Ed V Dave - 9pm on C4 & Sky News

[Rascal]

Can any of the class warrior , politics of envy , point and tax , life's not fair types explain to me what it feels like hating people because they earn more money than you?

Can any of you and your right wing pals tell me why they inflict class war on the poor, why they envy so much a person who exists on welfare and why they try so hard to not pay a fair share of tax. Why when they earn so much do they hate so much, why is that hate always aimed at the poor and minorities. Why do they always back privilige and old school tie over intelligence and why oh why are there people like you who back them to keep there priviliged place in society. Are you a sheep?

Because some (not all) of the poor are lazy bastads.
Under labour how many lazy idle bastads were driving around in free disability cars? Too many.
I earn more because I graft more and spent years studying whilst having a bar job, window cleaning round and labouring job until I was qualified to get paid more - its not rocket science.

You must have an anecdote for that surely.

Do you even realise the concept of a free disability car? You are a fucking halfwit lad, no thats unfair to halfwits you are a quarter wit.

I could not give two fucks how much you earn, yet you resent disabled people being able to have some personal freedom. You utter ****.

 

[Damocles]

I have no need, I know it to be true. Look at it this way, just to amuse myself I bashed in to Google search executive pay, chose the UK and all articles from the last 12 months, and up popped page after page of Vince Cable babbling on about exorbitant pay, unjustified bonus payments, shareholder revolts and statistics showing of how over the last few decades executive pay has ballooned both in absolute terms and in comparison to average earnings, it's is as plain as the nose on your face.

Put another way, if I say Agüero is paid more, by any standards of measurement, than Paul Lake ever was, is there a question mark over that because I don't post an external link? No, because it is self evidently true.

You don't seem to be taking this onboard.

This isn't self evident. You know this because your self was challenged to show evidence and is seemingly unwilling or unable.

 

[worsleyweb]

Can any of you and your right wing pals tell me why they inflict class war on the poor, why they envy so much a person who exists on welfare and why they try so hard to not pay a fair share of tax. Why when they earn so much do they hate so much, why is that hate always aimed at the poor and minorities. Why do they always back privilige and old school tie over intelligence and why oh why are there people like you who back them to keep there priviliged place in society. Are you a sheep?

Because some (not all) of the poor are lazy bastads.
Under labour how many lazy idle bastads were driving around in free disability cars? Too many.
I earn more because I graft more and spent years studying whilst having a bar job, window cleaning round and labouring job until I was qualified to get paid more - its not rocket science.

You must have an anecdote for that surely.

Do you even realise the concept of a free disability car? You are a fucking halfwit lad, no thats unfair to halfwits you are a quarter wit.

I could not give two fucks how much you earn, yet you resent disabled people being able to have some personal freedom. You utter c**t.

My aunt got one of those cars - she was a lazy bastad - went on days out every single day for years buying crap and had a good lifestyle. She wasn't disabled - she was / is a piss taker like thousands of others who got the free ford focus. She simply milked the system like thousands of others. Now our government is assessing who really needs them. I hope my piss taking aunty gets her shiny car taken off her and has to get a job.

 

[law74]

Because some (not all) of the poor are lazy bastads.
Under labour how many lazy idle bastads were driving around in free disability cars? Too many.
I earn more because I graft more and spent years studying whilst having a bar job, window cleaning round and labouring job until I was qualified to get paid more - its not rocket science.

You must have an anecdote for that surely.

Do you even realise the concept of a free disability car? You are a fucking halfwit lad, no thats unfair to halfwits you are a quarter wit.

I could not give two fucks how much you earn, yet you resent disabled people being able to have some personal freedom. You utter c**t.

My aunt got one of those cars - she was a lazy bastad - went on days out every single day for years buying crap and had a good lifestyle. She wasn't disabled - she was / is a piss taker like thousands of others who got the free ford focus. She simply milked the system.

Yet again I will ask, what have you done about her?

 

[Paul Lake's Left Knee]

I was taught that facts can be proved, opinions cant.

Dont really want to jump in on the perfect fumble bashing, but if it is so evident as he claims, it would be quicker for him to provide some (or even any) proof than feebly arguing a negative as he is. I would have thought a debating champion of his stature would have no trouble backing up his claims if he was so inclined, as he clearly isnt, I think he's on the wind up.

 

[Mustard Dave]

Can any of you and your right wing pals tell me why they inflict class war on the poor, why they envy so much a person who exists on welfare and why they try so hard to not pay a fair share of tax. Why when they earn so much do they hate so much, why is that hate always aimed at the poor and minorities. Why do they always back privilige and old school tie over intelligence and why oh why are there people like you who back them to keep there priviliged place in society. Are you a sheep?

Because some (not all) of the poor are lazy bastads.
Under labour how many lazy idle bastads were driving around in free disability cars? Too many.
I earn more because I graft more and spent years studying whilst having a bar job, window cleaning round and labouring job until I was qualified to get paid more - its not rocket science.

You must have an anecdote for that surely.

Do you even realise the concept of a free disability car? You are a fucking halfwit lad, no thats unfair to halfwits you are a quarter wit.

I could not give two fucks how much you earn, yet you resent disabled people being able to have some personal freedom. You utter c**t.

Fortunately some of us have the brains to realise he was referring to the feckless arseholes who fiddle the system than those with a genuine need. I fully support the idea of providing transport for disabled people who need it, but there are plenty who take the piss. I know a woman who is an amputee with a prosthetic leg. If you saw her walking, you would never know she had it. She doesn't work, but has a Motability car. She spends every day working at the stables and every evening pissing it up in the pub. I'm pretty sure this is the type of idle bastard he is referring to.

 

[worsleyweb]

Because some (not all) of the poor are lazy bastads.
Under labour how many lazy idle bastads were driving around in free disability cars? Too many.
I earn more because I graft more and spent years studying whilst having a bar job, window cleaning round and labouring job until I was qualified to get paid more - its not rocket science.

You must have an anecdote for that surely.

Do you even realise the concept of a free disability car? You are a fucking halfwit lad, no thats unfair to halfwits you are a quarter wit.

I could not give two fucks how much you earn, yet you resent disabled people being able to have some personal freedom. You utter c**t.

Fortunately some of us have the brains to realise he was referring to the feckless arseholes who fiddle the system than those with a genuine need. I fully support the idea of providing transport for disabled people who need it, but there are plenty who take the piss. I know a woman who is an amputee with a prosthetic leg. If you saw her walking, you would never know she had it. She doesn't work, but has a Motability car. She spends every day working at the stables and every evening pissing it up in the pub. I'm pretty sure this is the type of idle bastard he is referring to.

Exactly - thank you - if someone is genuinely disabled no problem. I would guess 50% of those with the shiny cars were piss takers.

 

[worsleyweb]

You must have an anecdote for that surely.

Do you even realise the concept of a free disability car? You are a fucking halfwit lad, no thats unfair to halfwits you are a quarter wit.

I could not give two fucks how much you earn, yet you resent disabled people being able to have some personal freedom. You utter c**t.

My aunt got one of those cars - she was a lazy bastad - went on days out every single day for years buying crap and had a good lifestyle. She wasn't disabled - she was / is a piss taker like thousands of others who got the free ford focus. She simply milked the system.

Yet again I will ask, what have you done about her?

Yet again? I never saw you ask in the first place.

 

[Damocles]

My aunt got one of those cars - she was a lazy bastad - went on days out every single day for years buying crap and had a good lifestyle. She wasn't disabled - she was / is a piss taker like thousands of others who got the free ford focus. She simply milked the system.

Firstly, Motability funded by DLA requires some of the most stringent checks of all and you need to be on the highest rate of DLA to receive it which means you need round the clock care from a personal assistant and/or are terminally ill. The new system of PIP is even more stringent, to the point where many social workers are worried about the mobility aspect.

Secondly, you don't get a free Ford Focus you get a range of choices suited to your current disability needs. Many of these require an up front payment, my Mum's was two grand on a Qashqai.

Thirdly, I seem to recall that Motability is funded by contributions out of the benefits of the disabled person - that they get about £50 a week less if they take the car over not taking the car though couldn't swear by it. They essentially rent the car and pay for any damage or wear and tear when the lease expires.

Not to inject any particular opinion, just a fact provision

 

[The perfect fumble]

No it isn't, because that is plainly false, it's gibberish.

That's sort of the point.

5 x 5 = 25 is correct.
5 x 5 = 200 is wrong.
5 x 5 = purple is not even wrong.

Not even wrong denotes when something doesn't follow the ideas of testable hypothesis. 5 x 5 = 25 is testable and correct. 5 x 5 = 200 is testable and incorrect. 5 x 5 = purple is not testable thus not even incorrect, it's just as you so rightly point out, gibberish.

Now, when you say "Executive pay has ballooned, with little or no connection to performance!" it is untestable as it lacks specifics so a source is required to provide a testable hypothesis to then test. Otherwise it fails to even stand as correct or incorrect.

If I make a statement, such as I got up this morning and SWP states prove it? Do I have to? No.

Well you don't HAVE to prove anything but it is an accepted idea that two people who are debating over a point should be able and willing to challenge each others views, which involves showing your working. Otherwise you're just blogging to an audience and not actually debating anything.

If I say executive pay has outstripped average earnings, inflation and productivity and SWP demands that I prove it and I don't, that is my choice, I believe it to be self evidently true and willing to leave it at that, if SWP continues to demand I prove it, some might believe I'm unwilling to prove my case, fine, the fact I believe it to be self evidently true is enough for me, but not for him, well I don't care but clearly he does, but not enough it would seem to refute it, which is interesting.

It's fine to be self evidently true to you, though I'd argue that that is a mistake in itself but it's your decision to make that mistake and it's only harming you. But the point is that you're not talking to a mirror, you're talking to a bunch of other people who hold similar and differing opinions to you. There's no reason for anybody to believe anything that you say, or that I say, or that SWP says because we haven't established the expert knowledge in an area through the production of that expertise in a source.

Your point seems to be "I can believe anything that I want", and it's true that you can but on the flip side other people can also challenge your beliefs whenever they want and think less of you if you cannot back them up with anything more than your own feelings. Especially in this specific case when you made a claim that appears to the reader to have some sort of studied knowledge behind it.

In the cut and thrust of debate one sometimes uses external sources to back up an argument and sometime you do not. Statements about gravity don't always quote Newton and statements on the solar system don't always quote Galileo.

No they don't. But when somebody asks you to back up your assertion about the rules of motion, you have the ability to do so. That's what the problem is here, you've said something in an argument and nobody has any ability to back it up because you're unwilling to divulge how it is that you know this which is all the production of a source actually is.

SWP has posted god knows how many times since my original statement full of false indignation. If I'm the fucking idiot and my argument without foundation then let him destroy it, the fact he'll do anything but speaks volumes.

You don't have an argument to destroy. That's why he is full of indignation. If you explain your argument then he can either destroy it or admit that there's merit to it. The problem is that you haven't produced an argument but seem to be under the impression that you have and it's unable to be argued. You've produced words that look like an argument if you squint. Without any sources to back up the positive claims you have made then there is nothing to destroy.

Of course I have an argument to destroy, this is the original post....

I suspect you like me are on PAYE, maybe with a small bonus element maybe not, so we couldn't abuse the system even if we wanted to. Executive pay has outstripped not only average wages and inflation but even share value and profit. Put simply executives are awarding themselves increases that bear no relationship to performance. Even when performance is related to increased shareholder value this all too often leads to short termism that temporarily boosts the share value, which is then cashed in to the long lasting damage of the company and wider shareholders (not to mention stakeholders like employees).

Legislation to prevent this abuse of the system not only makes economic sense it would be welcomed by many share holders who see executives ripping off companies at their expense.

Your opinion of it, its lack of external links the varacity of my argument, you might consider it nonsense, fine, have at it, but do have at it


Take this one point.....

Executive pay has outstripped average wages and inflation

I have have loads of links to back this up, so why do I not post them? Simple, just as I believe inequality has increased in this country and food bank use has risen in this country, how suicides have increased and the productivity gap is still terrible compared to our competitors, I believe these things to be what my late dad used to call the "bleedin obvious" and these points are not debating points, they're givens, they're lauch pads for discussion.

Right wingers seem to love disputing the "bleedin obvious" Why? Because it stiffles debate, they muddy the waters by refusing to accept there is even a topic to talk about, so we don't address excessive executive pay because, despite all the moutains of evidence, they dispute a problem exists, or if they do, they set up a Commision to look at the evidence (not the problem mind) and they'll get back to us in five years, or never.

Left wingers are tired of having to justify the bleedin obvious, if SWP cries foul then fine but it's not because he doesn't have a point to answer, it is because he can't.