I'm not sure. We have a huge problem with productivity in this country (I think it's the lowest in Europe). The Tories in the past few years have tried to stem the stagnation in the economy by increasing employment, particularly in the service sector, and protecting the two most profitable parts of our economy, the city and the housing market.

But these aren't really policies that will rejuvenate an economy which - I believe - only Greece of all developed countries can match for falling wages. Corbyn's promising to raise the minimum wage and invest in public sector wages, with an obvious target of increasing productivity. I don't see how this approach will make the poor worse off, or how it isn't financially necessary.

I know it seems I am a dyed in the wool Corbynista, reading back on this thread, and I have defended him a lot. But I actually do have serious reservations about him. I think ultimately he has no answer to the long term economic problems we face, which are automation and productivity. To my mind, we have to be thinking more radically: embracing automation in sectors like service and care, drastically lowering the working week, and possibly bringing in a UBI.

But I guess the thing I respect is, he is at least offering a solution to the major economic problems we face. The Tories seem more intent in blowing hot air about 'strength and stability', and hoping that everyone buys their bullsh*t that the economy's doing well, which anyone who looks around can clearly see it isn't. I don't really think they have any medium term plan for the economy other than making us a tax haven, which as well as being unbelievably risky, will also be to the detriment of ordinary working people.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

"Relative poverty has fallen sharply since Labour came to power in 1997"

I don't see anything in there that backs up your assertion that inequality "rose sharply" under Labour.

Indeed as I said previously it rose marginally. I've also said on this thread that in my view was a missed opportunity and they should have done a lot more to combat the sharp rises seen under the previous Tory government.

Also in that report it shows working age non-parents were less likely to be in absolute poverty at the end of Labour's term than working age parents and indeed absolute poverty for this group fell over their period in power. Indeed relative poverty increased for this group, but they were still less likely to be absolutely poor than any other group.

The poorest in society grew poorer...working age without children....More than had ever happened since those stats were collected.

You are just trying to fudge the issue by including in more groups, which Labour did help.

If you were working class without kids you weren't helped and to boot you were probably having to compete for your working class jobs with a large influx of foreigners prepared to work for less.

I saw it happening at the time and was teaching the working class kids walking into that environment. They had nothing to thank Labour for.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Even in the most basic of economic models this is unlikely to be true given the free movement of capital. Capital will just move to seek the cheapest supply of labour. Add in some real world complexity and this is still true. While there are some jobs which can only be done in the UK there are enough than don't have to be for demand to be a more important factor than supply in your equation. Allowing labour mobility means capital must provide better conditions and pay to attract that labour. If businesses believed foreign labour was going to dry up in the UK there would be significant relocation of capital.

The best way to increase wages is to reverse austerity policies, improve the provision of education and provide investment in the economy.

You can't have your cake and eat it mate. You've asked me two questions there which totally contradict each other.

I would argue that the best economic period for us in recent memory - the 50s and 60s - came after a Labour government made radical changes both to the ideology and structure of our economy. If you look at the main economies in the world at the moment, the US under Obama have come closest to something similarly Keynesian, and their growth has totally dwarfed ours. But in general, of course there is little a government can do if, like in 2008, the entire Western financial system collapses.

As for the economy atm...well here's just a few facts.

Since 2008, real term wages have fallen 14% in the UK

The IFS says this is the worst decade post war for falling wages.

The Resolution foundation says that this will be - and has been - completely disproportionate, with the incomes of the wealthiest third rising, but the incomes of the poorest third drastically falling.

This puts us level with Greece of OECD countries since 2008.

And of course we now have Brexit, where our reliance on migrant labour to support our care, construction and service sectors is going to be slashed, where university workers and businesses are leaving, and where quite possibly a lot of our financial services will relocate. The Tories don't have any answer to this. Do they? Maybe I've missed something and am happy to be proved wrong...

My political prediction (although of course such things are unwise nowadays) is that this election is a poisoned chalice. We are about to experience a huge recession, and whoever's in power will be held responsible.

Edited by serial thriller (27 Apr 2017 12.31pm)

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Does the fact that poverty was redefined by the Tories recently affect the figures?