Snap. We're already living in a country that is obsesses with what they can get for free or cheap and he's starting off a whole generation in politics thinking it's all about who can offer the best freebies. Incredibly short sighted to think this is the way to go and what attitude it'll create when Corbyn is long gone and other politicians have to pick up his mess. If you can only get people interested in politics by offering free stuff then I think we're better off without them having an interest.

Was that the same Edwina Currie who said that that there wasn't a problem with child poverty in the UK and cited increased numbers of child obesity to "back up" her comment.

I think it's best that we realise that many Tory MP's (and some Labour MP's) just dont live in the real world, which is particularly dangerous when they are asked to solve issues, without the slightest bit of understanding of those problems.

It's probably why they were happy to cut disability benefits, because it wont affect them !

To be a competent MP you therefore need to have kids, experienced poverty, be disabled............ What utter nonsense.



Maybe you could talk us through Jezzas non political experiences which make him so competent. (Leave the private schooling, never worked outside of Parliament, brought up in a wealthy home, earns £100+k etc)

What an inane comment. If you distill your argument to the extreme, you would be happy with a few warlords or whatever they might be taking all the wealth 99.9999999% living at subsistence level - in other words like a very bad case of Communism. Any robust, successful, democratic society / nation can only survive by co-operation and the question becomes how the government tweaks the fiscal system and law to arrive at a working, reasonable and 'fair' distribution of wealth and resources. The current situation is unsustainable and so thinking needs to change. As a writer (in I think the right-wing press) wrote after (!) Corbyn had lost the recent election - he could not see what all the panic and fuss was about Corbyn's very modest, democratic socialist manifesto had been.

So, you're ok with predominantly white, male, privately educated MP, many of whom haven't experienced life outside the Education system and the Westminster "bubble".



6 of the 23 cabinet are women, call that a quarter and 15 are white middle aged privately educated men, that's really diverse isn't it.

Labour, at least, have a 50/50 male/female split and they certainly have a far more diverse range of people.



When politics is becoming further and further detached from society in general and with many people disillusioned by the whole political process, it would certainly help if some of our representatives were a little more "representative" or, do you think that we should all be told what to do by the "ruling class".

Not really sure how you get your first few lines from what I posted. I do actually agree that the current situation needs changing but going from one extreme to another isn't the solution. Having Corbyn become PM would be like trying to stop a chip pan fire by throwing water on it. That isn't the solution and neither is he.

I don't see how you work that out; there is quite some evidence that his policies work - plenty of countries are run on socialistic principles and rub along quite nicely - Finland for example, is consistently reported as having the highest living standards in the world. Add to that list Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Denmark - capitalist countries, but with strong welfare programmes based on a desire to create equality.



The issue in the UK is with mindset - this country is firmly in the grip of a serf-like belief that the ruling elite are entitled to govern, that the only thing that matters is oneself, and that anyone who is prepared to support policies that don't directly benefit themselves, is a raving lefty; such qualities are so alien to the establishment, that they are used as insults - champagne socialist, liberal elite etc.



We are victims of a class based system that is reinforced by the billionaire owned MSM; wealthy politicians act in the interest of their wealthy friends, supported by their wealthy media, who manage to persuade people in who's interest they will never act, that crumbs from the table are better than the alternative. And it's obviously in the interest of the ruling class to maintain the status quo - hence the rabid and shameful smearing of anyone who threatens that status quo. The only hope is that social media has levelled the playing field somewhat - so when politicians and the MSM collude to lie to the people, it can be much more quickly uncovered and exposed.



There is a glimmer of hope that younger people are seeing through the inequities of the current paradigm in this country, and will demand change; I certainly hope that happens.

We aren't Finland though are we. The idea that just because something's works in one country it would here is politically naive. And why? You answered it yourself... the mindset. It isn't right but think you can go from piece about the elite to far left in one swift move with our countries current issues including Brexit is again naive. Maybe they'll be a day when a government led by someone like Corbyn could work, but Britain 2017 isn't that time.



Also a lot of stereotyping guff in what you wrote. Isn't as black and white as your world where every Tory and Tory voter is just a money grabbing, self obsessed grub who doesn't give a damn about others and can only possibly come to vote Tory because they are brainwashed by the media. You also can't accuse them of acting in self interest without it being hypocritical considering Labour got votes through offering free stuff. Is it ok for Labour voters to vote with their bank balance in mind but not Tories?



And whilst MSM is far from great, praising Social Media as some sort of beacon for hope and truth is truely laughable. It's as full of rubbish and lies as the MSM.

I didn't say we were Finland - I said that Finland, along with many other countries, are good examples of where collectivism works for the benefit of their society; and it's not in any way naïve to suggest that if something works somewhere, it can work somewhere else - it's called empirical evidence, and I'd suggest it's a much more sound way of making political decisions than ideological beliefs - which is, for example, the basis of austerity.



Of course you're right that a sudden switch from one paradigm to another is impossible - and I don't think I advocated that; change is a process not an event, and I believe that change has already started - it may or may not end in a Corbyn government, but the impact of this election has left us with a shaky government, buying votes from the antediluvian DUP at the current rate of a hundred million quid per MP, to cling onto power with a HoC majority of 6. That won't last, as any fule kno.



You're right of course that there are stereotypes on both sides - that's exactly what I was criticising; I certainly don't think that everyone who votes Tory is rich or deluded - just as you must acknowledge that everyone who votes Labour isn't doing so to 'get free stuff' - but there has been an undeniable con job by the establishment to convince many people who will be directly disadvantaged by their policies and practices, to vote for those things anyway.



Perhaps I should have broadened out my meaning of social media - I'm not for a minute suggesting that Facebook and Twitter are sources of truth and wisdom - but the internet age in general has loosened the grip on political commentary by the MSM and provided many more opportunities for people to understand what's going on, without the inevitable bias of the MSM. Some of these new media outlets even stick to facts, regardless of whom they favour, which is a novelty in and of itself.

I'm slightly troubled by the constant dismissal of the "mainstream media" as if it's just some sort of biased homogeneous blob. There's a wide variety of different viewpoints on offer from mainstream sources, anyone trying to claim that the "mainstream media" is biased as a whole towards one side (left or right) is just being daft, Comment is Free is pretty much the antithesis of The Mail or The Express. I'd much prefer a society where people get their news from generally mainstream sources such as newspapers, whose various biases are pretty well known and at least have to have some maintain some kind of journalistic standards as opposed to getting it from random unknown bloggers who can pretty much just write anything they want.



My mum voted to leave the EU based on a video she saw on Facebook with loads of completely made up statistics about immigrants, my dad gave me a list of ways in which the "mainstream media" had been biased against Jeremy Corbyn that he saw on a blog post somewhere, which all turned out to be completely made up. I once called out a mate of mine for being pretty Islamaphobic on Facebook and his reply was a Youtube video with loads of made up statistics claiming things like France being 75% Muslim by 2030 and Britain by 2050. Telling people not to listen to the "mainstream media" just leads people to believe this kind of crap instead.



Accusations of BBC bias are probably the most annoying though. You can simultaneously see on something like Facebook one person complaining that the BBC is too right wing and biased against Jeremy Corbyn whilst another person bemoans them for being politically correct liberals who are afraid to tell it like it is. The whole thing reminds me of referees in rugby. Fans of two different teams can watch exactly the same game yet both conclude that the refreree was biased against their particular team, usually as it doesn't fit in with their extremely biased opinion.

The problem with UK daily papers is that 2/3's of the publications are in the hands of just 3 "groups" and Rupert Murdoch (News Corporation) along with Lord Rothermere have a huge influence over our country, in terms of the output that we read in the various daily papers.



As far as the BBC goes, I dont think they are too far from being "balanced" and as you say, it's seems that both sides of the political debate believe that they are being hard done by, which would seem to imply that they (The BBC) are not too far away.

Some of the on line streams are wildly biased and deliberately so but, to have balance in any subject, you have to be able to see things from all angles, if not, it's easy to become insular and extremely narrow minded.

There is undoubtedly a very strong Tory bias in the MSM - that's not opinion, it's been proved many times over; [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-reporting-bias-general-election-2017-labour-conservative-a7745401.htmlhere's one example[/url of an academic study that concluded just that.



You again cite Facebook as a source of fake news - I agree - it's largely an echo chamber, and interest groups will [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-facebook-adverts-refuse-disclose-general-election-2017-targeting-marginals-electoral-a7745726.htmlinvest heavily[/url in making sure their messages find their way into your feed, free from the scrutiny of the EC. But there are many more sources of news and comment on the internet now that aren't controlled by billionaire press barons - a lot of Labour's success in the GE can be attributed to the agility and diligence of that kind of reporting, which is much more likely to be consumed by young people, so I don't think it's fair to dismiss it.



I can understand how you would want a MSM that is respected for it's independence and journalistic integrity - but we just don't have that, and we never will again.

Meanwhile - the Tories, for all their fulsome messages of thanks and appreciation for our emergency services, used the DUP to vote down a modest pay increase for nurses and firefighters, then laughed and cheered about it; I don't know how these people sleep at night.

Plenty of practice.

Despite some Tories having now "broken rank" and agreed that there should be an end to the public sector pay cap, our ruling party has re-affirmed its commitment to keep the cap in place.

With shortages in the police force and the NHS, is this really the right thing to do, when the rest of us, will inevitably wish to call upon these services.

A two year pay freeze plus, 5 years of a 1% cap is, in real terms, a huge reduction in pay.

Is this how we should treat our public servants ?

My friend who is Polish who has qualified as an operating theatre nurse over here is considering her options with a move to another EU country becoming more likely, especially if pay stays as it is. She won't be alone The government can't just ignore this issue.

Indeed.

The cabinet does seem to be split on this issue and perhaps T. May could come out and tell local government employees how long their pay increases are going to be capped at 1%, which is a real terms cut every year fro the last 7.

It's disgraceful.

People working in the public sector of the economy usually have a job for life. Surely that counts for something. This country's economy in the next two years will suffer the biggest slump for years. Household debt is extremely high, borrowing on credit cards and high mortgage repayments is out of control. Not to mention all the dodgy car loan deals people have signed up for.

Also the majority of people have no savings whatsoever. The economy and the housing market is slowing down ,all it needs to push people over the edge is an interest rate rise.

So if I worked in the public sector I might thank my lucky stars I have a secure job.

If they have been in the Public Sector for a while, then yes. But most are agency staff on short/fixed term contracts without the old index linked pensions etc. BUT, why do ALL Public Sector employee's deserve a raise, it should be performance related like any other career.

For any industry to have wages effectively frozen for 7 years, with no end to that "freeze" is just wrong and whilst those who have been in local government for 20 years + may have superb pensions, that most of us can only dream of, this isn't the case for newcomers.

Personally, I wouldn't stay in that environment and would, as many appear to be doing, look for work elsewhere.

However, what really takes the pi$$ is when there are terrorist attacks and major incidents and we all expect those undervalued employees to go above and beyond to help us, whilst at the same time, telling them that they have to live on less and less (in real terms), I bet they love it.



Can you imagine taking a job and not getting a rise for 7 year +



AND on top of this, our beloved MP's happily took an inflation busting increases and this was partly to discourage them from fiddling their expenses.



Those public sector workers would have been sacked for doing the same but, we're happy to go along with such appalling double standards.

Then you get wally brains saying their pay should be 'performance related'. How do you mark the performance of an A&E nurse or firefighter? Would it be based on how many stitches a minute they can put into some artist's self-inflicted head wound or how many deliberately started fires they can put out in a week? For the hours and work these people put in, they can't be paid highly enough.

I think you will find there are millions of people working in the private sector that are struggling to get a 1% salary increase every year. Most increases are based on performance and not an automatic entitlement. The people getting the biggest increases will be those on the minimum wage. The idea that salary increases should be given regardless and at unaffordable levels doesn't make any kind of economic sense. If private businesses cannot afford an increase they don't give it and they are the very people providing much of the finance to support the public sector.



So in the private sector what happens - we move jobs if we are not happy with our T&Cs so there is nothing stopping the public sector employees doing the same. There are very few jobs in the public sector that a similar alternative is not available in the private sector - fire fighters is one but they are few and far between. The reality of the private sector might not suit a lot of these employees closeted by the state and the benefits outside of salary that simply don't exist in the private sector.



All the public expect the emergency services to do in an emergency is to do their job - the job they are trained to do training that has been paid for by us in the majority of cases. As far as I can see that is what happened at Grenfell - did the firefighters do more than they would have done at any other fire?



On the MPs I completely agree - nasty bunch of hypocrites.

Once a gain, you deliberately miss the point.

The main problem is not the 1% cap, it's the fact that there have been 2 years of a freeze plus, 5 years at 1% and no end in sight.

AS for "doing their job" yes, that is true but, after the london bridge attack, nurses were going in to cover, regardless of whether they should have been there which, does seem "above and beyond".



Finally, if we are agreeing that the "freeze" in wages is forcing people to look elsewhere, including the madness of going to an agency and then coming back to work in our hospitals on more money !!!!, where is the sense in that.

Ok, those who go down this route would sacrifice some pension rights etc but, it's just madness.



Whilst there may have been a case for austerity 7 years ago, to keep this kind of cap, indefinitely, is just wrong and maybe, this is one reason why so many NHS employees are from outside the UK and we are going down the route of "cheap" labour.

We have gone down the road of cheap labour because most people want to buy everything cheaply. It's a mindest that is destructive. Cheap holidays, cheap flights, cheap clothes, cheap goods,cheap food, cheap taxes. All part of a short-sighted outlook. We could start by refusing cheap flights and foreign holidays and spending that vast amount of money in the UK economy. Guess most will be too selfish though. In which case they have no cause to moan about the ramifications of their actions and selfishness.

Over the last few days plenty of information has been published to show that the public sector has not been affected as bad as the private sector. When the banks went pear shape thousands of people in the private sector lost jobs. Many people were forced to work shortened hours. Can't recall huge lay-offs in the public sector. As mentioned by other posters if you aren't happy with your job and conditions get another job. Something most people have done for years in the private sector.

Seems the unions and public sector workers want the best of both worlds, top wages plus job security. We all want that don't we unfortunately in the private sector it's not always available.