Ed V Dave - 9pm on C4 & Sky News

[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.

You are right, i'm unwilling, there can be no debate if a statement as obvious as...

Executive pay has outstripped average wages and inflation

Is in dispute.

There is a debate about whether this is a good thing or bad thing, but not about its veracity

That's not actually what you said originally but it matters little. If you're not willing to back up statements then really you're unwilling to debate. If you're unwilling to debate then what's the point of even posting the opinions?

 

[worsleyweb]

in a previous thread about a month or two back you were saying how she made you sick, i asked then and I ask again what have you done about it?

I had her shot dead.

For someone who had to rush off to bed early last night and had to be up at 6 am to work all the hours God sends, you seem to have spent a lot of time on this forum today.

About an hour all in on and off mate - been at the desk since 6.45 - and will be here until 7. I can multi task.

 

[worsleyweb]

Dont let facts get in the way of a good opinion mate

simple google search shows 575000 people got disability cars from the government in 2011 up from 200,000 in 2001. 3000 were given to people with naughty children. I don't need one of Damocles lectures to tell my the system was abused. I know 3 people off the top of my head who had nothing wrong with them apart from being fat lazy idle scroungers who got the ford focus.

You should report those people, i encourage that, as my father is severely disabled, he needs round the clock care, if the scroungers were removed from the system, he would get more. He used to have a motorbility car and was assessed for it, far more than he was for his DLA, as he is wheelchair bound and unable to move himself about he was eligible.

My dig about opinions and facts wasnt actually aimed at you. I like the fact you've provided some evidence, always adds weight to an argument.

i appreciate that - i didn't think you were having a dig - just enjoying the debate. A lot of it is common sense in my opinion. There was evident abuse of disability living allowance in the past fifteen years and as Cameron has said a culture of benefits is better than working. People less inclined to work hard took full advantage. people like Rascal cant see that and just call people utter cunts for having a valid opinion. Similarly - the country cant afford a bloated public sector so it needs streamlining and efforts to make it more efficient. These are just two simple examples i have used in the last 24 hours to express my viewpoint as to why i favour the conservatives over labour. i have used anecdotes as examples but i have spent the last ten minutes reading about the abuse of the car allowance on line. Some of the stories are staggering.

 

[Damocles]

Not 100% sure be near certain that the care component of DLA is not that significant but the mobility aspect is.
A car can also be provided to an able bodies person if they are the parent guardian or i think the main carer of a disabled person that meets the criteria with the dexuctions taken from the disabled pedsonz benefit amount

DLA is being phased out to be replaced with PIP now. The care component is about £81 a week where mobility is £56 a week but goes straight to Motability.

What you're talking about in terms of the carer is true. The disabled person is entitled to the car and if unable to drive themselves, can nominate up to two people in a specific radius from their house who can drive it and be covered by their insurance. Usually its their carers.

My point though is that the person is able to drive it because they are nominated by the disabled person who pays for it. The point is so that the disabled person can still have the ability to live their lives out as they normally would without having to suffer through a not fit-for-purpose system of public transport.

Makes a big difference really. Taxi from Mum's house to the local infirmary is about £8 one way and to the main hospital with most of the equipment is about £30 one way. Added in Church which is £4 either way and the town centre which is £5 either way and it adds up a lot. The car is a bit of a Godsend to be honest as she can visit her sisters in Warrington or enjoy a day in the Sun whenever she feels like it. The big thing that these cars do if driven by the full time carer is give her the ability to do things without planning them out days in advance with me or my sister. In turn, we get to work more too and know that she's still living a full life rather than sat cooped up in a terraced house unable to see or go out anywhere.

 

[The perfect fumble]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

I am not right wing, never have been, if fact i am voting green at the next election, the closest thing to a socialist party that is listed in the polls. You are failing to back up your opinion, time and time again, this is adding nothing to the debate, as it is just that at the moment, an opinion, we all have one of those, your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's no matter how much you insist its bleedin obvious. Surely if you have the mentioned links already then it would be a lot simpler to post them up, than typing what you just have. The fact is you wont as you think it is somehow clever or bleedin obvious, it isnt, its actually devaluing your point now. Do us all a favour and post your evidence, as your opinion might have some semblance of a fact then. I want and encourage you to do this as someone who thinks you are probably correct.

In the spirit of one City fan to another....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...TSE-100-firms-on-excessive-executive-pay.html

Vince Cable warns FTSE 100 firms on 'excessive' executive pay

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31686622

Seven-figure salaries damage UK firms' reputation, poll suggests

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16458570

Cameron promises powers to limit executives' pay

http://highpaycentre.org/blog/exces...at-to-business-say-institute-of-directors-mem

Excessive executive pay a threat to business, say Institute of Directors members

http://highpaycentre.org/blog/excessive-executive-pay-is-damaging-the-reputation-of-business

Excessive executive pay is damaging the reputation of business

http://www.uk200group.co.uk/Media/PressComment_26035.aspx

News that excessive executive pay is damaging UK business

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...h-business-say-business-leaders-10080832.html

Excessive executive pay threatens British business, say business leaders

 

[worsleyweb]

Not 100% sure be near certain that the care component of DLA is not that significant but the mobility aspect is.
A car can also be provided to an able bodies person if they are the parent guardian or i think the main carer of a disabled person that meets the criteria with the dexuctions taken from the disabled pedsonz benefit amount

DLA is being phased out to be replaced with PIP now. The care component is about £81 a week where mobility is £56 a week but goes straight to Motability.

What you're talking about in terms of the carer is true. The disabled person is entitled to the car and if unable to drive themselves, can nominate up to two people in a specific radius from their house who can drive it and be covered by their insurance. Usually its their carers.

My point though is that the person is able to drive it because they are nominated by the disabled person who pays for it. The point is so that the disabled person can still have the ability to live their lives out as they normally would without having to suffer through a not fit-for-purpose system of public transport.

Makes a big difference really. Taxi from Mum's house to the local infirmary is about £8 one way and to the main hospital with most of the equipment is about £30 one way. Added in Church which is £4 either way and the town centre which is £5 either way and it adds up a lot. The car is a bit of a Godsend to be honest as she can visit her sisters in Warrington or enjoy a day in the Sun whenever she feels like it. The big thing that these cars do if driven by the full time carer is give her the ability to do things without planning them out days in advance with me or my sister. In turn, we get to work more too and know that she's still living a full life rather than sat cooped up in a terraced house unable to see or go out anywhere.

Great news for your mum. Do you accept that the system may have been abused somewhat?

 

[The perfect fumble]

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.

You are right, i'm unwilling, there can be no debate if a statement as obvious as...

Executive pay has outstripped average wages and inflation

Is in dispute.

There is a debate about whether this is a good thing or bad thing, but not about its veracity

That's not actually what you said originally but it matters little. If you're not willing to back up statements then really you're unwilling to debate. If you're unwilling to debate then what's the point of even posting the opinions?

The full quote is...

Executive pay has outstripped not only average wages and inflation but even share value and profit.

If we're in semantics country I should have stated increases in share value and increases in profit.

 

[TCIB]

The independent seems to think they are both shooting blanks going of yesterdays political cartoon image.

 

[blue cigar]

I tell you what,some people on here really really like to drone on with this "look at me" drivel. Fukin test that.

 

[Damocles]

Not 100% sure be near certain that the care component of DLA is not that significant but the mobility aspect is.
A car can also be provided to an able bodies person if they are the parent guardian or i think the main carer of a disabled person that meets the criteria with the dexuctions taken from the disabled pedsonz benefit amount

DLA is being phased out to be replaced with PIP now. The care component is about £81 a week where mobility is £56 a week but goes straight to Motability.

What you're talking about in terms of the carer is true. The disabled person is entitled to the car and if unable to drive themselves, can nominate up to two people in a specific radius from their house who can drive it and be covered by their insurance. Usually its their carers.

My point though is that the person is able to drive it because they are nominated by the disabled person who pays for it. The point is so that the disabled person can still have the ability to live their lives out as they normally would without having to suffer through a not fit-for-purpose system of public transport.

Makes a big difference really. Taxi from Mum's house to the local infirmary is about £8 one way and to the main hospital with most of the equipment is about £30 one way. Added in Church which is £4 either way and the town centre which is £5 either way and it adds up a lot. The car is a bit of a Godsend to be honest as she can visit her sisters in Warrington or enjoy a day in the Sun whenever she feels like it. The big thing that these cars do if driven by the full time carer is give her the ability to do things without planning them out days in advance with me or my sister. In turn, we get to work more too and know that she's still living a full life rather than sat cooped up in a terraced house unable to see or go out anywhere.

Great news for your mum. Do you accept that the system may have been abused somewhat?

Yes, as I said in my original post I was correcting facts and didn't post any opinion on how the system is often exploited if at all. I think the system is very much open to exploitation if people are willing to lie their way through. Though my problem with this is that I don't know exactly what we can do about it.

I'm reminded of an episode of House, funnily enough, where he's talking to student Doctors about the idea of identifying the difference between drug seeking behaviours and legitimate patients. In it he basically said that drug seeking behaviour works because they mimic what legitimate pain patients go through and would people rather risk giving druggies a fix then risk not giving a patient in legitimate pain an injection.

In cases of things like suspected child abuse, there's definitely an edge of wanting to remove first, ask questions later too as they essentially make a gambit.

I have no doubt that social workers assessing patients have similar issues though they are very good at checking everything with GPs. So it's a system of passing the buck; the Doctor doesn't want to call someone a liar so says their walking ability is what they say it is, the social worker sees the notes from the Doctor confirming somebody can't walk correctly and all of a sudden they have DLA Mobility. Not quite as easy as that and some bits left out but you get the gist of it.

People who really, really don't want to work with always find someway to exploit those of us who do and we should be working together to track them down. If I was you, I'd definitely report anybody who was gaming the system. My Mum is disabled and needs the car, 100 visits from a social worker and surveillance isn't going to change that and she has nothing to hide. They tend to be nice people as well and she'd probably enjoy the opportunity for a chinwag with somebody new to be honest.