Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Move over right v left: John Curtice says the new political di

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited December 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Move over right v left: John Curtice says the new political divide is social liberal versus social conservative

Good insight by John Curtice. After Brexit, it's no longer about "left" and "right"—it's now social liberals vs social conservatives https://t.co/A7No132kDb via @prospect_uk

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Branding Corbyn as "hard left" was always absurd when half of our policies are those of the Conservative government in Germany...
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,970
    It has always been the case that Europe was not a left right issue. More of a sensible silly issue.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,667
    I'd classify Corbyn as socially conservative when push comes to the shove along with most of the left. To put it another way look at the position of gay rights in Russia, China, Cuba.... Owen Jones would be swiftly detached in a socialist UK.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,774

    Branding Corbyn as "hard left" was always absurd when half of our policies are those of the Conservative government in Germany...

    And a Conservative government in the UK is stealing the other half.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    FPT, but on topic for this one:
    Charles said:

    Re defining socially liberal and socially conservative: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EU-Briefing-Paper-12-Brexit-and-the-election_V2.pdf see page 6 for the report within the link provided in the tweet.

    Here’s this from the FT which also provides some clarity to the socially liberal versus socially conservative divide - which includes views on traditional British values, pace of cultural change, and crime and punishment.

    Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories
    What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

    I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it that way - the shutting down of dissenting opinion, for example.
  • This works for me.

    I'm a fairly traditional Labour voter but my local constituency MP (John Cryer) is a Leaver, so I voted LD. I would however have voted Conservative without a moment's hesitation if their candidate had been a Remainer.

    Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

    It's a bit less clear-cut on the Labour/Trade Union side. I guess the TUs like the protectionism of Leave, but are less keen on other aspects, so maybe more ambivalence there.
  • Sandpit said:

    FPT, but on topic for this one:

    Charles said:

    Re defining socially liberal and socially conservative: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EU-Briefing-Paper-12-Brexit-and-the-election_V2.pdf see page 6 for the report within the link provided in the tweet.

    Here’s this from the FT which also provides some clarity to the socially liberal versus socially conservative divide - which includes views on traditional British values, pace of cultural change, and crime and punishment.

    Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories
    What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

    I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it that way - the shutting down of dissenting opinion, for example.
    Yes some of the more right on elements are prone to argue against dissent against their view. Which is exactly the same as the nutter wing of the Tory party and press with their "Crush the Saboteurs" tendency.

    On differences between the parties I am also going to raise morality. Not a I am moral and you are immoral argument, but who uses it. Labour have a very clear sense of injustice, that it is immoral on a basic level of human decency to have a policy that leaves cancer patients to die in abject poverty having been declared fit for work. Tories never defend these outrages, or even respond to them. We get some platitudes about a principle which their policies always seem diametrically opposed to in practice, and a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

    Yet when it comes down to gay marriage there is OUTRAGE. On biblical grounds often. Yet the same Bible has an awful lot to say about the treatment of the poor sick and needy and gets ignored by the same people...
  • This selective morality seems to be a thing of conservatives in America as well. I'm sure some of their supposedly "Christian" politicians have a Bible consisting entirely of Leviticus and Revelations
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,982

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, but on topic for this one:

    Charles said:

    Re defining socially liberal and socially conservative: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EU-Briefing-Paper-12-Brexit-and-the-election_V2.pdf see page 6 for the report within the link provided in the tweet.

    Here’s this from the FT which also provides some clarity to the socially liberal versus socially conservative divide - which includes views on traditional British values, pace of cultural change, and crime and punishment.

    Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories
    What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

    I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it that way - the shutting down of dissenting opinion, for example.
    Yes some of the more right on elements are prone to argue against dissent against their view. Which is exactly the same as the nutter wing of the Tory party and press with their "Crush the Saboteurs" tendency.

    On differences between the parties I am also going to raise morality. Not a I am moral and you are immoral argument, but who uses it. Labour have a very clear sense of injustice, that it is immoral on a basic level of human decency to have a policy that leaves cancer patients to die in abject poverty having been declared fit for work. Tories never defend these outrages, or even respond to them. We get some platitudes about a principle which their policies always seem diametrically opposed to in practice, and a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

    Yet when it comes down to gay marriage there is OUTRAGE. On biblical grounds often. Yet the same Bible has an awful lot to say about the treatment of the poor sick and needy and gets ignored by the same people...
    bizrarre

    religion rarely enters UK politics, our last geat "religious leader" was Blair

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, but on topic for this one:

    Charles said:

    Re defining socially liberal and socially conservative: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EU-Briefing-Paper-12-Brexit-and-the-election_V2.pdf see page 6 for the report within the link provided in the tweet.

    Here’s this from the FT which also provides some clarity to the socially liberal versus socially conservative divide - which includes views on traditional British values, pace of cultural change, and crime and punishment.

    Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories
    What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

    I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it that way - the shutting down of dissenting opinion, for example.
    Yes some of the more right on elements are prone to argue against dissent against their view. Which is exactly the same as the nutter wing of the Tory party and press with their "Crush the Saboteurs" tendency.

    On differences between the parties I am also going to raise morality. Not a I am moral and you are immoral argument, but who uses it. Labour have a very clear sense of injustice, that it is immoral on a basic level of human decency to have a policy that leaves cancer patients to die in abject poverty having been declared fit for work. Tories never defend these outrages, or even respond to them. We get some platitudes about a principle which their policies always seem diametrically opposed to in practice, and a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

    Yet when it comes down to gay marriage there is OUTRAGE. On biblical grounds often. Yet the same Bible has an awful lot to say about the treatment of the poor sick and needy and gets ignored by the same people...
    Like!!!!!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    This selective morality seems to be a thing of conservatives in America as well. I'm sure some of their supposedly "Christian" politicians have a Bible consisting entirely of Leviticus and Revelations

    I agree. I dislike the word "Christian Fundamentalist" for this reason. As a Socially Liberal Christian, I would see myself as a Fundamentalist, with my anti-war, love thy neighbour views. We simply disagree what the fundamentals are. "Christian Fundamentalists" are too often like the Pharisees that Jesus taught against.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,827

    Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of big business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the big business community.

    Fixed that for you.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,982

    This selective morality seems to be a thing of conservatives in America as well. I'm sure some of their supposedly "Christian" politicians have a Bible consisting entirely of Leviticus and Revelations

    I agree. I dislike the word "Christian Fundamentalist" for this reason. As a Socially Liberal Christian, I would see myself as a Fundamentalist, with my anti-war, love thy neighbour views. We simply disagree what the fundamentals are. "Christian Fundamentalists" are too often like the Pharisees that Jesus taught against.
    you have been condemned as a bible freak
  • Sandpit said:

    FPT, but on topic for this one:

    Charles said:

    Re defining socially liberal and socially conservative: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EU-Briefing-Paper-12-Brexit-and-the-election_V2.pdf see page 6 for the report within the link provided in the tweet.

    Here’s this from the FT which also provides some clarity to the socially liberal versus socially conservative divide - which includes views on traditional British values, pace of cultural change, and crime and punishment.

    Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories
    What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

    I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it that way - the shutting down of dissenting opinion, for example.
    Yes some of the more right on elements are prone to argue against dissent against their view. Which is exactly the same as the nutter wing of the Tory party and press with their "Crush the Saboteurs" tendency.

    On differences between the parties I am also going to raise morality. Not a I am moral and you are immoral argument, but who uses it. Labour have a very clear sense of injustice, that it is immoral on a basic level of human decency to have a policy that leaves cancer patients to die in abject poverty having been declared fit for work. Tories never defend these outrages, or even respond to them. We get some platitudes about a principle which their policies always seem diametrically opposed to in practice, and a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

    Yet when it comes down to gay marriage there is OUTRAGE. On biblical grounds often. Yet the same Bible has an awful lot to say about the treatment of the poor sick and needy and gets ignored by the same people...
    bizrarre

    religion rarely enters UK politics, our last geat "religious leader" was Blair

    You mean "morality" rarely enters politics. We've been conditioned to be indifferent, that Beveridge's five giants are these days the fault of those suffering them rather than the fault of the government imposing them as policy backed by a society that doesn't care. Does giving a shit about other people have to be a religious issue? Or is this another shrug of the shoulders to the issue?

    And religion gets raised a lot. Only yesterday we discussed Mogg and Catholic doctrine regarding his suitability to be in change of the nuclear deterrent.
  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,264



    Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

    I think like most things Brexit, Business attitudes are more complicated than at first glance. Big business certainly doesn't like Brexit, but smaller enterprises are far keener. It's a mistake to view business as only the megacorps, a mistake government often makes.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    This works for me.

    I'm a fairly traditional Labour voter but my local constituency MP (John Cryer) is a Leaver, so I voted LD. I would however have voted Conservative without a moment's hesitation if their candidate had been a Remainer.

    Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

    It's a bit less clear-cut on the Labour/Trade Union side. I guess the TUs like the protectionism of Leave, but are less keen on other aspects, so maybe more ambivalence there.

    Leave has very strong support from the business community - look at the IOD or the FSB. What it doesn't have is the support of the multinationals who can exploit globalisation for their own enrichment.

    But the BBC thinks that the CBI speaks for British industry
  • tlg86 said:

    Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of big business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the big business community.

    Fixed that for you.
    Yes, I did actually think about the big/small business issue, Tlg, before posting.

    Certainly the Tories have always identified strongly with small business owners. There's probably more ambivalence on the Leave/Remain divide there though. I would think a lot of small business owners would be Leavers, although it might depend on the type of business.

    There's certainly a good deal of ambivalence amongst farmers - or those that farm on a modest scale at least.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    ToryJim said:



    Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

    I think like most things Brexit, Business attitudes are more complicated than at first glance. Big business certainly doesn't like Brexit, but smaller enterprises are far keener. It's a mistake to view business as only the megacorps, a mistake government often makes.
    It depends even more on sector. Small business in construction is very different to one in design. The businesses that support Leave tend to protectionism, and to a UK market rather than a worldwide one.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,358
    edited December 2017
    Sounds right to me. Explains why the feelings Remainers have for Leavers and vice versa is more visceral than that normally felt between left and right. It's also backed up by the early poll that showed the best indicator of a Leaver was their attitude to capital punishment.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,982

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, but on topic for this one:

    Charles said:

    Re defining socially liberal and socially conservative: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EU-Briefing-Paper-12-Brexit-and-the-election_V2.pdf see page 6 for the report within the link provided in the tweet.

    Here’s this from the FT which also provides some clarity to the socially liberal versus socially conservative divide - which includes views on traditional British values, pace of cultural change, and crime and punishment.

    Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories
    What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

    I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it thate people...
    bizrarre

    religion rarely enters UK politics, our last geat "religious leader" was Blair

    You mean "morality" rarely enters politics. We've been conditioned to be indifferent, that Beveridge's five giants are these days the fault of those suffering them rather than the fault of the government imposing them as policy backed by a society that doesn't care. Does giving a shit about other people have to be a religious issue? Or is this another shrug of the shoulders to the issue?

    And religion gets raised a lot. Only yesterday we discussed Mogg and Catholic doctrine regarding his suitability to be in change of the nuclear deterrent.
    No you said Bible, hence my response to you. From my view that seems a fairly intolerant perspective.

    As for he morality perspective, well that's always been there, but people have differing views of whats moral. The problem on your 5 giants is once they become the governments duty, you have outsourced society's moral concern, it's no longer personal. The early pioneers of the welfare state themselves recognised this as a possible consequence.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 4,323
    edited December 2017
    ToryJim said:



    Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

    I think like most things Brexit, Business attitudes are more complicated than at first glance. Big business certainly doesn't like Brexit, but smaller enterprises are far keener. It's a mistake to view business as only the megacorps, a mistake government often makes.
    Thanks Tory Jim.

    That qualifies and balances my argument nicely. (And makes it unnecessary for me to reply to Charles above!)
  • The business point is key. Hard Brexiteers are going against the collected experience and factual reality of all of their traditional donors - the "hard Brexit will be fine" mob are getting they know more about car manufacturing than Honda.

    You have to wonder how the Tories have managed to get themselves on the opposite side of the argument from business. Interesting comments from Barnier this morning (once again) restating the obvious - the EU won't give us a deal for the city.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    This selective morality seems to be a thing of conservatives in America as well. I'm sure some of their supposedly "Christian" politicians have a Bible consisting entirely of Leviticus and Revelations

    I agree. I dislike the word "Christian Fundamentalist" for this reason. As a Socially Liberal Christian, I would see myself as a Fundamentalist, with my anti-war, love thy neighbour views. We simply disagree what the fundamentals are. "Christian Fundamentalists" are too often like the Pharisees that Jesus taught against.
    Christian Fundamentalism has a very specific definition - it relates the the Bible Belt in 19th century America and is very focused on a textual analysis of the Old Testament (very Pharisaic). I'd agree with you that the New Testament is more important.

    BTW if you have discovery there is a good series at the moment looking st done of the wackier conspiracies from an intellectual perspective (e.g. Why did Pope Gregory decide to conflate the woman who washed Jesus' feet with Mary Magdalen?)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,982

    ToryJim said:



    Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

    I think like most things Brexit, Business attitudes are more complicated than at first glance. Big business certainly doesn't like Brexit, but smaller enterprises are far keener. It's a mistake to view business as only the megacorps, a mistake government often makes.
    It depends even more on sector. Small business in construction is very different to one in design. The businesses that support Leave tend to protectionism, and to a UK market rather than a worldwide one.
    by that measure the NHS must all be leavers
  • Sandpit said:

    FPT, but on topic for this one:

    Charles said:

    Re defining socially liberal and socially conservative: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EU-Briefing-Paper-12-Brexit-and-the-election_V2.pdf see page 6 for the report within the link provided in the tweet.

    Here’s this from the FT which also provides some clarity to the socially liberal versus socially conservative divide - which includes views on traditional British values, pace of cultural change, and crime and punishment.

    Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories
    What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

    I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it thate people...
    bizrarre

    religion rarely enters UK politics, our last geat "religious leader" was Blair

    You mean "morality" rarely enters politics. We've been conditioned to be indifferent, that Beveridge's five giants are these days the fault of those suffering them rather than the fault of the government imposing them as policy backed by a society that doesn't care. Does giving a shit about other people have to be a religious issue? Or is this another shrug of the shoulders to the issue?

    And religion gets raised a lot. Only yesterday we discussed Mogg and Catholic doctrine regarding his suitability to be in change of the nuclear deterrent.
    No you said Bible, hence my response to you. From my view that seems a fairly intolerant perspective.

    As for he morality perspective, well that's always been there, but people have differing views of whats moral. The problem on your 5 giants is once they become the governments duty, you have outsourced society's moral concern, it's no longer personal. The early pioneers of the welfare state themselves recognised this as a possible consequence.
    So you ARE blaming the terminal cancer patient for his impoverished death at the hands of the government...
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,970

    tlg86 said:

    Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of big business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the big business community.

    Fixed that for you.
    Yes, I did actually think about the big/small business issue, Tlg, before posting.

    Certainly the Tories have always identified strongly with small business owners. There's probably more ambivalence on the Leave/Remain divide there though. I would think a lot of small business owners would be Leavers, although it might depend on the type of business.

    There's certainly a good deal of ambivalence amongst farmers - or those that farm on a modest scale at least.
    I run a small business and most of my customers are small businesses. I don't talk politics with them and I don't remember any time when one of them has raised the subject. I have no idea whether they are leavers or remainers. What makes you think small business owners might be mainly leavers?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818



    On differences between the parties I am also going to raise morality. Not a I am moral and you are immoral argument, but who uses it. Labour have a very clear sense of injustice, that it is immoral on a basic level of human decency to have a policy that leaves cancer patients to die in abject poverty having been declared fit for work. Tories never defend these outrages, or even respond to them. We get some platitudes about a principle which their policies always seem diametrically opposed to in practice, and a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

    Yet when it comes down to gay marriage there is OUTRAGE. On biblical grounds often. Yet the same Bible has an awful lot to say about the treatment of the poor sick and needy and gets ignored by the same people...

    bizrarre

    religion rarely enters UK politics, our last geat "religious leader" was Blair

    You mean "morality" rarely enters politics. We've been conditioned to be indifferent, that Beveridge's five giants are these days the fault of those suffering them rather than the fault of the government imposing them as policy backed by a society that doesn't care. Does giving a shit about other people have to be a religious issue? Or is this another shrug of the shoulders to the issue?

    And religion gets raised a lot. Only yesterday we discussed Mogg and Catholic doctrine regarding his suitability to be in change of the nuclear deterrent.
    The simple fact is that Britain is wealthy enough to look after its poor and needy. The old system wasn't working. The new system may not either. But it is a genuine attempt to utilise public money better to get help to those who need it rather than some atavistic sadism
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    As a social liberal who supported Leave I don’t find this analysis particularly compelling but even if it is right for these divides to be significant one would have to identify the next big issue that is going to divide people this way and the next.

    It seems to me that Brexit was rather a one off which did highlight social divisions that rarely got much attention from our media and metropolitan elites but once it is put to bed arguments are more likely to revert to our more traditional left right divide on economic issues.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,982

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, but on topic for this one:

    Charles said:

    Re defining socially liberal and socially conservative: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EU-Briefing-Paper-12-Brexit-and-the-election_V2.pdf see page 6 for the report within the link provided in the tweet.

    Here’s this from the FT which also provides some clarity to the socially liberal versus socially conservative divide - which includes views on traditional British values, pace of cultural change, and crime and punishment.

    Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories
    What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

    I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it thate people...
    bizrarre

    religion rarely enters UK politics, our last geat "religious leader" was Blair

    You mean "morality" rarely be in change of the nuclear deterrent.
    No you said Bible, hence my response to you. From my view that seems a fairly intolerant perspective.

    As for he morality perspective, well that's always been there, but people have differing views of whats moral. The problem on your 5 giants is once they become the governments duty, you have outsourced society's moral concern, it's no longer personal. The early pioneers of the welfare state themselves recognised this as a possible consequence.
    So you ARE blaming the terminal cancer patient for his impoverished death at the hands of the government...
    no I'm blaiming you for supporting tax avoiding multinationals who deprive the cancer patient of the money for treatment you immoral bastard

    or we could just try having a discussion
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    ToryJim said:



    Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

    I think like most things Brexit, Business attitudes are more complicated than at first glance. Big business certainly doesn't like Brexit, but smaller enterprises are far keener. It's a mistake to view business as only the megacorps, a mistake government often makes.
    It depends even more on sector. Small business in construction is very different to one in design. The businesses that support Leave tend to protectionism, and to a UK market rather than a worldwide one.
    Like Dyson, JCB and Hiscox?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    ToryJim said:



    Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

    I think like most things Brexit, Business attitudes are more complicated than at first glance. Big business certainly doesn't like Brexit, but smaller enterprises are far keener. It's a mistake to view business as only the megacorps, a mistake government often makes.
    Thanks Tory Jim.

    That qualifies and balances my argument nicely. (And makes it unnecessary for me to reply to Charles above!)
    Hmpf!

    (But seriously, big business likes regulation because it's a barrier to entry. And if they can reduce their costs by making it transnational then so much the better)
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited December 2017
    Charles said:

    This selective morality seems to be a thing of conservatives in America as well. I'm sure some of their supposedly "Christian" politicians have a Bible consisting entirely of Leviticus and Revelations

    I agree. I dislike the word "Christian Fundamentalist" for this reason. As a Socially Liberal Christian, I would see myself as a Fundamentalist, with my anti-war, love thy neighbour views. We simply disagree what the fundamentals are. "Christian Fundamentalists" are too often like the Pharisees that Jesus taught against.
    Christian Fundamentalism has a very specific definition - it relates the the Bible Belt in 19th century America and is very focused on a textual analysis of the Old Testament (very Pharisaic). I'd agree with you that the New Testament is more important.

    BTW if you have discovery there is a good series at the moment looking st done of the wackier conspiracies from an intellectual perspective (e.g. Why did Pope Gregory decide to conflate the woman who washed Jesus' feet with Mary Magdalen?)
    I don't disagree. "Christian Fundamentalist" does carry political baggage though the history of Revivalism is more complex, as it was a great groundswell here too in the early 19th Century. I simply disagree that these are the fundamentals.

    What we do see with political "Christian Fundamentalism" and its parallel in "Catholic Fundamentalism" is that these thrived in areas separated from the mainstream of the European Enlightenment, in Frontier America, the Boer Republics, Ireland, and Latin America.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    Charles said:

    ToryJim said:



    Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

    I think like most things Brexit, Business attitudes are more complicated than at first glance. Big business certainly doesn't like Brexit, but smaller enterprises are far keener. It's a mistake to view business as only the megacorps, a mistake government often makes.
    It depends even more on sector. Small business in construction is very different to one in design. The businesses that support Leave tend to protectionism, and to a UK market rather than a worldwide one.
    Like Dyson, JCB and Hiscox?
    I don’t know about Hiscox, but Dyson and JCB, like Wetherspoons, are surely small businesses which have got big due to the characters of their founders.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    edited December 2017

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, but on topic for this one:

    Charles said:

    Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories
    What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

    I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it that way - the shutting down of dissenting opinion, for example.
    Yes some of the more right on elements are prone to argue against dissent against their view. Which is exactly the same as the nutter wing of the Tory party and press with their "Crush the Saboteurs" tendency.

    On differences between the parties I am also going to raise morality. Not a I am moral and you are immoral argument, but who uses it. Labour have a very clear sense of injustice, that it is immoral on a basic level of human decency to have a policy that leaves cancer patients to die in abject poverty having been declared fit for work. Tories never defend these outrages, or even respond to them. We get some platitudes about a principle which their policies always seem diametrically opposed to in practice, and a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

    Yet when it comes down to gay marriage there is OUTRAGE. On biblical grounds often. Yet the same Bible has an awful lot to say about the treatment of the poor sick and needy and gets ignored by the same people...
    I did write a long reply but Vanilla are it!

    Basically, the issue is one of unnecessarily hyperbolic language used on both sides. For example the ATOS assessments started in 2009 under Labour, here are the Guardian criticising it at the time https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/oct/28/work-capability-assessment-incapacity-benefits It’s difficult to accept screaming critisicm of the policy from those who voted for it and implemented it in the first place. Similar issues with food banks, I’ve never understood the critics of basic community charity helping those in need - especially so at this time of year.

    In general, politics works better if people work together to look at problems and find solutions, rather than screaming at or past each other. Sadly today’s crop of politicians and issues such as Brexit are making the problems worse rather than better.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,982
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, but on topic for this one:

    Charles said:

    Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories
    What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

    I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it that way - the shutting down of dissenting opinion, for example.
    Yes some of the more right on elements are prone to argue against dissent against their view. Which is exactly the same as the nutter wing of the Tory party and press with their "Crush the Saboteurs" tendency.

    On differences between the parties I am also going to raise morality. Not a I am moral and you are immoral argument, but who uses it. Labour have a very clear sense of injustice, that it is immoral on a basic level of human decency to have a policy that leaves cancer patients to die in abject poverty having been declared fit for work. Tories never defend these outrages, or even respond to them. We get some platitudes about a principle which their policies always seem diametrically opposed to in practice, and a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

    Yet when it comes down to gay marriage there is OUTRAGE. On biblical grounds often. Yet the same Bible has an awful lot to say about the treatment of the poor sick and needy and gets ignored by the same people...
    I did write a long reply but Vanilla are it!

    Basically, the issue is one of unnecessarily hyperbolic language used on both sides. For example the ATOS assessments started in 2009 under Labour, here are the Guardian criticising it at the time https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/oct/28/work-capability-assessment-incapacity-benefits It’s difficult to accept screaming critisicm of the policy from those who voted for it and implemented it in the first place. Similar issues with food banks, I’ve never understood the critics of basic community charity helping those in need - especially so at this time of year.

    In general, politics works better if people work together to look at problems and find solutions, rather than screaming at or past each other. Sadly today’s crop of politicians and issues such as Brexit are making the problems worse rather than better.
    quite so
  • @Alanbrooke as formatting is broken I'll not directly quote...

    Surely here is the challenge. Doing the right thing is difficult. Plenty of moral crusade politicians of both sides have tried and failed (or in the case of IDS claimed a moral crusade and done their best to make things as worse as possible for the people allegedly being 'helped')

    I just don't understand this current government and current ministers. Their policy is simple - make work pay. Be fair to the taxpayer. Yet in practice the policy is neither, and when swathes of proof are presented to them about the needless suffering AND the cost to the taxpayer, their response is a shrug of the shoulders. I'd expect outrage of some kind - Tories are principled people and certainly dislike state largesse. Yet seem nonplussed by a system which wrongly takes money off the poorest and they pays for an appeal system that it loses in the vast majority of cases then having to pay back the withheld money AND costs.

    This indifference to people can't be a long term benefit to the party. Seeming to not care about examples of ex squaddies left to die of hunger or disabled people left to crawl around their flat or terminal cancer patients pronounced fit for work and dying destitute winning a posthumous appeal - these are all the direct result of government policy. That policy could be at least tweaked to prevent similar outrages, yet it is not.

    Why? Is that not proof of a basic immorality - a government that choses not to give a shit to pointless suffering imposed by it's own incompetent indifference? You want a policy of work capability assessments that's fair. But crap ones that make idiot decisions and create this hell and cost more money? Come on...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    Charles said:

    This works for me.

    I'm a fairly traditional Labour voter but my local constituency MP (John Cryer) is a Leaver, so I voted LD. I would however have voted Conservative without a moment's hesitation if their candidate had been a Remainer.

    Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

    It's a bit less clear-cut on the Labour/Trade Union side. I guess the TUs like the protectionism of Leave, but are less keen on other aspects, so maybe more ambivalence there.

    Leave has very strong support from the business community - look at the IOD or the FSB. What it doesn't have is the support of the multinationals who can exploit globalisation for their own enrichment.

    But the BBC thinks that the CBI speaks for British industry
    Indeed. Big businesses love the EU - they can afford high barriers to entry, only need to lobby one group of people rather than a couple of dozen, and the Commissioners than introduce legislation don’t have the inconvenience of needing to be re-elected afterwards.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Charles said:

    ToryJim said:



    Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

    I think like most things Brexit, Business attitudes are more complicated than at first glance. Big business certainly doesn't like Brexit, but smaller enterprises are far keener. It's a mistake to view business as only the megacorps, a mistake government often makes.
    It depends even more on sector. Small business in construction is very different to one in design. The businesses that support Leave tend to protectionism, and to a UK market rather than a worldwide one.
    Like Dyson, JCB and Hiscox?
    I don’t know about Hiscox, but Dyson and JCB, like Wetherspoons, are surely small businesses which have got big due to the characters of their founders.
    There are exceptions, Peter Hargreaves of Hargreaves Lansdowne is another one.

    Defining peoples political views by their demographics can ultimately only get us so far. There are quite a lot of socially liberal older folk, plenty of gay working class or BME Britons and active religion in Britain tends to be ethnically and SE class related.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,358
    ToryJim said:



    Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

    I think like most things Brexit, Business attitudes are more complicated than at first glance. Big business certainly doesn't like Brexit, but smaller enterprises are far keener. It's a mistake to view business as only the megacorps, a mistake government often makes.
    It's fairly obvious why multi nationals would be in favour of `Remain' less so why nail bars would have a view one way or the other
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 1,987
    edited December 2017
    @Sandpit we're all aware of where WCA started. If you want to look at the history you'll see that the purpose and method had changed dramatically since 2009.

    Just so we're clear. Is the answer to a system today that acts in the most gratuitous way and costs the taxpayer money in the process to be ignored because Labour started it...?

    Some of you indifferent shoulder shruggers can accuse me of hysteria, but I don't get how you can look at the current system and say "it's working fine". But I agree that we need to look beyond the worst examples (by fixing them) and get onto the far bigger issues such as why work doesn't pay when you have kids etc etc
  • But I voted Brexit and I'm an out-and-out social liberal: I'd like to see more recognition of transgendered rights, want the voting age lowered to 16 and would like to see education shaken up to do away with outdated 1950's chalk and talk to a mobile-savvy dynamic model.

    I just don't like unelected Bureaucrats dictating to the masses. That's not exactly a liberal model.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 20,258

    @Alanbrooke as formatting is broken I'll not directly quote...

    Surely here is the challenge. Doing the right thing is difficult. Plenty of moral crusade politicians of both sides have tried and failed (or in the case of IDS claimed a moral crusade and done their best to make things as worse as possible for the people allegedly being 'helped')

    I just don't understand this current government and current ministers. Their policy is simple - make work pay. Be fair to the taxpayer. Yet in practice the policy is neither, and when swathes of proof are presented to them about the needless suffering AND the cost to the taxpayer, their response is a shrug of the shoulders. I'd expect outrage of some kind - Tories are principled people and certainly dislike state largesse. Yet seem nonplussed by a system which wrongly takes money off the poorest and they pays for an appeal system that it loses in the vast majority of cases then having to pay back the withheld money AND costs.

    This indifference to people can't be a long term benefit to the party. Seeming to not care about examples of ex squaddies left to die of hunger or disabled people left to crawl around their flat or terminal cancer patients pronounced fit for work and dying destitute winning a posthumous appeal - these are all the direct result of government policy. That policy could be at least tweaked to prevent similar outrages, yet it is not.

    Why? Is that not proof of a basic immorality - a government that choses not to give a shit to pointless suffering imposed by it's own incompetent indifference? You want a policy of work capability assessments that's fair. But crap ones that make idiot decisions and create this hell and cost more money? Come on...

    I agree with much of that, except for such injustices, and others, occur under governments of all stripes, and are often 'ignored' by them when in power. For instance, weren't the work capability assessments introduced by Brown, and given bu his government to the hapless ATOS? You can argue that coalition and Conservative actions since have made things worse, but ATOS's actions were getting slated well before 2010.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    @Alanbrooke as formatting is broken I'll not directly quote...

    Surely here is the challenge. Doing the right thing is difficult. Plenty of moral crusade politicians of both sides have tried and failed (or in the case of IDS claimed a moral crusade and done their best to make things as worse as possible for the people allegedly being 'helped')

    I just don't understand this current government and current ministers. Their policy is simple - make work pay. Be fair to the taxpayer. Yet in practice the policy is neither, and when swathes of proof are presented to them about the needless suffering AND the cost to the taxpayer, their response is a shrug of the shoulders. I'd expect outrage of some kind - Tories are principled people and certainly dislike state largesse. Yet seem nonplussed by a system which wrongly takes money off the poorest and they pays for an appeal system that it loses in the vast majority of cases then having to pay back the withheld money AND costs.

    This indifference to people can't be a long term benefit to the party. Seeming to not care about examples of ex squaddies left to die of hunger or disabled people left to crawl around their flat or terminal cancer patients pronounced fit for work and dying destitute winning a posthumous appeal - these are all the direct result of government policy. That policy could be at least tweaked to prevent similar outrages, yet it is not.

    Why? Is that not proof of a basic immorality - a government that choses not to give a shit to pointless suffering imposed by it's own incompetent indifference? You want a policy of work capability assessments that's fair. But crap ones that make idiot decisions and create this hell and cost more money? Come on...

    I saw a particularly egregious stopping of a PIP last week, in a patient with a severe but invisible disability. On the other hand, I do see plenty of evidence of others exploiting the welfare state.

    We seem to have a system that wreaks punishments on meek inarticulate people while leaving open doors to manipulative scroungers. The problem is that it is easier to target the former as they tend to compliance. The system has targets set to get people off benefits, rather than evaluate real need.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    The divide between our major parties is in practice much less than either of them would want to admit. Both are fundamentally big state, big spending, interventionists. During the years of supposedly vicious austerity government spending rose inexorably upwards, NHS spending increased in real terms every year and taxes on the rich increased whilst the poor were taken out of Income Tax.

    If there is a difference it tends to be on the anterior question of where all this money comes from. Tories believe that a successful welfare state needs a thriving private sector to support it and is more interested in what is needed for it to thrive. Labour supporters tend to believe that successful economies are “fair” economies, where everyone has a stake and where social cohesion is emphasised. This mass participation will encourage growth and become self funding.

    The degree of difference on either side even here can be exaggerated with plenty in each of the main parties that have some sympathy with the approach of the other. Where they are both having difficulties is with some of their core supporters who have come to realise that their team does not really represent their opinions. So small state economic liberals find little to appeal to them in the modern Tory Party and genuinely socialists have, pre Corbyn, wondered about the priorities of Labour. Now it is those who recognise the importance of the private sector who feel uncomfortable.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    edited December 2017

    @Sandpit we're all aware of where WCA started. If you want to look at the history you'll see that the purpose and method had changed dramatically since 2009.

    Just so we're clear. Is the answer to a system today that acts in the most gratuitous way and costs the taxpayer money in the process to be ignored because Labour started it...?

    Some of you indifferent shoulder shruggers can accuse me of hysteria, but I don't get how you can look at the current system and say "it's working fine". But I agree that we need to look beyond the worst examples (by fixing them) and get onto the far bigger issues such as why work doesn't pay when you have kids etc etc

    For the record I disagree completely with any policy or arrangement that tells the terminally ill to get a job or die of hunger. I think every human agrees with that.

    My wider point is that these issues are best addressed by sober discussions, that the overly hyperbolic language - from those who started this policy the the first place - is at best not helping and probably making things worse.

    Work doesn’t pay when you have kids because Gordon Brown introduced £50bn a year of borrowed money spent on tax credits, alongside rules where all this can be taken away if you move from 16 hours a week to 17. UC is absolutely doing the right thing here, even if the details such as waiting times need addressing (we can thank a more recent former Chancellor for that one).
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 29,042
    edited December 2017
    So not by Xmas then:

    Jeremy Corbyn says he expects another general election next year, which he will “probably win”.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-says-expects-another-11717491

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    I don't get how you can look at the current system and say "it's working fine". But I agree that we need to look beyond the worst examples (by fixing them) and get onto the far bigger issues such as why work doesn't pay when you have kids etc etc

    Because your first response isn't "Tories are good people, let's sit down and figure out how to make this work better" it's "Tories are evil immoral deviants who will burn in hell"

    That tends to get people's backs up
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    @Alanbrooke as formatting is broken I'll not directly quote...

    Surely here is the challenge. Doing the right thing is difficult. Plenty of moral crusade politicians of both sides have tried and failed (or in the case of IDS claimed a moral crusade and done their best to make things as worse as possible for the people allegedly being 'helped')

    I just don't understand this current government and current ministers. Their policy is simple - make work pay. Be fair to the taxpayer. Yet in practice the policy is neither, and when swathes of proof are presented to them about the needless suffering AND the cost to the taxpayer, their response is a shrug of the shoulders. I'd expect outrage of some kind - Tories are principled people and certainly dislike state largesse. Yet seem nonplussed by a system which wrongly takes money off the poorest and they pays for an appeal system that it loses in the vast majority of cases then having to pay back the withheld money AND costs.

    This indifference to people can't be a long term benefit to the party. Seeming to not care about examples of ex squaddies left to die of hunger or disabled people left to crawl around their flat or terminal cancer patients pronounced fit for work and dying destitute winning a posthumous appeal - these are all the direct result of government policy. That policy could be at least tweaked to prevent similar outrages, yet it is not.

    Why? Is that not proof of a basic immorality - a government that choses not to give a shit to pointless suffering imposed by it's own incompetent indifference? You want a policy of work capability assessments that's fair. But crap ones that make idiot decisions and create this hell and cost more money? Come on...

    I saw a particularly egregious stopping of a PIP last week, in a patient with a severe but invisible disability. On the other hand, I do see plenty of evidence of others exploiting the welfare state.

    We seem to have a system that wreaks punishments on meek inarticulate people while leaving open doors to manipulative scroungers. The problem is that it is easier to target the former as they tend to compliance. The system has targets set to get people off benefits, rather than evaluate real need.
    True, although some of your colleagues are happy to support claims almost willy nilly leading to a lack of trust in the GP system as a means of judging. If they could be relied on it would be the most effective way.

    Political rhetoric doesn't help either - the Daily Pokitics contributor video posted yesterday claiming 21% of the population is disabled is non credible and frankly unhelpful to a rational discussion of needs and objectives and how to best satisfy them
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,832

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, but on topic for this one:

    Charles said:

    Re defining socially liberal and socially conservative: https://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EU-Briefing-Paper-12-Brexit-and-the-election_V2.pdf see page 6 for the report within the link provided in the tweet.

    Here’s this from the FT which also provides some clarity to the socially liberal versus socially conservative divide - which includes views on traditional British values, pace of cultural change, and crime and punishment.

    Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories
    What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

    I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it that way - the shutting down of dissenting opinion, for example.
    Yes some of the more right on elements are prone to argue against dissent against their view. Which is exactly the same as the nutter wing of the Tory party and press with their "Crush the Saboteurs" tendency.

    On differences between the parties I am also going to raise morality. Not a I am moral and you are immoral argument, but who uses it. Labour have a very clear sense of injustice, that it is immoral on a basic level of human decency to have a policy that leaves cancer patients to die in abject poverty having been declared fit for work. Tories never defend these outrages, or even respond to them. We get some platitudes about a principle which their policies always seem diametrically opposed to in practice, and a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

    Yet when it comes down to gay marriage there is OUTRAGE. On biblical grounds often. Yet the same Bible has an awful lot to say about the treatment of the poor sick and needy and gets ignored by the same people...
    The problem about using arguments based on morality and justice comes when one does things or tolerates attitudes in one's party, that are immoral and unjust.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,584
    Sandpit said:


    What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

    I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it that way - the shutting down of dissenting opinion, for example.

    Yes, that's right. One can make all kinds of distinctions on both left and right. The difference between people who want to shut down or even kill their opponents and people who want to win the arguments is stark on both wings of politics. But it's a different issue from whether people want to have a strong state with lots of employment laws etc. and people who see that as restricting their freedom.

    Curtice's thesis is an interesting oversimplification. It ignores people like Corbyn and McDonnell, who have never been especially interested in social issues like gay marriage though generally side with the liberal view of them. A more important division might be attitudes to globalisation. Is it desirable and/or inevitable, and we should embrace it and make it work for everyone (the view of Blair and many on the right) or is it a race to the bottom coupled with massive tax avoidance which we must try to curb (the view of most on the left, but also many of the anti-immigration people). That too is a simplification (I think it's inevitable AND dangerous) but it's arguably the most important challenge for all parties.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    edited December 2017

    @Alanbrooke as formatting is broken I'll not directly quote...

    Surely here is the challenge. Doing the right thing is difficult. Plenty of moral crusade politicians of both sides have tried and failed (or in the case of IDS claimed a moral crusade and done their best to make things as worse as possible for the people allegedly being 'helped')

    I just don't understand this current government and current ministers. Their policy is simple - make work pay. Be fair to the taxpayer. Yet in practice the policy is neither, and when swathes of proof are presented to them about the needless suffering AND the cost to the taxpayer, their response is a shrug of the shoulders. I'd expect outrage of some kind - Tories are principled people and certainly dislike state largesse. Yet seem nonplussed by a system which wrongly takes money off the poorest and they pays for an appeal system that it loses in the vast majority of cases then having to pay back the withheld money AND costs.

    This indifference to people can't be a long term benefit to the party. Seeming to not care about examples of ex squaddies left to die of hunger or disabled people left to crawl around their flat or terminal cancer patients pronounced fit for work and dying destitute winning a posthumous appeal - these are all the direct result of government policy. That policy could be at least tweaked to prevent similar outrages, yet it is not.

    Why? Is that not proof of a basic immorality - a government that choses not to give a shit to pointless suffering imposed by it's own incompetent indifference? You want a policy of work capability assessments that's fair. But crap ones that make idiot decisions and create this hell and cost more money? Come on...

    I saw a particularly egregious stopping of a PIP last week, in a patient with a severe but invisible disability. On the other hand, I do see plenty of evidence of others exploiting the welfare state.

    We seem to have a system that wreaks punishments on meek inarticulate people while leaving open doors to manipulative scroungers. The problem is that it is easier to target the former as they tend to compliance. The system has targets set to get people off benefits, rather than evaluate real need.
    Fair points, and I’m sure you see your fair share of these situations on both sides.

    It’s the same with all government interactions, they’re set up to be gamed. Legal immigration is the same - I can’t move back to the UK with my wife because our not-uncommon situation just doesn't exist in their box-ticking exercise (I met and married non-EU citizen while working abroad) - yet others in slightly different circumstances have no problem. It gives the impression that those who seek to do the right thing are discriminated against by government when they need help, while others appear to have no problems achieving the same ends.
  • Good morning, everyone.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    Charles said:

    @Alanbrooke as formatting is broken I'll not directly quote...

    Surely here is the challenge. Doing the right thing is difficult. Plenty of moral crusade politicians of both sides have tried and failed (or in the case of IDS claimed a moral crusade and done their best to make things as worse as possible for the people allegedly being 'helped')

    I just don't understand this current government and current ministers. Their policy is simple - make work pay. Be fair to the taxpayer. Yet in practice the policy is neither, and when swathes of proof are presented to them about the needless suffering AND the cost to the taxpayer, their response is a shrug of the shoulders. I'd expect outrage of some kind - Tories are principled people and certainly dislike state largesse. Yet seem nonplussed by a system which wrongly takes money off the poorest and they pays for an appeal system that it loses in the vast majority of cases then having to pay back the withheld money AND costs.



    Why? Is that not proof of a basic immorality - a government that choses not to give a shit to pointless suffering imposed by it's own incompetent indifference? You want a policy of work capability assessments that's fair. But crap ones that make idiot decisions and create this hell and cost more money? Come on...

    I saw a particularly egregious stopping of a PIP last week, in a patient with a severe but invisible disability. On the other hand, I do see plenty of evidence of others exploiting the welfare state.

    We seem to have a system that wreaks punishments on meek inarticulate people while leaving open doors to manipulative scroungers. The problem is that it is easier to target the former as they tend to compliance. The system has targets set to get people off benefits, rather than evaluate real need.
    True, although some of your colleagues are happy to support claims almost willy nilly leading to a lack of trust in the GP system as a means of judging. If they could be relied on it would be the most effective way.

    Political rhetoric doesn't help either - the Daily Pokitics contributor video posted yesterday claiming 21% of the population is disabled is non credible and frankly unhelpful to a rational discussion of needs and objectives and how to best satisfy them
    To be fair to GP’s, Charles, they normally live, or close to, the communities they serve and there’s a lot of ‘unseen’ pressure. That’s not saying I haven’t seen the odd ‘bent’ GP.
    I have a lot of sympathy with Dr F’s last posting, and particular the first sentence of the last paragraph: 'We seem to have a system that wreaks punishments on meek inarticulate people while leaving open doors to manipulative scroungers.'
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,668
    The right vs left divide was already a poor label, necessitating further descriptors in any case. They just mean good and bad.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    The use of the Sanctions regime to try to keep a cap on the cost of benefits was immoral. The delays built into the provision of UC was obscene and is even now only partially addressed, the operation of fitness to work criteria through ATOS was disgusting.

    What all of these failures have in common is a lack of empathy with the feckless, incompetent and needy in our society. I don’t think this is a party issue so much as a government one. When policy is produced and implemented by producer interests with their convenience in mind vulnerable people get hurt. One party trying to claim the moral high ground in this area really doesn’t help address the issue although I would accept that some on the left have done more to highlight the consequences than many on the right.
  • King Cole, I've heard a similar stat on disability (mentioned by Charles) and it does seem literally incredible. It could be using a very broad definition (bad hearing in one ear, for example), but it still sounds crackers.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,668

    So not by Xmas then:

    Jeremy Corbyn says he expects another general election next year, which he will “probably win”.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-says-expects-another-11717491

    He probably would win a GE now, at least in being the largest party sense.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,498
    edited December 2017
    Dr Fox,

    "We seem to have a system that wreaks punishments on meek inarticulate people while leaving open doors to manipulative scroungers."

    That's the problem, and it used to differentiate left from right. Some left-wig politicians (eg Tony Benn in his heyday) refuse to believe there are manipulative scroungers, or they don't matter. Some right-wingers seem inclined to ignore the genuine cases.

    Just over fifty years ago, as a naïve student, I joined the 'Socialist Society' at University expecting to meet like-minded people. I met a small number of well-meaning Christian types but a majority of posh, middle-class youngsters with an abiding hatred of and anger at those who didn't totally agree with them (even their Christian colleagues, describing them as pinko liberals). This was usually allied with a total ignorance of how normal people lived.

    People are people whichever group they come from - a mixture of good, bad and indifferent. But I've learned to avoid the extremists of whatever hue.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    Charles said:



    Yet in practice the policy is neither, and when swathes of proof are presented to them about the needless suffering AND the cost to the taxpayer, their response is a shrug of the shoulders. I'd expect outrage of some kind - Tories are principled people and certainly dislike state largesse. Yet seem nonplussed by a system which wrongly takes money off the poorest and they pays for an appeal system that it loses in the vast majority of cases then having to pay back the withheld money AND costs.



    Why? Is that not proof of a basic immorality - a government that choses not to give a shit to pointless suffering imposed by it's own incompetent indifference? You want a policy of work capability assessments that's fair. But crap ones that make idiot decisions and create this hell and cost more money? Come on...

    I saw a particularly egregious stopping of a PIP last week, in a patient with a severe but invisible disability. On the other hand, I do see plenty of evidence of others exploiting the welfare state.

    We seem to have a system that wreaks punishments on meek inarticulate people while leaving open doors to manipulative scroungers. The problem is that it is easier to target the former as they tend to compliance. The system has targets set to get people off benefits, rather than evaluate real need.
    True, although some of your colleagues are happy to support claims almost willy nilly leading to a lack of trust in the GP system as a means of judging. If they could be relied on it would be the most effective way.

    Political rhetoric doesn't help either - the Daily Pokitics contributor video posted yesterday claiming 21% of the population is disabled is non credible and frankly unhelpful to a rational discussion of needs and objectives and how to best satisfy them
    To be fair to GP’s, Charles, they normally live, or close to, the communities they serve and there’s a lot of ‘unseen’ pressure. That’s not saying I haven’t seen the odd ‘bent’ GP.
    I have a lot of sympathy with Dr F’s last posting, and particular the first sentence of the last paragraph: 'We seem to have a system that wreaks punishments on meek inarticulate people while leaving open doors to manipulative scroungers.'
    I'm not trying to be unfair - and it may be peer pressure rather than being bent - but either way the outcome is the same. We need some way of ensuring that those who need help get while limiting the amount of money that is misdirected (for what ever reason). In order to build ongoing public support for welfare it must be *seen* to be fair as well as *actually* being fair

    Fundamentally to do this you need to either stop the wrong people getting on benefits or have a mechanism to detect errors and correct them
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    DavidL said:

    The use of the Sanctions regime to try to keep a cap on the cost of benefits was immoral. The delays built into the provision of UC was obscene and is even now only partially addressed, the operation of fitness to work criteria through ATOS was disgusting.

    What all of these failures have in common is a lack of empathy with the feckless, incompetent and needy in our society. I don’t think this is a party issue so much as a government one. When policy is produced and implemented by producer interests with their convenience in mind vulnerable people get hurt. One party trying to claim the moral high ground in this area really doesn’t help address the issue although I would accept that some on the left have done more to highlight the consequences than many on the right.

    Yes, a lot of things are good in theory but completely messed up in practice. Government are good at doing that.

    The idea that someone unemployed and claiming benefits should be required to attend regular interviews and workshops shouldn’t be particularly controversial, but the way it was done in practice (with targets on job centre staff for sanctions and savings?) was terrible and didn’t help the situation.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,668
    Sean_F said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, but on topic for this one:

    Charles said:

    Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories
    What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

    I agree that parts of Labour’s Corbynite support are very authoritarian, but they themselves don’t see it that way - the shutting down of dissenting opinion, for example.
    Yes some of the more right on elements are prone to argue against dissent against their view. Which is exactly the same as the nutter wing of the Tory party and press with their "Crush the Saboteurs" tendency.

    On differences between the parties I am also going to raise morality. Not a I am moral and you are immoral argument, but who uses it. Labour have a very clear sense of injustice, that it is immoral on a basic level of human decency to have a policy that leaves cancer patients to die in abject poverty having been declared fit for work. Tories never defend these outrages, or even respond to them. We get some platitudes about a principle which their policies always seem diametrically opposed to in practice, and a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

    Yet when it comes down to gay marriage there is OUTRAGE. On biblical grounds often. Yet the same Bible has an awful lot to say about the treatment of the poor sick and needy and gets ignored by the same people...
    The problem about using arguments based on morality and justice comes when one does things or tolerates attitudes in one's party, that are immoral and unjust.
    Indeed. The tories do use morality arguments, though I have to say I don't see biblical grounds being used as often as Rochdale thinks. And as they note you have to look past worst examples - overdeveloped focus on morality doesn't help when people condemn a policy as evil because some have been hurt by it , when it is not a deflection to suggest overall it is good and the worst impacts fixed rather than getting into a good vs evil debate.

    Good policies sometimes have negative impacts for some especially early on or if some aspect has been done poorly. I highly doubt the last labour government abandoned as immoral every policy which initially had some bad impacts.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,970
    CD13 said:

    Dr Fox,

    "We seem to have a system that wreaks punishments on meek inarticulate people while leaving open doors to manipulative scroungers."

    That's the problem, and it used to differentiate left from right. Some left-wig politicians (eg Tony Benn in his heyday) refuse to believe there are manipulative scroungers, or they don't matter. Some right-wingers seem inclined to ignore the genuine cases.

    Just over fifty years ago, as a naïve student, I joined the 'Socialist Society' at University expecting to meet like-minded people. I met a small number of well-meaning Christian types but a majority of posh, middle-class youngsters with an abiding hatred of and anger at those who didn't totally agree with them (even their Christian colleagues, describing them as pinko liberals). This was usually allied with a total ignorance of how normal people lived.

    People are people whichever group they come from - a mixture of good, bad and indifferent. But I've learned to avoid the extremists of whatever hue.

    Everyone has a unique set of experiences and a story to tell. That's why I mainly stay in.
  • kle4 said:

    So not by Xmas then:

    Jeremy Corbyn says he expects another general election next year, which he will “probably win”.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-says-expects-another-11717491

    He probably would win a GE now, at least in being the largest party sense.
    Which is why is not going to happen......

  • tlg86 said:

    Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of big business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the big business community.

    Fixed that for you.
    Yes, I did actually think about the big/small business issue, Tlg, before posting.

    Certainly the Tories have always identified strongly with small business owners. There's probably more ambivalence on the Leave/Remain divide there though. I would think a lot of small business owners would be Leavers, although it might depend on the type of business.

    There's certainly a good deal of ambivalence amongst farmers - or those that farm on a modest scale at least.
    I run a small business and most of my customers are small businesses. I don't talk politics with them and I don't remember any time when one of them has raised the subject. I have no idea whether they are leavers or remainers. What makes you think small business owners might be mainly leavers?
    Pretty much a guess, Recidivist, and you would know better than I.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    edited December 2017

    kle4 said:

    So not by Xmas then:

    Jeremy Corbyn says he expects another general election next year, which he will “probably win”.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-says-expects-another-11717491

    He probably would win a GE now, at least in being the largest party sense.
    Which is why is not going to happen......
    Quite. We’ve already seen what happens when the government calls an early election, even if they have a 20-point lead in the polls. The chances of them doing it again by choice are very slim indeed.

    Bet on this Parliament going the full term. 3.35 for 2022 election on Betfair.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28265958/market?marketId=1.132099836
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,668

    kle4 said:

    So not by Xmas then:

    Jeremy Corbyn says he expects another general election next year, which he will “probably win”.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-says-expects-another-11717491

    He probably would win a GE now, at least in being the largest party sense.
    Which is why is not going to happen......
    Probably not. But the government could collapse under its Brexit divisions and enough the voting for an election within the next year is possible. I don't like the odds thoubgh.

    The real point though is he is very confident, and he has more reason to be so than pessimistic. It's not really much embarrassment that offhand predictions like this may not pan out.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978
    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    So not by Xmas then:

    Jeremy Corbyn says he expects another general election next year, which he will “probably win”.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-says-expects-another-11717491

    He probably would win a GE now, at least in being the largest party sense.
    Which is why is not going to happen......
    Quite. We’ve already seen what happens when the government calls an early election, even if they have a 20-point lead in the polls. The chances of them doing it again by choice are very slim indeed.

    Bet on this Parliament going the full term. 3.35 for 2022 election on Betfair.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28265958/market?marketId=1.132099836
    Would this be in the sense of his 2017 'win'?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,294
    DavidL said:

    The use of the Sanctions regime to try to keep a cap on the cost of benefits was immoral. The delays built into the provision of UC was obscene and is even now only partially addressed, the operation of fitness to work criteria through ATOS was disgusting.

    What all of these failures have in common is a lack of empathy with the feckless, incompetent and needy in our society. I don’t think this is a party issue so much as a government one. When policy is produced and implemented by producer interests with their convenience in mind vulnerable people get hurt. One party trying to claim the moral high ground in this area really doesn’t help address the issue although I would accept that some on the left have done more to highlight the consequences than many on the right.

    It’s worth pointing out also that the estimates of benefit fraud are that it is very low.
    A risk based approach would have the govt doing much less on it compared to other kinds of fraud. But benefit fraud really really angers the public and is obviously hyped up by certain newspapers.

    I don’t think we will see the Conservatives address the issues you talk about. Benefit fraud is just too good an issue for them - a real vote winner.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    Mortimer said:

    Sandpit said:

    kle4 said:

    So not by Xmas then:

    Jeremy Corbyn says he expects another general election next year, which he will “probably win”.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-says-expects-another-11717491

    He probably would win a GE now, at least in being the largest party sense.
    Which is why is not going to happen......
    Quite. We’ve already seen what happens when the government calls an early election, even if they have a 20-point lead in the polls. The chances of them doing it again by choice are very slim indeed.

    Bet on this Parliament going the full term. 3.35 for 2022 election on Betfair.
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28265958/market?marketId=1.132099836
    Would this be in the sense of his 2017 'win'?
    The ‘win’ that saw him keep his job as the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition?
  • Sandpit said:


    Basically, the issue is one of unnecessarily hyperbolic language used on both sides. For example the ATOS assessments started in 2009 under Labour, here are the Guardian criticising it at the time https://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/oct/28/work-capability-assessment-incapacity-benefits It’s difficult to accept screaming critisicm of the policy from those who voted for it and implemented it in the first place. .

    Presumably you're ok with screaming criticism of the policy from those who voted against it and would mitigate it or do away with it if they could.
  • Charles said:

    ToryJim said:



    Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

    I think like most things Brexit, Business attitudes are more complicated than at first glance. Big business certainly doesn't like Brexit, but smaller enterprises are far keener. It's a mistake to view business as only the megacorps, a mistake government often makes.
    Thanks Tory Jim.

    That qualifies and balances my argument nicely. (And makes it unnecessary for me to reply to Charles above!)
    Hmpf!

    (But seriously, big business likes regulation because it's a barrier to entry. And if they can reduce their costs by making it transnational then so much the better)
    Big business likes globalisation as it allows it to produce at third world costs, sell at first world prices and pay taxes at Monaco levels.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,668
    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sandpit said:

    FPT, but on topic for this one:

    Charles said:

    Labour is much more authoritarian - in a less overt but more insidious way - than the Tories
    What would be really interesting is to see the evolution of the groups over time. I suspect that under Blair the Labour group moved further into the right and authoritarian sectors than is the case under Corbyn.

    I agree for example.
    Yes some of the more right on elements are prone to argue against dissent against their view. Which is exactly the same as the nutter wing of the Tory party and press with their "Crush the Saboteurs" tendency.

    On differences between the parties I am also going to raise morality. Not a I am moral and you are immoral argument, but who uses it. Labour have a very clear sense of injustice, that it is immoral on a basic level of human decency to have a policy that leaves cancer patients to die in abject poverty having been declared fit for work. Tories never defend these outrages, or even respond to them. We get some platitudes about a principle which their policies always seem diametrically opposed to in practice, and a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

    Yet when it comes down to gay marriage there is OUTRAGE. On biblical grounds often. Yet the same Bible has an awful lot to say about the treatment of the poor sick and needy and gets ignored by the same people...
    The problem about using arguments based on morality and justice comes when one does things or tolerates attitudes in one's party, that are immoral and unjust.
    Indeed. The tories do use morality arguments, though I have to say I don't see biblical grounds being used as often as Rochdale thinks. And as they note you have to look past worst examples - overdeveloped focus on morality doesn't help when people condemn a policy as evil because some have been hurt by it , when it is not a deflection to suggest overall it is good and the worst impacts fixed rather than getting into a good vs evil debate.

    Good policies sometimes have negative impacts for some especially early on or if some aspect has been done poorly. I highly doubt the last labour government abandoned as immoral every policy which initially had some bad impacts.
    And a good thing too. You can go too far and ignore a policy just isn't working in defence of some principle, that's a trap for left and right, but even that is more likely to occur for so called morality , that policy x is the right thing to do, even if evidence says it isn't working. In some countries that moral argument in the faceof evidence of failure is their whole rationale.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    Of course the divide was less pronounced in 2015 when many social conservatives voted UKIP rather than Tory after the Cameron government passed same sex marriage and over immigration concerns and the most socially liberal party, the LDs, were in coalition with the Tories. In 2017 the divide became more pronounced as most UKIP voters voted Tory and the LDs were more sharply opposed to the Tories over Brexit.

    It also explains why the Tories have a better chance in socially conservative working class, industrial towns than they do in socially liberal inner cities. Longer term while being the more socially liberal of the main parties will help Labour keep its big lead with socially liberal young people it may mean it has a closer fight on its hands to keep ethnic minority support, the Asian community in particular is socially conservative and shares Tory values more on that front.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978
    @RochdalePioneers - you seem to have forgotten that it was a Tory PM who introduced gay marriage.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,294


    tlg86 said:

    Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of big business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the big business community.

    Fixed that for you.
    Yes, I did actually think about the big/small business issue, Tlg, before posting.

    Certainly the Tories have always identified strongly with small business owners. There's probably more ambivalence on the Leave/Remain divide there though. I would think a lot of small business owners would be Leavers, although it might depend on the type of business.

    There's certainly a good deal of ambivalence amongst farmers - or those that farm on a modest scale at least.
    I run a small business and most of my customers are small businesses. I don't talk politics with them and I don't remember any time when one of them has raised the subject. I have no idea whether they are leavers or remainers. What makes you think small business owners might be mainly leavers?
    Pretty much a guess, Recidivist, and you would know better than I.
    There was polling done that suggested that I think think- Daniel Hannan used to trot it out.
    Although I admit - his reliability as a source has taken a bit of a hit...

  • Charles said:

    ToryJim said:



    Btw, it's an interesting reversal of roles that Curtiss is touching on here. The Tories have always been identified as the Party of business but Leave doesn't really have the support of the business community.

    I think like most things Brexit, Business attitudes are more complicated than at first glance. Big business certainly doesn't like Brexit, but smaller enterprises are far keener. It's a mistake to view business as only the megacorps, a mistake government often makes.
    Thanks Tory Jim.

    That qualifies and balances my argument nicely. (And makes it unnecessary for me to reply to Charles above!)
    Hmpf!

    (But seriously, big business likes regulation because it's a barrier to entry. And if they can reduce their costs by making it transnational then so much the better)
    Big business likes globalisation as it allows it to produce at third world costs, sell at first world prices and pay taxes at Monaco levels.
    Snappy quote.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    DavidL said:

    The divide between our major parties is in practice much less than either of them would want to admit. Both are fundamentally big state, big spending, interventionists. During the years of supposedly vicious austerity government spending rose inexorably upwards, NHS spending increased in real terms every year and taxes on the rich increased whilst the poor were taken out of Income Tax.

    If there is a difference it tends to be on the anterior question of where all this money comes from. Tories believe that a successful welfare state needs a thriving private sector to support it and is more interested in what is needed for it to thrive. Labour supporters tend to believe that successful economies are “fair” economies, where everyone has a stake and where social cohesion is emphasised. This mass participation will encourage growth and become self funding.

    The degree of difference on either side even here can be exaggerated with plenty in each of the main parties that have some sympathy with the approach of the other. Where they are both having difficulties is with some of their core supporters who have come to realise that their team does not really represent their opinions. So small state economic liberals find little to appeal to them in the modern Tory Party and genuinely socialists have, pre Corbyn, wondered about the priorities of Labour. Now it is those who recognise the importance of the private sector who feel uncomfortable.

    Under Osborne government spending as a percentage of GDP fell by over 5% and the top rate of income tax was also cut from 50% to 45%
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,774
    Sandpit said:



    It’s the same with all government interactions, they’re set up to be gamed. Legal immigration is the same - I can’t move back to the UK with my wife because our not-uncommon situation just doesn't exist in their box-ticking exercise (I met and married non-EU citizen while working abroad) - yet others in slightly different circumstances have no problem. It gives the impression that those who seek to do the right thing are discriminated against by government when they need help, while others appear to have no problems achieving the same ends.

    Good luck with that. It took us nearly six years to sort it out and had to start from scratch twice as they lost documents. (Indian wife, living in Russia at the time, married in Cyprus)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975
    edited December 2017
    Mortimer said:

    @RochdalePioneers - you seem to have forgotten that it was a Tory PM who introduced gay marriage.

    Because the LibDems gave them no realistic alternative. Although I am quite sure Cameron was personally OK with it.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978
    IanB2 said:

    Mortimer said:

    @RochdalePioneers - you seem to have forgotten that it was a Tory PM who introduced gay marriage.

    Because the LibDems gave them no realistic alternative.
    Yawn.

    Pretty fed up of the Libs picking and choosing those policies of the coalition that they were involved in. Turns out the country seems to be, too.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 31,668
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    The divide between our major parties is in practice much less than either of them would want to admit. Both are fundamentally big state, big spending, interventionists. During the years of supposedly vicious austerity government spending rose inexorably upwards, NHS spending increased in real terms every year and taxes on the rich increased whilst the poor were taken out of Income Tax.

    If there is a difference it tends to be on the anterior question of where all this money comes from. Tories believe that a successful welfare state needs a thriving private sector to support it and is more interested in what is needed for it to thrive. Labour supporters tend to believe that successful economies are “fair” economies, where everyone has a stake and where social cohesion is emphasised. This mass participation will encourage growth and become self funding.

    The degree of difference on either side even here can be exaggerated with plenty in each of the main parties that have some sympathy with the approach of the other. Where they are both having difficulties is with some of their core supporters who have come to realise that their team does not really represent their opinions. So small state economic liberals find little to appeal to them in the modern Tory Party and genuinely socialists have, pre Corbyn, wondered about the priorities of Labour. Now it is those who recognise the importance of the private sector who feel uncomfortable.

    Under Osborne government spending as a percentage of GDP fell by over 5% and the top rate of income tax was also cut from 50% to 45%
    Which is higher than it was for many many years, so minor in the overall context of Davids point I woukd guess.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 934
    Is authoritarianism simply a reaction to hard times? When times are good, people cry out for more freedom, less government intervention, the ability to spend more of their money however they choose.

    But when times are bad, they cry *something must be done* which is the natural ground of interventionists, nanny statists, wannabe autocrats and meddling bureaucrats - all of whom appear to have answers to the "something" that must be done.

    We are living through extraordinarily fearful times, and people are running to those who seem to have the answers - whether that is voting leave or electing a Marxist or any one of the myriad "anything but the status quo" results we have seen in the last few years.
  • rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    The use of the Sanctions regime to try to keep a cap on the cost of benefits was immoral. The delays built into the provision of UC was obscene and is even now only partially addressed, the operation of fitness to work criteria through ATOS was disgusting.

    What all of these failures have in common is a lack of empathy with the feckless, incompetent and needy in our society. I don’t think this is a party issue so much as a government one. When policy is produced and implemented by producer interests with their convenience in mind vulnerable people get hurt. One party trying to claim the moral high ground in this area really doesn’t help address the issue although I would accept that some on the left have done more to highlight the consequences than many on the right.

    It’s worth pointing out also that the estimates of benefit fraud are that it is very low.
    A risk based approach would have the govt doing much less on it compared to other kinds of fraud. But benefit fraud really really angers the public and is obviously hyped up by certain newspapers.

    I don’t think we will see the Conservatives address the issues you talk about. Benefit fraud is just too good an issue for them - a real vote winner.
    Morning all,

    Things are worse than you say, I think. The whole concept of welfare has been so denigrated by certain politicians and newspapers that the system is close to being untenable as a functioning safety net.
  • rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    The use of the Sanctions regime to try to keep a cap on the cost of benefits was immoral. The delays built into the provision of UC was obscene and is even now only partially addressed, the operation of fitness to work criteria through ATOS was disgusting.

    What all of these failures have in common is a lack of empathy with the feckless, incompetent and needy in our society. I don’t think this is a party issue so much as a government one. When policy is produced and implemented by producer interests with their convenience in mind vulnerable people get hurt. One party trying to claim the moral high ground in this area really doesn’t help address the issue although I would accept that some on the left have done more to highlight the consequences than many on the right.

    It’s worth pointing out also that the estimates of benefit fraud are that it is very low.
    A risk based approach would have the govt doing much less on it compared to other kinds of fraud. But benefit fraud really really angers the public and is obviously hyped up by certain newspapers.

    I don’t think we will see the Conservatives address the issues you talk about. Benefit fraud is just too good an issue for them - a real vote winner.
    It is worth bearing in mind how legitimate estimates of benefit fraud are.

    I've personally known of lots of people who claim benefits while working cash in hand jobs etc but they get away with it and I doubt they're included in these estimates of yours. I used to work in an industry where cash in hand payments were rife and I was struggling to recruit people as I would only pay by BACS and I was repeatedly told "... but I'd lose my benefits" by job applicants without them even blinking. One guy even spat on me before storming out of the building when I told him I wouldn't pay him cash. It was entirely accepted second nature that they could work cash in hand and keep benefits.

    The truth is like all types of fraud it is hard to ever put your finger on how serious a problem is because if they're getting away with it, its not getting counted.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691

    The business point is key. Hard Brexiteers are going against the collected experience and factual reality of all of their traditional donors - the "hard Brexit will be fine" mob are getting they know more about car manufacturing than Honda.

    You have to wonder how the Tories have managed to get themselves on the opposite side of the argument from business. Interesting comments from Barnier this morning (once again) restating the obvious - the EU won't give us a deal for the city.

    Given it was the more manufacturing focused North and Midlands that won it for Leave and London and the City were heaving Remain and given the former were moat concerned about ending free movement which means leaving the single market the latter want to stay in any FTA will not be a deal for the city, that is clear, it will be more Canada than Norway.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    Charles said:

    Charles said:



    Yet in practice the policy is neither, and when swathes of proof are presented to them about the needless suffering AND the cost to the taxpayer, their response is a shrug of the shoulders. I'd expect outrage of some kind - Tories are principled people and certainly dislike state largesse. Yet seem nonplussed by a system which wrongly takes money off the poorest and they pays for an appeal system that it loses in the vast majority of cases then having to pay back the withheld money AND costs.



    Why? Is that not proof of a basic immorality - a government that choses not to give a shit to pointless suffering imposed by it's own incompetent indifference? You want a policy of work capability assessments that's fair. But crap ones that make idiot decisions and create this hell and cost more money? Come on...

    I saw a particularly egregious stopping of a PIP last week, in a patient with a severe but invisible disability. On the other hand, I do see plenty of evidence of others exploiting the welfare state.



    Political rhetoric doesn't help either - the Daily Pokitics contributor video posted yesterday claiming 21% of the population is disabled is non credible and frankly unhelpful to a rational discussion of needs and objectives and how to best satisfy them
    To be fair to GP’s, Charles, they normally live, or close to, the communities they serve and there’s a lot of ‘unseen’ pressure. That’s not saying I haven’t seen the odd ‘bent’ GP.
    I have a lot of sympathy with Dr F’s last posting, and particular the first sentence of the last paragraph: 'We seem to have a system that wreaks punishments on meek inarticulate people while leaving open doors to manipulative scroungers.'
    I'm not trying to be unfair - and it may be peer pressure rather than being bent - but either way the outcome is the same. We need some way of ensuring that those who need help get while limiting the amount of money that is misdirected (for what ever reason). In order to build ongoing public support for welfare it must be *seen* to be fair as well as *actually* being fair

    Fundamentally to do this you need to either stop the wrong people getting on benefits or have a mechanism to detect errors and correct them
    I would never accuse you of being unfair, and I agree that we do need some way of ensuring that those who need help get it, while those who are manipulating the system get ‘discouraged’! However, at the moment it seems to be assumed publically that those who are on benefits don’t deserve them.
    However, my family’s experience of the benefit system is that it worked better than we really needed it to!
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,938
    Morning all :)

    It's an interesting argument. Theresa May has, from the moment she became Prime Minister, emphasised the role of the State as an empowering part of her conservative philosophy. Indeed, her role model looks to be Heath or Heseltine rather than Thatcher or Cameron.

    It's a strand of conservatism that was in eclipse in the Thatcher and to an extent the Major years where the emphasis was on laissez faire and "enrichessez vous" to borrow two French expressions including one from Guizot. The market ruled, the State was to be reduced to the margins and people were going to be allowed to take personal responsibility (remember that?) for their lives.

    I'm not sure terms like "social liberal" and "social conservative" are correct - it's more about the role of the State and the role of the individual which is the classic division across all parties and across Anglo-Saxon politics. Neither May nor Corbyn are "small State" thinkers - both see the State as having significant roles in public policy setting and implementation.

    The Thatcherites turned against the EU when it appeared their triumph over one overpowering State would be under mined by another unelected bureaucracy. We are already seeing a number in the Cabinet who see "taking back control" in terms of "the removal of constraints" on working hours, paid holidays for part-time workers etc.

    The war for the soul of post-EU Britain is now beginning and the shape of that society for the 2020s and beyond is far from clear.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,489
    Mortimer said:

    @RochdalePioneers - you seem to have forgotten that it was a Tory PM who introduced gay marriage.

    Good morning all.

    While that's true, there's no doubt that it antagonized a fair few Tory members. I'm very proud of how far the UK has come in my lifetime; when I was born, homosexuality was illegal. We're a good country because we're mostly decent, tolerant people.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    edited December 2017
    Confusion over who said what by the system.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975
    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mortimer said:

    @RochdalePioneers - you seem to have forgotten that it was a Tory PM who introduced gay marriage.

    Because the LibDems gave them no realistic alternative.
    Yawn.

    Pretty fed up of the Libs picking and choosing those policies of the coalition that they were involved in. Turns out the country seems to be, too.
    Regardless, it's a simple fact that the initiative came from Featherstone and the LibDems. And managed by her as the relevant minister. The Tories fell into three camps, those that were wanting to embrace it positively (including the PM as I said), those opposed, and those who had sufficient mathematics to know how the Commons would vote on it, if the proposition had alternatively arrived there from outside government.
  • stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It's an interesting argument. Theresa May has, from the moment she became Prime Minister, emphasised the role of the State as an empowering part of her conservative philosophy. Indeed, her role model looks to be Heath or Heseltine rather than Thatcher or Cameron.

    It's a strand of conservatism that was in eclipse in the Thatcher and to an extent the Major years where the emphasis was on laissez faire and "enrichessez vous" to borrow two French expressions including one from Guizot. The market ruled, the State was to be reduced to the margins and people were going to be allowed to take personal responsibility (remember that?) for their lives.

    I'm not sure terms like "social liberal" and "social conservative" are correct - it's more about the role of the State and the role of the individual which is the classic division across all parties and across Anglo-Saxon politics. Neither May nor Corbyn are "small State" thinkers - both see the State as having significant roles in public policy setting and implementation.

    The Thatcherites turned against the EU when it appeared their triumph over one overpowering State would be under mined by another unelected bureaucracy. We are already seeing a number in the Cabinet who see "taking back control" in terms of "the removal of constraints" on working hours, paid holidays for part-time workers etc.

    The war for the soul of post-EU Britain is now beginning and the shape of that society for the 2020s and beyond is far from clear.

    Even across the pond, both President Bushes were big state Republicans, as was President Nixon.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    edited December 2017
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:



    It’s the same with all government interactions, they’re set up to be gamed. Legal immigration is the same - I can’t move back to the UK with my wife because our not-uncommon situation just doesn't exist in their box-ticking exercise (I met and married non-EU citizen while working abroad) - yet others in slightly different circumstances have no problem. It gives the impression that those who seek to do the right thing are discriminated against by government when they need help, while others appear to have no problems achieving the same ends.

    Good luck with that. It took us nearly six years to sort it out and had to start from scratch twice as they lost documents. (Indian wife, living in Russia at the time, married in Cyprus)
    Thanks! My wife’s Ukrainian and we’re living in Dubai at the moment. The biggest issue (apart from the paperwork) is the income requirement, which for some unknown reason they can’t take into account income earned abroad.

    So I can get a job in the UK as a higher rate taxpayer, but I would have to wait two years before I could sponsor my wife to join me.

    Meanwhile the system is easily gamed, by things like three brothers taking it in turns to be “manager” of the family firm, purely in order to get the qualifying salary (c.£23k) to bring a wife from abroad - and often as an arranged marriage.

    Even worse, if I were a non-British EU citizen I could bring my wife in with no problems, as EU citizens have a “right to a family life” in the U.K. that British citizens don’t.

    The last time we seriously looked at it, by far the easiest way would be for her to “buy” a passport from somewhere like Romania, where officials in the immigration department earn £300 a month. Nudge nudge.

    Rules are there for good reasons I can understand, but the legitimate immigration system is completely bonkers for someone who’s always done the right thing and just wants to move home with his wife. I guess we’ll be staying in the sandpit for a while longer.
  • Mr. Sandpit, sorry to hear about the migration nonsense with you and your wife. The system is crackers.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    edited December 2017
    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:



    It’s the same with all government interactions, they’re set up to be gamed. Legal immigration is the same - I can’t move back to the UK with my wife because our not-uncommon situation just doesn't exist in their box-ticking exercise (I met and married non-EU citizen while working abroad) - yet others in slightly different circumstances have no problem. It gives the impression that those who seek to do the right thing are discriminated against by government when they need help, while others appear to have no problems achieving the same ends.

    Good luck with that. It took us nearly six years to sort it out and had to start from scratch twice as they lost documents. (Indian wife, living in Russia at the time, married in Cyprus)
    Thanks! My wife’s Ukrainian and we’re living in Dubai at the moment. The biggest issue (apart from the paperwork) is the income requirement, which for some unknown reason they can’t take into account income earned abroad.

    So I can get a job in the UK as a higher rate taxpayer, but I would have to wait two years before I could sponsor my wife to join me.

    Meanwhile the system is easily gamed, by things like three brothers taking it in turns to be “manager” of the family firm, purely in order to get the qualifying salary to bring a wife from abroad - and often as an arranged marriage.

    Even worse, if I were a non-British EU citizen I could bring my wife in with no problems, as EU citizens have a “right to a family life” in the U.K. that British citizens don’t.

    The last time we seriously looked at it, by far the easiest way would be for her to “buy” a passport from somewhere like Romania, where officials in the immigration department earn £300 a month. Nudge nudge.

    Rules are there for good reasons I can understand, but the legitimate immigration system is completely bonkers for someone who’s always done the right thing and just wants to move home with his wife. I guess we’ll be staying in the sandpit for a while longer.
    I suspect that one of my sons, living in Thailand and married to a Thai, and with children by her, can bring said children here (they have dual nationality) but not his wife.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,181
    Roger said:

    It's fairly obvious why multi nationals would be in favour of `Remain' less so why nail bars would have a view one way or the other

    Presumably because like many small businesses some of their staff might be immigrants
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978
    edited December 2017
    IanB2 said:

    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mortimer said:

    @RochdalePioneers - you seem to have forgotten that it was a Tory PM who introduced gay marriage.

    Because the LibDems gave them no realistic alternative.
    Yawn.

    Pretty fed up of the Libs picking and choosing those policies of the coalition that they were involved in. Turns out the country seems to be, too.
    Regardless, it's a simple fact that the initiative came from Featherstone and the LibDems. And managed by her as the relevant minister. The Tories fell into three camps, those that were wanting to embrace it positively (including the PM as I said), those opposed, and those who had sufficient mathematics to know how the Commons would vote on it, if the proposition had alternatively arrived there from outside government.
    It is a real shame that the LDs couldn't be grown up about how policy works in coalitions. The continued attempt to claim some bits (indeed, to claim exclusivity or origination) but oppose others will likely cap their vote below 10% for the foreseeable. They're simply not a serious proposition as a party of government.
  • stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    It's an interesting argument. Theresa May has, from the moment she became Prime Minister, emphasised the role of the State as an empowering part of her conservative philosophy. Indeed, her role model looks to be Heath or Heseltine rather than Thatcher or Cameron.

    It's a strand of conservatism that was in eclipse in the Thatcher and to an extent the Major years where the emphasis was on laissez faire and "enrichessez vous" to borrow two French expressions including one from Guizot. The market ruled, the State was to be reduced to the margins and people were going to be allowed to take personal responsibility (remember that?) for their lives.

    I'm not sure terms like "social liberal" and "social conservative" are correct - it's more about the role of the State and the role of the individual which is the classic division across all parties and across Anglo-Saxon politics. Neither May nor Corbyn are "small State" thinkers - both see the State as having significant roles in public policy setting and implementation.

    The Thatcherites turned against the EU when it appeared their triumph over one overpowering State would be under mined by another unelected bureaucracy. We are already seeing a number in the Cabinet who see "taking back control" in terms of "the removal of constraints" on working hours, paid holidays for part-time workers etc.

    The war for the soul of post-EU Britain is now beginning and the shape of that society for the 2020s and beyond is far from clear.

    Support for the market made sense in the two generations of rising prosperity, falling debt and increasing home ownership.

    Its the ending of those things during the last 15 years that has broken the political model.

    The way that bankers were allowed to walk away with fortunes from the taxpayers also had an effect.

    The modern world seems to be one where some people can't win and some people can't lose.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975
    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mortimer said:

    @RochdalePioneers - you seem to have forgotten that it was a Tory PM who introduced gay marriage.

    Because the LibDems gave them no realistic alternative.
    Yawn.

    Pretty fed up of the Libs picking and choosing those policies of the coalition that they were involved in. Turns out the country seems to be, too.
    Regardless, it's a simple fact that the initiative came from Featherstone and the LibDems. And managed by her as the relevant minister. The Tories fell into three camps, those that were wanting to embrace it positively (including the PM as I said), those opposed, and those who had sufficient mathematics to know how the Commons would vote on it, if the proposition had alternatively arrived there from outside government.
    It is a real shame that the LDs couldn't be grown up about how policy works in coalitions. The continued attempt to claim some bits (indeed, to claim exclusivity or origination) but oppose others will likely cap their vote below 10% for the foreseeable. They're simply not a serious proposition as a party of government.
    On this particular issue, however, it is a fact that it wouldn't have happened without the LibDems.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    edited December 2017

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    The use of the Sanctions regime to try to keep a cap on the cost of benefits was immoral. The delays built into the provision of UC was obscene and is even now only partially addressed, the operation of fitness to work criteria through ATOS was disgusting.

    What all of these failures have in common is a lack of empathy with the feckless, incompetent and needy in our society. I don’t think this is a party issue so much as a government one. When policy is produced and implemented by producer interests with their convenience in mind vulnerable people get hurt. One party trying to claim the moral high ground in this area really doesn’t help address the issue although I would accept that some on the left have done more to highlight the consequences than many on the right.

    It’s worth pointing out also that the estimates of benefit fraud are that it is very low.
    A risk based approach would have the govt doing much less on it compared to other kinds of fraud. But benefit fraud really really angers the public and is obviously hyped up by certain newspapers.

    I don’t think we will see the Conservatives address the issues you talk about. Benefit fraud is just too good an issue for them - a real vote winner.
    It is worth bearing in mind how legitimate estimates of benefit fraud are.

    I've personally known of lots of people who claim benefits while working cash in hand jobs etc but they get away with it and I doubt they're included in these estimates of yours. I used to work in an industry where cash in hand payments were rife and I was struggling to recruit people as I would only pay by BACS and I was repeatedly told "... but I'd lose my benefits" by job applicants without them even blinking. One guy even spat on me before storming out of the building when I told him I wouldn't pay him cash. It was entirely accepted second nature that they could work cash in hand and keep benefits.

    The truth is like all types of fraud it is hard to ever put your finger on how serious a problem is because if they're getting away with it, its not getting counted.
    I knew someone who for more than a decade was living with a “single” mother of three children in her council house, while renting out his own house. He was a higher rate taxpayer. That’s well into six figures of benefit fraud, but how many people think of it that way? I suspect most of us on here know of a similar story.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975
    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    The use of the Sanctions regime to try to keep a cap on the cost of benefits was immoral. The delays built into the provision of UC was obscene and is even now only partially addressed, the operation of fitness to work criteria through ATOS was disgusting.

    What all of these failures have in common is a lack of empathy with the feckless, incompetent and needy in our society. I don’t think this is a party issue so much as a government one. When policy is produced and implemented by producer interests with their convenience in mind vulnerable people get hurt. One party trying to claim the moral high ground in this area really doesn’t help address the issue although I would accept that some on the left have done more to highlight the consequences than many on the right.

    It’s worth pointing out also that the estimates of benefit fraud are that it is very low.
    A risk based approach would have the govt doing much less on it compared to other kinds of fraud. But benefit fraud really really angers the public and is obviously hyped up by certain newspapers.

    I don’t think we will see the Conservatives address the issues you talk about. Benefit fraud is just too good an issue for them - a real vote winner.
    It is worth bearing in mind how legitimate estimates of benefit fraud are.

    I've personally known of lots of people who claim benefits while working cash in hand jobs etc but they get away with it and I doubt they're included in these estimates of yours. I used to work in an industry where cash in hand payments were rife and I was struggling to recruit people as I would only pay by BACS and I was repeatedly told "... but I'd lose my benefits" by job applicants without them even blinking. One guy even spat on me before storming out of the building when I told him I wouldn't pay him cash. It was entirely accepted second nature that they could work cash in hand and keep benefits.

    The truth is like all types of fraud it is hard to ever put your finger on how serious a problem is because if they're getting away with it, its not getting counted.
    I knew someone who for more than a decade was living with a “single” mother of three children in her council house, while renting out his own house. He was a higher rate taxpayer. That’s well into six figures of benefit fraud, but how many people think of it that way? I suspect most of us on here know of a similar story.
    Such people do sometimes get caught, and the recovery of the overpayment can go back years and amount to a sizeable sum - when I was the relevant Cabinet member we had several recovery cases well into five figures.
This discussion has been closed.