why life expectancy isn't increasing as fast when it would seem to me to argue the opposite point).

In a similar way  - yes some of the poor have been affected by austerity, some people have had benefits cut and some of them have taken out extra credit to cover it.

But in almost all the cases we can find evidence for online they are referencing the trial of Universal credit - the trial, so not affecting a significant proportion of the population - and the devastating effects of benefit  changes with figures and percentages are all predictions for when everyone is on it. If the government didn't change anything (some elements have already been changed) and implemented the same thing across the UK to every DWP benefit claimant and if the predictions were accurate - this would be devastating to the poor; but that's not the same as the statement that austerity was already devastating to the poor.

Pretty much all the figures you supply, or are in the link you supply lack context - or don't really show anything useful.

"The ONS said the poorest 10% of UK households spent 250% of what they earnt in financial year ending in 2017."
So what you're saying is - the poor are poor; because that's all that statistic proves.
What was the figure in 2009 (post crash pre austerity), or 2006 (pre crash) - or at a point during earlier recessions? - what is the figure in other countries? The figure by itself is just like the figure saying half of the poorest 20% in society are defaulting on debts - the only thing it shows without context are that the poor are poor.

In summary (on the evidence supplied):
1. austerity has killed people - but the amount is unclear, it's unclear whether austerity had any material effect on life expectancy
2. austerity has affected some poor people - but the amount is unclear, and whether it's enough to move percentage points on a national scale is also unclear
3. Poor people are definitely poor.

Nailed it.

As always the Owen Jones fanboy only posts stuff from google that supports his argument. If he had even bothered to read a couple of articles beyond the result he was looking for on his google search he would have found this also.

https://fullfact.org/health/austerity-120000-unnecessary-deaths/

In fact I’m sure he’s seen it before, but as it casts doubt on the agenda he is pushing he couldn’t be honest enough with himself to post it.

Woodsey seems an unlikely champion of balanced posting on the forum.

 

Woodsey will be gravely insulted at the suggestion of "balanced".

[Woodsey]

Are we able to work out which is the better indicator of how austerity has devastated the poorest in society?

Bit worried where this question will lead, but I honestly don't know the answer.....

Can you explain how austerity has devastated the poorest in society?

All of my posts yesterday/this morning in this thread are about it. Don’t worry about where the questions will lead. It will lead to the Official for National Stats, the BBC website, maybe the FT/The Times/Guardian and worst case The New Statesman.

and maybe the odd contribution from here:

https://fullfact.org

We shoud all be mindful of potential bias though, even in a website that calls itself ‘FullFact.org’

For Woodsey, this is literally 2 days ago and I regularly caveat what I post with a qualifier that we should be looking out for bias. I expect you think you present a balanced view point?

Aye, maybe you should have posted that in the first place with a qualifier, especially when you post anything from that prick Owen Jones, there’s always going to be a shit load of holes anything that sanctimonious arsehole says.

[Woodsey]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/08/austerity-kills-life-expectancy-standstill-britain

From the guy who received the ultimate journalistic accolade, vitriolic/asinine abuse from Woodsey.

Didn't we already cover this?

Yes, cuts to NHS funding will definitely cause some deaths but the alternative is to only ever increase funding at an ever increasing rate - and that's just not possible. In addition to the fact that the level that this is down to austerity and the level that it is down to the same global trend that everywhere else is having is completely unknown.

This article skates over every other country being in the same boat, as it does that the only country that is doing worse than us is the US - who didn't have austerity measures. It also overlooks some salient points like the measure they are using has only been consistently used since the 1980's, a period which encompasses a massive decrease in smoking as well as lead free petrol being introduced (bizarrely he even argues that not many people smoking currently means that smoking can't be the reason why life expectancy isn't increasing as fast when it would seem to me to argue the opposite point).

In a similar way  - yes some of the poor have been affected by austerity, some people have had benefits cut and some of them have taken out extra credit to cover it.

But in almost all the cases we can find evidence for online they are referencing the trial of Universal credit - the trial, so not affecting a significant proportion of the population - and the devastating effects of benefit  changes with figures and percentages are all predictions for when everyone is on it. If the government didn't change anything (some elements have already been changed) and implemented the same thing across the UK to every DWP benefit claimant and if the predictions were accurate - this would be devastating to the poor; but that's not the same as the statement that austerity was already devastating to the poor.

Pretty much all the figures you supply, or are in the link you supply lack context - or don't really show anything useful.

"The ONS said the poorest 10% of UK households spent 250% of what they earnt in financial year ending in 2017."
So what you're saying is - the poor are poor; because that's all that statistic proves.
What was the figure in 2009 (post crash pre austerity), or 2006 (pre crash) - or at a point during earlier recessions? - what is the figure in other countries? The figure by itself is just like the figure saying half of the poorest 20% in society are defaulting on debts - the only thing it shows without context are that the poor are poor.

In summary (on the evidence supplied):
1. austerity has killed people - but the amount is unclear, it's unclear whether austerity had any material effect on life expectancy
2. austerity has affected some poor people - but the amount is unclear, and whether it's enough to move percentage points on a national scale is also unclear
3. Poor people are definitely poor.

Nailed it.

As always the Owen Jones fanboy only posts stuff from google that supports his argument. If he had even bothered to read a couple of articles beyond the result he was looking for on his google search he would have found this also.

https://fullfact.org/health/austerity-120000-unnecessary-deaths/

In fact I’m sure he’s seen it before, but as it casts doubt on the agenda he is pushing he couldn’t be honest enough with himself to post it.

Woodsey seems an unlikely champion of balanced posting on the forum.

It doesn't really cast doubt.  They find someone that says you can't prove the link for balance, but if you read through my posts on this topic, there is no claim that there is definitive proof.  It is safe to say that it is more likely than not that the reduction in Government spending has caused tens of thousands of deaths that could have been avoided, after all, the data fits that hypothesis very well.  How likely, and exactly how many deaths is likely to remain uncertain.

Not a champion at all, Kuku likes to put out the premise that his opinions are balanced and researched to the nth degree when they aren’t at all....it’s simply his opinion.

Neither are my opinions balanced before you say it, the difference is I don’t try to pretend they are.....

[kukushkin88]

Are we able to work out which is the better indicator of how austerity has devastated the poorest in society?

Bit worried where this question will lead, but I honestly don't know the answer.....

Can you explain how austerity has devastated the poorest in society?

All of my posts yesterday/this morning in this thread are about it. Don’t worry about where the questions will lead. It will lead to the Official for National Stats, the BBC website, maybe the FT/The Times/Guardian and worst case The New Statesman.

and maybe the odd contribution from here:

https://fullfact.org

We shoud all be mindful of potential bias though, even in a website that calls itself ‘FullFact.org’

For Woodsey, this is literally 2 days ago and I regularly caveat what I post with a qualifier that we should be looking out for bias. I expect you think you present a balanced view point?

Aye, maybe you should have posted that in the first place with a qualifier, especially when you post anything from that prick Owen Jones, there’s always going to be a shit load of holes anything that sanctimonious arsehole says.

So I have to qualify/caveat everything I say because you disagree with it? While no one else does? OK, sounds fair

If that’s your view of him. What do you think of yourself? I’ll take Tighty’s word that you’re a good guy, without question. What would we think of you if we formed a view only from what you post here though? Could we maybe cut OJ some slack given that all we know almost nothing about him?

[kukushkin88]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/08/austerity-kills-life-expectancy-standstill-britain

From the guy who received the ultimate journalistic accolade, vitriolic/asinine abuse from Woodsey.

Didn't we already cover this?

Yes, cuts to NHS funding will definitely cause some deaths but the alternative is to only ever increase funding at an ever increasing rate - and that's just not possible. In addition to the fact that the level that this is down to austerity and the level that it is down to the same global trend that everywhere else is having is completely unknown.

This article skates over every other country being in the same boat, as it does that the only country that is doing worse than us is the US - who didn't have austerity measures. It also overlooks some salient points like the measure they are using has only been consistently used since the 1980's, a period which encompasses a massive decrease in smoking as well as lead free petrol being introduced (bizarrely he even argues that not many people smoking currently means that smoking can't be the reason why life expectancy isn't increasing as fast when it would seem to me to argue the opposite point).

In a similar way  - yes some of the poor have been affected by austerity, some people have had benefits cut and some of them have taken out extra credit to cover it.

But in almost all the cases we can find evidence for online they are referencing the trial of Universal credit - the trial, so not affecting a significant proportion of the population - and the devastating effects of benefit  changes with figures and percentages are all predictions for when everyone is on it. If the government didn't change anything (some elements have already been changed) and implemented the same thing across the UK to every DWP benefit claimant and if the predictions were accurate - this would be devastating to the poor; but that's not the same as the statement that austerity was already devastating to the poor.

Pretty much all the figures you supply, or are in the link you supply lack context - or don't really show anything useful.

"The ONS said the poorest 10% of UK households spent 250% of what they earnt in financial year ending in 2017."
So what you're saying is - the poor are poor; because that's all that statistic proves.
What was the figure in 2009 (post crash pre austerity), or 2006 (pre crash) - or at a point during earlier recessions? - what is the figure in other countries? The figure by itself is just like the figure saying half of the poorest 20% in society are defaulting on debts - the only thing it shows without context are that the poor are poor.

In summary (on the evidence supplied):
1. austerity has killed people - but the amount is unclear, it's unclear whether austerity had any material effect on life expectancy
2. austerity has affected some poor people - but the amount is unclear, and whether it's enough to move percentage points on a national scale is also unclear
3. Poor people are definitely poor.

Nailed it.

As always the Owen Jones fanboy only posts stuff from google that supports his argument. If he had even bothered to read a couple of articles beyond the result he was looking for on his google search he would have found this also.

https://fullfact.org/health/austerity-120000-unnecessary-deaths/

In fact I’m sure he’s seen it before, but as it casts doubt on the agenda he is pushing he couldn’t be honest enough with himself to post it.

Woodsey seems an unlikely champion of balanced posting on the forum.

It doesn't really cast doubt.  They find someone that says you can't prove the link for balance, but if you read through my posts on this topic, there is no claim that there is definitive proof.  It is safe to say that it is more likely than not that the reduction in Government spending has caused tens of thousands of deaths that could have been avoided, after all, the data fits that hypothesis very well.  How likely, and exactly how many deaths is likely to remain uncertain.

Not a champion at all, Kuku likes to put out the premise that his opinions are balanced and researched to the nth degree when they aren’t at all....it’s simply his opinion.

Neither are my opinions balanced before you say it, the difference is I don’t try to pretend they are.....

Have you already forgotten your previous post? Shall I quote it again?

[kukushkin88]

3 minutes and 23 seconds apart :-) An actual goldfish would be proud.

[Woodsey]

Are we able to work out which is the better indicator of how austerity has devastated the poorest in society?

Bit worried where this question will lead, but I honestly don't know the answer.....

Can you explain how austerity has devastated the poorest in society?

All of my posts yesterday/this morning in this thread are about it. Don’t worry about where the questions will lead. It will lead to the Official for National Stats, the BBC website, maybe the FT/The Times/Guardian and worst case The New Statesman.

and maybe the odd contribution from here:

https://fullfact.org

We shoud all be mindful of potential bias though, even in a website that calls itself ‘FullFact.org’

For Woodsey, this is literally 2 days ago and I regularly caveat what I post with a qualifier that we should be looking out for bias. I expect you think you present a balanced view point?

Aye, maybe you should have posted that in the first place with a qualifier, especially when you post anything from that prick Owen Jones, there’s always going to be a shit load of holes anything that sanctimonious arsehole says.

So I have to qualify/caveat everything I say because you disagree with it? While no one else does? OK, sounds fair

If that’s your view of him. What do you think of yourself? I’ll take Tighty’s word that you’re a good guy, without question. What would we think of you if we formed a view only from what you post here though? Could we maybe cut OJ some slack given that all we know almost nothing about him?

Not a chance I cut that prick any slack, I’ve read and seen enough of his stuff in recent months to have an opinion. In short he’s the worst type of momentum sanctimonious arsehole.

Post as you wish, your choice. You will notice I don’t have too much to say to people with same opinions as you, its not your opinions that I’m generally replying to its the way you sometimes say it, essentially talking down to people. I’ll keep doing it whoever I see it......

[kukushkin88]

Are we able to work out which is the better indicator of how austerity has devastated the poorest in society?

Bit worried where this question will lead, but I honestly don't know the answer.....

Can you explain how austerity has devastated the poorest in society?

All of my posts yesterday/this morning in this thread are about it. Don’t worry about where the questions will lead. It will lead to the Official for National Stats, the BBC website, maybe the FT/The Times/Guardian and worst case The New Statesman.

and maybe the odd contribution from here:

https://fullfact.org

We shoud all be mindful of potential bias though, even in a website that calls itself ‘FullFact.org’

For Woodsey, this is literally 2 days ago and I regularly caveat what I post with a qualifier that we should be looking out for bias. I expect you think you present a balanced view point?

Aye, maybe you should have posted that in the first place with a qualifier, especially when you post anything from that prick Owen Jones, there’s always going to be a shit load of holes anything that sanctimonious arsehole says.

So I have to qualify/caveat everything I say because you disagree with it? While no one else does? OK, sounds fair

If that’s your view of him. What do you think of yourself? I’ll take Tighty’s word that you’re a good guy, without question. What would we think of you if we formed a view only from what you post here though? Could we maybe cut OJ some slack given that all we know almost nothing about him?

Not a chance I cut that prick any slack, I’ve read and seen enough of his stuff in recent months to have an opinion. In short he’s the worst type of momentum sanctimonious arsehole.

Post as you wish, your choice. You will notice I don’t have too much to say to people with same opinions as you, its not your opinions that I’m generally replying to its the way you sometimes say it, essentially talking down to people. I’ll keep doing it whoever I see it......

I actually am trying, it’s quite an odd phenomenon though, the idea of writing down to people and it is entirely limited to this thread on Blonde. I don’t really know how to fix it or (for certain) that I need to.

[buffyslayer1]

Grunching a bit here. Mark Blyth Rhodes schoaler and some big wig USA professor has quite some work on the financial crisis and the resulting austerity measures. He just released a book called austerity the history of a dangerous idea.

If anyone has read it (prob not just been released) would be good to get a overview of it. I have seen some of his talks where he walks through where it has been done before which we quite good as I was not aware it had been tried before actually.

[kukushkin88]

Grunching a bit here. Mark Blyth Rhodes schoaler and some big wig USA professor has quite some work on the financial crisis and the resulting austerity measures. He just released a book called austerity the history of a dangerous idea.

If anyone has read it (prob not just been released) would be good to get a overview of it. I have seen some of his talks where he walks through where it has been done before which we quite good as I was not aware it had been tried before actually.

I reckon it was reviewed in the FT Weekend. I’ll try and find the review.

[kukushkin88]

Are we able to work out which is the better indicator of how austerity has devastated the poorest in society?

Bit worried where this question will lead, but I honestly don't know the answer.....

Can you explain how austerity has devastated the poorest in society?

All of my posts yesterday/this morning in this thread are about it. Don’t worry about where the questions will lead. It will lead to the Official for National Stats, the BBC website, maybe the FT/The Times/Guardian and worst case The New Statesman.

and maybe the odd contribution from here:

https://fullfact.org

We shoud all be mindful of potential bias though, even in a website that calls itself ‘FullFact.org’

For Woodsey, this is literally 2 days ago and I regularly caveat what I post with a qualifier that we should be looking out for bias. I expect you think you present a balanced view point?

Aye, maybe you should have posted that in the first place with a qualifier, especially when you post anything from that prick Owen Jones, there’s always going to be a shit load of holes anything that sanctimonious arsehole says.

So I have to qualify/caveat everything I say because you disagree with it? While no one else does? OK, sounds fair

If that’s your view of him. What do you think of yourself? I’ll take Tighty’s word that you’re a good guy, without question. What would we think of you if we formed a view only from what you post here though? Could we maybe cut OJ some slack given that all we know almost nothing about him?

Not a chance I cut that prick any slack, I’ve read and seen enough of his stuff in recent months to have an opinion. In short he’s the worst type of momentum sanctimonious arsehole.

Post as you wish, your choice. You will notice I don’t have too much to say to people with same opinions as you, its not your opinions that I’m generally replying to its the way you sometimes say it, essentially talking down to people. I’ll keep doing it whoever I see it......

I actually am trying, it’s quite an odd phenomenon though, the idea of writing down to people and it is entirely limited to this thread on Blonde. I don’t really know how to fix it or (for certain) that I need to.

If I sound confident in my own opinion, it’s because I’ve taken ~25 years to formulate it. Reading hundreds of books, thousands of newspapers (nearly all right wing NP’s, other than when The Independent was a newspaper) and speaking in great detail to dozens of people much cleverer than I am. I started as a slightly sceptical Tory and have become a convinced socialist.

[nirvana]

I like to think of myself as generally left leaning but I think I'm having a crisis.

One of the policies coming forward from the conference last week was 30 hours of free child care for 2,3 & 4 year olds. This will be a universal benefit. If socialism is the language of priorities how can we justify a single penny of our money being given to a couple earning say £200k a year for a benefit like this.

Owen Jones propensity to distill complex matters down to ridiculous bite sized, shock jock, identity based statements of FACT is fkn tiresome