Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

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

245

Comments

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    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.
    Quite possibly yes, that sounds like a similar situation. The other problem we have is that we don’t have children yet, and living apart for a couple of years as she turns 40 certainly isn’t going to help that along
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    IanB2 said:

    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.


    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.
    I suspect that, round here anyway, they would be treated 'with reserve’ in the pub. Might not be shopped, but there’d be very little sympathy when they were caught.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    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
    The BBC are pathetic and so parochial, they are useless.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    IanB2 said:

    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.
    The DWP has become quite effective at reclaiming overpaid benefits on death.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    The issue is much more basic than that. The UK (along with all the other Western nations) are being impoverished by the rise of the East. Wages as falling everywhere over the long term and in these times people who haven't done well are more likely to look for an authoritarian solution, someone who can make the bad go away (see Trump). Those who have done well will, of course continue to support the existing system, but over time there will be fewer and fewer people doing well out of a system where China heavily subsidises industry and western nations don't.

    I'm not saying people say, "oh look China has introduced more subsidies for steel production, I'm going to vote for Donald" but it's something they feel over time. Their lives are getting worse and no one from the liberal side of the fence is offering to do anything about it, in fact they tell these people it's a good thing that their jobs are all moving overseas or being taken by low wage immigrants, it "creates wealth".
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881

    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 see this as the problem. Everyone has got an anecdote - and it’s all backed up by what they read in the papers.

    Even if fraud is twice or three times the level of official estimates - it’s small compared to other types of fraud.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited December 2017
    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:


    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.
    Good to hear. It’s cases like that that really wind up those who follow the rules. And the Daily Mail.

    My quaintance got away with it, although i suspect that if this had happened in more recent times someone would have shopped him (this was a decade ago).
  • 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.

    I think you're very off-beam there. A PM whose role models were Heath and Heseltine would certainly not be pressing ahead with Brexit. Heseltine got on well with Cameron but has been scathing in his criticism of May...impossible to know with Heath as he's been dead since 2005 but quite likely the same would be true were he still alive.

    Worth saying also that Heseltine in his prime was a social conservative, eg he voted to keep the age of consent for gay sex at 21 in 1994 when most of the cabinet voted for it to be lowered to 18. He changed his mind during the Cameron years though and supported gay marriage. It's a misnomer to suggest that Tory pro-Europeans back in the day were all social liberals though....prominent examples like James Spicer and Hugh Dykes were hangers and floggers on social issues.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    MaxPB said:

    The issue is much more basic than that. The UK (along with all the other Western nations) are being impoverished by the rise of the East. Wages as falling everywhere over the long term and in these times people who haven't done well are more likely to look for an authoritarian solution, someone who can make the bad go away (see Trump). Those who have done well will, of course continue to support the existing system, but over time there will be fewer and fewer people doing well out of a system where China heavily subsidises industry and western nations don't.

    I'm not saying people say, "oh look China has introduced more subsidies for steel production, I'm going to vote for Donald" but it's something they feel over time. Their lives are getting worse and no one from the liberal side of the fence is offering to do anything about it, in fact they tell these people it's a good thing that their jobs are all moving overseas or being taken by low wage immigrants, it "creates wealth".

    You were doing well until your last sentence
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 617
    edited December 2017
    MaxPB said:

    The issue is much more basic than that. The UK (along with all the other Western nations) are being impoverished by the rise of the East. Wages as falling everywhere over the long term and in these times people who haven't done well are more likely to look for an authoritarian solution, someone who can make the bad go away (see Trump). Those who have done well will, of course continue to support the existing system, but over time there will be fewer and fewer people doing well out of a system where China heavily subsidises industry and western nations don't.

    I'm not saying people say, "oh look China has introduced more subsidies for steel production, I'm going to vote for Donald" but it's something they feel over time. Their lives are getting worse and no one from the liberal side of the fence is offering to do anything about it, in fact they tell these people it's a good thing that their jobs are all moving overseas or being taken by low wage immigrants, it "creates wealth".

    China is cutting its subsidies for steel production, closing large numbers of old and inefficient steel mills, and Chinese steel exports have fallen considerably in 2017.

    Many Western nations certainly do subsidise industry and, certainly in the steel industry, the number of anti dumping and other protectionist tariffs blocking trade with China and other developing countries is eyewatering, and rising fast.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    The issue is much more basic than that. The UK (along with all the other Western nations) are being impoverished by the rise of the East. Wages as falling everywhere over the long term and in these times people who haven't done well are more likely to look for an authoritarian solution, someone who can make the bad go away (see Trump). Those who have done well will, of course continue to support the existing system, but over time there will be fewer and fewer people doing well out of a system where China heavily subsidises industry and western nations don't.

    I'm not saying people say, "oh look China has introduced more subsidies for steel production, I'm going to vote for Donald" but it's something they feel over time. Their lives are getting worse and no one from the liberal side of the fence is offering to do anything about it, in fact they tell these people it's a good thing that their jobs are all moving overseas or being taken by low wage immigrants, it "creates wealth".

    You were doing well until your last sentence
    But that is what happens, especially in the US.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    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
    This suggests that all business (small, medium, large) were pro Remain overall although the gap was small for small businesses.

    https://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/sites/default/files/papers/Business Surveys EU Referendum_210616.pdf
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    HHemmelig said:

    MaxPB said:

    The issue is much more basic than that. The UK (along with all the other Western nations) are being impoverished by the rise of the East. Wages as falling everywhere over the long term and in these times people who haven't done well are more likely to look for an authoritarian solution, someone who can make the bad go away (see Trump). Those who have done well will, of course continue to support the existing system, but over time there will be fewer and fewer people doing well out of a system where China heavily subsidises industry and western nations don't.

    I'm not saying people say, "oh look China has introduced more subsidies for steel production, I'm going to vote for Donald" but it's something they feel over time. Their lives are getting worse and no one from the liberal side of the fence is offering to do anything about it, in fact they tell these people it's a good thing that their jobs are all moving overseas or being taken by low wage immigrants, it "creates wealth".

    China is cutting its subsidies for steel production, closing large numbers of old and inefficient steel mills, and Chinese steel exports have fallen considerably in 2017.

    Many Western nations certainly do subsidise industry and, certainly in the steel industry, the number of anti dumping and other protectionist tariffs blocking trade with China and other developing countries is eyewatering, and rising fast.
    Steel is just an example. There are many more industries where China puts in unfair trade rules to benefit their domestic companies over foreign competitors, IP transfers are a huge point of contention which the Trump administration seems to have woken up to, something Obama just ignored for some reason. The EFTA-China agreement is incredibly one sided, I'm amazed that any of those countries bothered tbh.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911
    MaxPB said:

    The issue is much more basic than that. The UK (along with all the other Western nations) are being impoverished by the rise of the East. Wages as falling everywhere over the long term and in these times people who haven't done well are more likely to look for an authoritarian solution, someone who can make the bad go away (see Trump). Those who have done well will, of course continue to support the existing system, but over time there will be fewer and fewer people doing well out of a system where China heavily subsidises industry and western nations don't.

    I'm not saying people say, "oh look China has introduced more subsidies for steel production, I'm going to vote for Donald" but it's something they feel over time. Their lives are getting worse and no one from the liberal side of the fence is offering to do anything about it, in fact they tell these people it's a good thing that their jobs are all moving overseas or being taken by low wage immigrants, it "creates wealth".

    Indeed. Those of us of a libertarian persuasion are out of answers - because our usual answer is to do less, is to reduce state intervention, cut red tape, deregulate markets - in short all the things that appear to no longer be working. Neo-liberalism (which I see as the economic side of libertarianism without the social aspects) worked so long as people were getting richer, feeling better off - that is no longer the case.

    Ultimately I think the uncomfortable answer is that globalisation is pushing us into a situation where we will have a global upper, middle and working class - and the working class of richer countries are discovering that having to compete with those from developing nations ultimately leads to a much lower standard of living than they are used to. Hence protectionism, Brexitism, building a wall and making 'em pay for it, etc, is the order of the day.
  • Mortimer said:

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

    Some Tories seem to have forgotten that a majority of their MPs & MSPs voted against gay marriage in Westminster & Holyrood.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:


    Wh.

    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.
    Good to hear. It’s cases like that that really wind up those who follow the rules. And the Daily Mail.

    My quaintance got away with it, although i suspect that if this had happened in more recent times someone would have shopped him (this was a decade ago).
    Here is one of the cases, of a couple who denied being married, who had been posing as landlord and tenant. A 2013 case involving fraud from 2009 that was tracked back to 1999.

    http://www.ilfordrecorder.co.uk/news/crime-court/benefit-cheats-denied-marriage-to-claim-45-000-in-housing-benefit-from-redbridge-council-1-2853899
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    rkrkrk 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 see this as the problem. Everyone has got an anecdote - and it’s all backed up by what they read in the papers.

    Even if fraud is twice or three times the level of official estimates - it’s small compared to other types of fraud.
    What, like fraud around EU payments do you mean?
  • Scott_P said:
    "NOW I HAVE A BREXIT DEAL! HO! HO! HO!"
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,084

    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.
    Taking payments in cash for that reason is nevertheless a small subset of a wider issue of the self employed being paid in cash for other reasons, as most people who have had work done on their home will know very well.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881

    rkrkrk 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 see this as the problem. Everyone has got an anecdote - and it’s all backed up by what they read in the papers.

    Even if fraud is twice or three times the level of official estimates - it’s small compared to other types of fraud.
    What, like fraud around EU payments do you mean?
    You mean money from the RPA? What EU payments are you talking about?
    Tax fraud is a big one I think.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    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.

    It's almost as if the Tories split into Radicals and One Nation...,
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    To be added to the "despite Brexit" file:

    'The Port of Tilbury, London's major port, has submitted an application for a new terminal to be built on a 152-acre site as part of a £1bn investment programme.'

    In fact, this one might even be "because of Brexit".
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,696

    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

    https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/943025419716059136

    It will be 100 years since we had a general election in a year ending in "8" so the odds aren't great...
  • rkrkrk 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 see this as the problem. Everyone has got an anecdote - and it’s all backed up by what they read in the papers.

    Even if fraud is twice or three times the level of official estimates - it’s small compared to other types of fraud.
    If fraud was even as close to being as small as official estimates show then very few people would have personal anecdotes. The fact that everyone has anecdotes should not be evidence the problem is small but that the problem is bigger than the official can count.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    edited December 2017
    MaxPB said:

    The issue is much more basic than that. The UK (along with all the other Western nations) are being impoverished by the rise of the East. Wages as falling everywhere over the long term and in these times people who haven't done well are more likely to look for an authoritarian solution, someone who can make the bad go away (see Trump). Those who have done well will, of course continue to support the existing system, but over time there will be fewer and fewer people doing well out of a system where China heavily subsidises industry and western nations don't.

    I'm not saying people say, "oh look China has introduced more subsidies for steel production, I'm going to vote for Donald" but it's something they feel over time. Their lives are getting worse and no one from the liberal side of the fence is offering to do anything about it, in fact they tell these people it's a good thing that their jobs are all moving overseas or being taken by low wage immigrants, it "creates wealth".

    A right-wing authoritarian solution suits those who already have wealth, of course. A left-wing authoritarian solution will tend to deprive the current wealthy of their wealth and, in time, will create a new elite.

    Overall, there has never been more wealth in the UK, in Europe and the world. The issue is how it is distributed. Authoritarianism offers no sustainable solution to that - especially in developed economies.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    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.
    Featherstone has said it wouldn't have happened without May's support

    That's a bit more realistic than your desire to score party political points on the internet
  • Scott_P said:

    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

    And they might generate sales from immigrants. What's more, things like nail bars are a nice-to-have service, not an essential, so rely on people feeling like they have a bit of spare cash - something that is less likely is the economy slows or starts to go backwards.

  • On topic, if* you ignore Section 28, the Tories have been very pro gay equality.

    One of Mrs Thatcher's earliest acts as Prime Minister was to civilise the Scots and Ulster-Scots by decriminalising homosexuality.

    *Spartan if of the day?
  • I know PB Lib Dems get exercised by this when the Tories do this.

    The Lib Dems were slapped with an £18,000 penalty for failing to submit correct spending returns for some £80,000 of funds it spent urging voters not to support Leave....

    ....It is not the first time the Lib Dems have been hit with a mammoth fine for their electoral practices.

    The party got the maximum £20,000 penalty a year ago for failing to declare more than 300 spending items in the 2015 general election.

    Bob Posner, the director of political finance at the Electoral Commission, said it was “disappointing” the Lib Dems had again fallen short of reporting requirements.

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/david-cameron/news/91572/official-eu-remain-campaign

    It might be time to ban the Lib Dems if they can't fill in simple forms, it taints the electoral process.
  • On topic, if* you ignore Section 28, the Tories have been very pro gay equality.

    One of Mrs Thatcher's earliest acts as Prime Minister was to civilise the Scots and Ulster-Scots by decriminalising homosexuality.

    *Spartan if of the day?

    Thatcher also voted for Wolfenden (one of the few Tories to do so) and launched the world's biggest AIDS campaign to that time (at Fowlers urging) - saving the lives of tens of thousands of gay men. Unlike the US, or France, for example.
  • On topic, if* you ignore Section 28, the Tories have been very pro gay equality.

    One of Mrs Thatcher's earliest acts as Prime Minister was to civilise the Scots and Ulster-Scots by decriminalising homosexuality.

    *Spartan if of the day?

    Thatcher also voted for Wolfenden (one of the few Tories to do so) and launched the world's biggest AIDS campaign to that time (at Fowlers urging) - saving the lives of tens of thousands of gay men. Unlike the US, or France, for example.
    Indeed.

    Norman Fowler is a secular saint for his actions.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    On topic, if* you ignore Section 28, the Tories have been very pro gay equality.

    One of Mrs Thatcher's earliest acts as Prime Minister was to civilise the Scots and Ulster-Scots by decriminalising homosexuality.

    *Spartan if of the day?

    Of course the DUP opposed gay laws as a means of keeping higher standards in life

    they fear a repeal could just end up as a race to the bottom
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Note for Southam and others who feel Labour is all going one way: Norwich North and Rossendale have both selected PPCs who were not the favoured Momentum candidates - no complaints from anyone, 'tis democracy. Still a broad church.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    On topic, if* you ignore Section 28, the Tories have been very pro gay equality.

    One of Mrs Thatcher's earliest acts as Prime Minister was to civilise the Scots and Ulster-Scots by decriminalising homosexuality.

    *Spartan if of the day?

    Thatcher also voted for Wolfenden (one of the few Tories to do so) and launched the world's biggest AIDS campaign to that time (at Fowlers urging) - saving the lives of tens of thousands of gay men. Unlike the US, or France, for example.
    It was very big. Indeed, I seem to recall Fowler announced he was sending 23 million leaflets to every household in Britain!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    On topic, if* you ignore Section 28, the Tories have been very pro gay equality.

    One of Mrs Thatcher's earliest acts as Prime Minister was to civilise the Scots and Ulster-Scots by decriminalising homosexuality.

    *Spartan if of the day?

    Thatcher also voted for Wolfenden (one of the few Tories to do so) and launched the world's biggest AIDS campaign to that time (at Fowlers urging) - saving the lives of tens of thousands of gay men. Unlike the US, or France, for example.
    Indeed.

    Norman Fowler is a secular saint for his actions.
    Most of the credit should go to Fiona though
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    On topic, if* you ignore Section 28, the Tories have been very pro gay equality.

    One of Mrs Thatcher's earliest acts as Prime Minister was to civilise the Scots and Ulster-Scots by decriminalising homosexuality.

    *Spartan if of the day?

    Who was the Nick Timothy of the day who put those words about 'children being taught they have an inalienable right to be gay' into her mouth?
  • On topic, if* you ignore Section 28, the Tories have been very pro gay equality.

    One of Mrs Thatcher's earliest acts as Prime Minister was to civilise the Scots and Ulster-Scots by decriminalising homosexuality.

    *Spartan if of the day?

    Who was the Nick Timothy of the day who put those words about 'children being taught they have an inalienable right to be gay' into her mouth?
    Dame Jill Knight.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    On topic, if* you ignore Section 28, the Tories have been very pro gay equality.

    One of Mrs Thatcher's earliest acts as Prime Minister was to civilise the Scots and Ulster-Scots by decriminalising homosexuality.

    *Spartan if of the day?

    Of course the DUP opposed gay laws as a means of keeping higher standards in life

    they fear a repeal could just end up as a race to the bottom
    That's the sort of penetrating wit we've come expect from you
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911

    On topic, if* you ignore Section 28, the Tories have been very pro gay equality.

    One of Mrs Thatcher's earliest acts as Prime Minister was to civilise the Scots and Ulster-Scots by decriminalising homosexuality.

    *Spartan if of the day?

    Of course the DUP opposed gay laws as a means of keeping higher standards in life

    they fear a repeal could just end up as a race to the bottom
    Perhaps they should have turned the other cheek.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    Doesn't seem especially revealing to me - nice guy, badly dressed,, hopes to win. What's the amazing revelation?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Doesn't seem especially revealing to me - nice guy, badly dressed,, hopes to win. What's the amazing revelation?
    That he's just another politician

    Q. "Why didn't you give us an interview during the election campaign?"

    A. "61% of candidates are from all women shortlists"
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    Charles said:

    Doesn't seem especially revealing to me - nice guy, badly dressed,, hopes to win. What's the amazing revelation?
    That he's just another politician

    Q. "Why didn't you give us an interview during the election campaign?"

    A. "61% of candidates are from all women shortlists"
    Have to say that remark struck me as very slippery - worthy of Blair at his most carsalesmanlike - but I don't see it as a particular revelation. 'Politician is unwilling to answer awkward question' is up there with 'bear craps in woods.'
  • Note for Southam and others who feel Labour is all going one way: Norwich North and Rossendale have both selected PPCs who were not the favoured Momentum candidates - no complaints from anyone, 'tis democracy. Still a broad church.

    Yep - Momentum has been losing quite a few selection battles. Having spoken to the chair of a very big CLP over the weekend, it is clear there are two Momentums: the one that is mostly composed of younger, enthusiastic, left-leaning "volunteers" and the other that is composed of much older people who are either returnees from the 80s and 90s or previous members of various extreme left-wing groups like the SWP and Socialist Action. The latter is a much smaller set, but is very focused on using process and procedure to engineer its members into positions of power inside CLPs. Thankfully, in most places they are not big enough to make a difference at the moment - but they do cause a lot of bother and discord.

    The bad news is that this drives regular members away from meetings and so makes it easier for the Trots to secure the outcomes they want. The good news is that they are mostly in their 60s and 70s and cannot go on forever. Their views on issues like anti-Zionism (anti-Semitism), Europe and the economy are diametrically opposed to those of younger members. Were Momentum ever to allow democratic internal votes for all its posts, and were Jon Lansman ever to give up ownership of the Momentum database, I have no doubt Momentum could be a very powerful force for good inside Labour.

    If I have the time and inclination over the break I might write this up in a bit more detail and see if Mike would be interested in publishing it.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    Reports that Queen Elizabeth is leaking.

    Tena Lady, by royal appointment?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    The issue is much more basic than that. The UK (along with all the other Western nations) are being impoverished by the rise of the East. Wages as falling everywhere over the long term and in these times people who haven't done well are more likely to look for an authoritarian solution, someone who can make the bad go away (see Trump). Those who have done well will, of course continue to support the existing system, but over time there will be fewer and fewer people doing well out of a system where China heavily subsidises industry and western nations don't.

    I'm not saying people say, "oh look China has introduced more subsidies for steel production, I'm going to vote for Donald" but it's something they feel over time. Their lives are getting worse and no one from the liberal side of the fence is offering to do anything about it, in fact they tell these people it's a good thing that their jobs are all moving overseas or being taken by low wage immigrants, it "creates wealth".

    A right-wing authoritarian solution suits those who already have wealth, of course. A left-wing authoritarian solution will tend to deprive the current wealthy of their wealth and, in time, will create a new elite.

    Overall, there has never been more wealth in the UK, in Europe and the world. The issue is how it is distributed. Authoritarianism offers no sustainable solution to that - especially in developed economies.
    You'll note that I didn't say it did. Just that the authoritarian right is proposing solutions where the liberal left is just leaving people behind. The solutions won't work, of course, but it will get more votes.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Doesn't seem especially revealing to me - nice guy, badly dressed,, hopes to win. What's the amazing revelation?
    That he's just another politician

    Q. "Why didn't you give us an interview during the election campaign?"

    A. "61% of candidates are from all women shortlists"
    Have to say that remark struck me as very slippery - worthy of Blair at his most carsalesmanlike - but I don't see it as a particular revelation. 'Politician is unwilling to answer awkward question' is up there with 'bear craps in woods.'
    But Corbyn is different! He's Jeremy! He's not a politician!
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    edited December 2017
    Charles said:

    Doesn't seem especially revealing to me - nice guy, badly dressed,, hopes to win. What's the amazing revelation?
    That he's just another politician

    Q. "Why didn't you give us an interview during the election campaign?"

    A. "61% of candidates are from all women shortlists"
    Interesting that his first response to an akward question is to lie and then not even offer any apology or explanation when caught out.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    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...
    Labour is the party which is led by a leader happy to visit President Assad with a Palestinian group which denies that the Holocaust happened.

    It is led by a leader who says not a word when at its most recent conference some of its members were considering having a debate on whether the Holocaust happened, the sort of “debate” previously confined to the dark recesses where neo-Nazi groups congregate.

    It is led by a leader who refused to act when personally asked by one of his Jewish female MPs to speak out against hateful abuse and threats aimed at her by supporters claiming to speak in his name.

    That this should happen to the Labour party (and the tone on these matters comes from the top) is – or ought to be – a matter of shame and disgust for decent people. And yet it isn’t. How have we come to this?

    Labour supporters on here don’t defend these outrages. Sometimes they don’t respond. We get some platitudes about a principle which their party’s actions always seem diametrically opposed to in practice, and a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

    Yes. Let’s talk about morality.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    The issue is much more basic than that. The UK (along with all the other Western nations) are being impoverished by the rise of the East. Wages as falling everywhere over the long term and in these times people who haven't done well are more likely to look for an authoritarian solution, someone who can make the bad go away (see Trump). Those who have done well will, of course continue to support the existing system, but over time there will be fewer and fewer people doing well out of a system where China heavily subsidises industry and western nations don't.

    I'm not saying people say, "oh look China has introduced more subsidies for steel production, I'm going to vote for Donald" but it's something they feel over time. Their lives are getting worse and no one from the liberal side of the fence is offering to do anything about it, in fact they tell these people it's a good thing that their jobs are all moving overseas or being taken by low wage immigrants, it "creates wealth".

    A right-wing authoritarian solution suits those who already have wealth, of course. A left-wing authoritarian solution will tend to deprive the current wealthy of their wealth and, in time, will create a new elite.

    Overall, there has never been more wealth in the UK, in Europe and the world. The issue is how it is distributed. Authoritarianism offers no sustainable solution to that - especially in developed economies.
    You'll note that I didn't say it did. Just that the authoritarian right is proposing solutions where the liberal left is just leaving people behind. The solutions won't work, of course, but it will get more votes.

    The problem those in the liberal centre have is that they understand that this is a complicated world and that solutions to its inequalities are not easy to find - and even less easier to condense into Tweets and Facebook memes. People like Trump have no such issues and no great attachment to democracy, so do not worry about being dishonest. They will say whatever it takes. But in the end they will either lose power, because their solutions do not work; or they will need to engineer power grabs that allow them to stay in charge even when voters do not want them to.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Doesn't seem especially revealing to me - nice guy, badly dressed,, hopes to win. What's the amazing revelation?
    That he's just another politician

    Q. "Why didn't you give us an interview during the election campaign?"

    A. "61% of candidates are from all women shortlists"
    Have to say that remark struck me as very slippery - worthy of Blair at his most carsalesmanlike - but I don't see it as a particular revelation. 'Politician is unwilling to answer awkward question' is up there with 'bear craps in woods.'
    But Corbyn is different! He's Jeremy! He's not a politician!
    Anyone who genuinely believes that is an idiot. He has been an MP for 34 years and has never had a job of any sort outside politics - indeed, the only paid post he had before entering Parliament was as a housing officer for a London Borough, a post he got solely because he was a local councillor. He is a politician to his finger ends.

    Corbyn himself may believe otherwise, but in no way does that invalidate my thesis.
  • Mr. Doethur, there are many idiots.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401

    Note for Southam and others who feel Labour is all going one way: Norwich North and Rossendale have both selected PPCs who were not the favoured Momentum candidates - no complaints from anyone, 'tis democracy. Still a broad church.

    Yep - Momentum has been losing quite a few selection battles. Having spoken to the chair of a very big CLP over the weekend, it is clear there are two Momentums: the one that is mostly composed of younger, enthusiastic, left-leaning "volunteers" and the other that is composed of much older people who are either returnees from the 80s and 90s or previous members of various extreme left-wing groups like the SWP and Socialist Action. The latter is a much smaller set, but is very focused on using process and procedure to engineer its members into positions of power inside CLPs. Thankfully, in most places they are not big enough to make a difference at the moment - but they do cause a lot of bother and discord.

    The bad news is that this drives regular members away from meetings and so makes it easier for the Trots to secure the outcomes they want. The good news is that they are mostly in their 60s and 70s and cannot go on forever. Their views on issues like anti-Zionism (anti-Semitism), Europe and the economy are diametrically opposed to those of younger members. Were Momentum ever to allow democratic internal votes for all its posts, and were Jon Lansman ever to give up ownership of the Momentum database, I have no doubt Momentum could be a very powerful force for good inside Labour.

    If I have the time and inclination over the break I might write this up in a bit more detail and see if Mike would be interested in publishing it.
    I think a lot of members (me included) are unaware of a lot of the goings on being orchestrated behind the scenes. At local level, be that branch officers, CLP officers or local council candidates, we should be selecting the best people based on ability and commitment, regardless of whichever wing/faction/party-within-a-party/ethnic group/religion they belong to. When these selections turn out to be stitched up ahead of time, with one group flooding meetings with once-a-year activists, then other members start to think 'what's the point?' and drift away.

    Worse still, we end up with people in post or standing for the council who aren't particularly good, to the detriment of the party.
  • Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Doesn't seem especially revealing to me - nice guy, badly dressed,, hopes to win. What's the amazing revelation?
    That he's just another politician

    Q. "Why didn't you give us an interview during the election campaign?"

    A. "61% of candidates are from all women shortlists"
    Have to say that remark struck me as very slippery - worthy of Blair at his most carsalesmanlike - but I don't see it as a particular revelation. 'Politician is unwilling to answer awkward question' is up there with 'bear craps in woods.'
    But Corbyn is different! He's Jeremy! He's not a politician!

    The building of the Corbyn brand is one of the great achievements of 21st century politics. It is all about being caring, understated, polite, peaceful and kind. What's not to like? It is a total nonsense, of course, doesn't survive any serious scrutiny of Corbyn's oft-stated views and it enables a group of very nasty people with very unpleasant views; but as a marketing exercise it is brilliant.

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Mr. Doethur, there are many idiots.

    And their votes count the same as your or mine (or a @HYUFD approved voter)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Doesn't seem especially revealing to me - nice guy, badly dressed,, hopes to win. What's the amazing revelation?
    That he's just another politician

    Q. "Why didn't you give us an interview during the election campaign?"

    A. "61% of candidates are from all women shortlists"
    Have to say that remark struck me as very slippery - worthy of Blair at his most carsalesmanlike - but I don't see it as a particular revelation. 'Politician is unwilling to answer awkward question' is up there with 'bear craps in woods.'
    But Corbyn is different! He's Jeremy! He's not a politician!

    The building of the Corbyn brand is one of the great achievements of 21st century politics. It is all about being caring, understated, polite, peaceful and kind. What's not to like? It is a total nonsense, of course, doesn't survive any serious scrutiny of Corbyn's oft-stated views and it enables a group of very nasty people with very unpleasant views; but as a marketing exercise it is brilliant.

    In many ways he does resemble Blair, particularly his mastery of spin and his demonisation of his opponents. I'm particularly reminded of Blair's claim that he would demonstrate he was 'whiter than white, purer than pure' before becoming the only British PM to be interviewed by the police while in office.
  • Mr. Charles, indeed.
  • MaxPB said:

    The issue is much more basic than that. The UK (along with all the other Western nations) are being impoverished by the rise of the East. Wages as falling everywhere over the long term and in these times people who haven't done well are more likely to look for an authoritarian solution, someone who can make the bad go away (see Trump). Those who have done well will, of course continue to support the existing system, but over time there will be fewer and fewer people doing well out of a system where China heavily subsidises industry and western nations don't.

    I'm not saying people say, "oh look China has introduced more subsidies for steel production, I'm going to vote for Donald" but it's something they feel over time. Their lives are getting worse and no one from the liberal side of the fence is offering to do anything about it, in fact they tell these people it's a good thing that their jobs are all moving overseas or being taken by low wage immigrants, it "creates wealth".

    I'd take issue with your premise. We aren't being impoverished by China which is actually quite remarkable. The fact is on a global level we as a whole our all very blessed and wealthy. If people in this nation truly believe in taking from the rich and giving to the poor then we should all be having wealth redistributed from us to the likes of China etc. Even today our poorest are luckier, healthier and richer than their counterparts in China. But when people say they believe in redistribution they don't generally mean from themselves or view themselves as wealthy.

    Even after decades of the so called rise of China the Chinese and the third world as a whole are still miles behind us on a per capita basis. Yet as a whole we aren't actually going backwards. We aren't being impoverished. Instead we are stagnating while the third world starts to rapidly catch up.

    We aren't going backwards but instead we are treading water. Or with a less positive word we are stagnating. The problem is we are used to having perpetual compound growth so being no better off than we were in 2007 feels like poverty. But in 2007 we were in a pre recession boom not poverty. The real poverty was in the rest of the world.

    We have had centuries of compound growth but we have no divine right to remain ahead of the rest of the world. If the worst that happens as the rest of the world catches up is that we stay the same then we have done ok. Despite the lack of growth not feeling pleasant.

    The danger is that autarky and isolationism don't work. There is a real risk in that due to the anger of the lack of growth we shoot ourselves in both feet and really do head backwards.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    Charles said:

    Mr. Doethur, there are many idiots.

    And their votes count the same as your or mine (or a @HYUFD approved voter)
    There is a wonderful scene in The Ladykillers where Alec Guinness asks the heavy for his views and Herbert Lom makes some disdainful remark about muscles, to be told 'What's wrong with my view? It's a democracy ain't it? And what's wrong with muscle anyway?'
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    The problem those in the liberal centre have is that they understand that this is a complicated world and that solutions to its inequalities are not easy to find - and even less easier to condense into Tweets and Facebook memes. People like Trump have no such issues and no great attachment to democracy, so do not worry about being dishonest. They will say whatever it takes. But in the end they will either lose power, because their solutions do not work; or they will need to engineer power grabs that allow them to stay in charge even when voters do not want them to.

    Neither the liberals or the authoritarians are going to help the left behind people. The liberals will plonk them all on benefits and tell them to shut up, the authoritarians will cause long term issues that will end up doing more harm than good. The only difference is that one side is proposing jobs today, the other has given up. Worse is that the liberals are happy to allow multinational companies to benefit from Western markets (prices, stability) but use eastern labour (cost effective) and let the companies hold on to the huge gains they have made in the process. On the other side of the fence they are at least trying to ensure companies pay their way, even though restrictive trade practices will be harmful.
  • 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's not just benefit fraud that angers people, it's generations of people getting welfare to pop out kids, contributing nothing to society and acting like arseholes. People who have worked hard and fallen on hard times get nothing, whilst scumbags never pay a penny and get everything paid for.
  • MaxPB said:

    The problem those in the liberal centre have is that they understand that this is a complicated world and that solutions to its inequalities are not easy to find - and even less easier to condense into Tweets and Facebook memes. People like Trump have no such issues and no great attachment to democracy, so do not worry about being dishonest. They will say whatever it takes. But in the end they will either lose power, because their solutions do not work; or they will need to engineer power grabs that allow them to stay in charge even when voters do not want them to.

    Neither the liberals or the authoritarians are going to help the left behind people. The liberals will plonk them all on benefits and tell them to shut up, the authoritarians will cause long term issues that will end up doing more harm than good. The only difference is that one side is proposing jobs today, the other has given up. Worse is that the liberals are happy to allow multinational companies to benefit from Western markets (prices, stability) but use eastern labour (cost effective) and let the companies hold on to the huge gains they have made in the process. On the other side of the fence they are at least trying to ensure companies pay their way, even though restrictive trade practices will be harmful.

    I am not so sure. If I look at the world's happiest and most prosperous countries I see countries where the liberal centre is in charge. I also see tax reform becoming a much bigger issue. It will take time and it will take international coordination - and we can expect the US to play no part (and the UK, too, post-Brexit), but it is going to happen. In the end, if there is democracy, the liberal centre - right or left, back and forth - will prevail because it is where most people sit. There are convulsions from time to time, but eventually everything reverts to the norm - unless guns prevent it.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,547


    Yep - Momentum has been losing quite a few selection battles. Having spoken to the chair of a very big CLP over the weekend, it is clear there are two Momentums: the one that is mostly composed of younger, enthusiastic, left-leaning "volunteers" and the other that is composed of much older people who are either returnees from the 80s and 90s or previous members of various extreme left-wing groups like the SWP and Socialist Action. The latter is a much smaller set, but is very focused on using process and procedure to engineer its members into positions of power inside CLPs. Thankfully, in most places they are not big enough to make a difference at the moment - but they do cause a lot of bother and discord.

    The bad news is that this drives regular members away from meetings and so makes it easier for the Trots to secure the outcomes they want. The good news is that they are mostly in their 60s and 70s and cannot go on forever. Their views on issues like anti-Zionism (anti-Semitism), Europe and the economy are diametrically opposed to those of younger members. Were Momentum ever to allow democratic internal votes for all its posts, and were Jon Lansman ever to give up ownership of the Momentum database, I have no doubt Momentum could be a very powerful force for good inside Labour.

    If I have the time and inclination over the break I might write this up in a bit more detail and see if Mike would be interested in publishing it.

    Well as an ex-chair of another very big CLP I can confirm that this analysis is broadly correct. In my borough we've already selected all our candidates for 2018 - a couple of councillors were deselected but that is because they were perceived to have performed poorly in the role and nothing to do with left vs right. This is no more than have been deselected at past elections.

    I'm old enough to have experience of the internecine warfare against Militant and the other far left groups in the 1980s and Momentum is a very different animal - it is much larger in terms of numbers but is less coherent and lacks the iron discipline and factional loyalty that characterised the trotskyist groups of yesteryear. The initial enthusiasm of many of the new members who have joined since 2015 is wearing off as they realise that they didn't change the world by joining the Labour Party but so far there is no sign of them dropping out and party membership remains high - in my CLP it has increased more than fivefold since the low point in 2010. A lot of the talk about Momentum making a crucial difference in marginal seats at the general election is hype - their impact on the ground was very limited in my experience.

    There are some signs of them working with moderates rather than opposing them at the local level - this is encouraging but it's patchy. However it would be a serious mistake to view them as a 1980s throwback - that is too simplistic.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    MaxPB said:

    The problem those in the liberal centre have is that they understand that this is a complicated world and that solutions to its inequalities are not easy to find - and even less easier to condense into Tweets and Facebook memes. People like Trump have no such issues and no great attachment to democracy, so do not worry about being dishonest. They will say whatever it takes. But in the end they will either lose power, because their solutions do not work; or they will need to engineer power grabs that allow them to stay in charge even when voters do not want them to.

    Neither the liberals or the authoritarians are going to help the left behind people. The liberals will plonk them all on benefits and tell them to shut up, the authoritarians will cause long term issues that will end up doing more harm than good. The only difference is that one side is proposing jobs today, the other has given up. Worse is that the liberals are happy to allow multinational companies to benefit from Western markets (prices, stability) but use eastern labour (cost effective) and let the companies hold on to the huge gains they have made in the process. On the other side of the fence they are at least trying to ensure companies pay their way, even though restrictive trade practices will be harmful.
    True liberals ie economically and socially liberal would not people linger on benefits but require them to look for and take jobs and base benefits payments on contributions paid in. They also support free movement, free trade and lower taxes and lower regulation.

    It is authoritarians who want to tax more and regulate more and spend more, often including on welfare, they just combine that with much tougher controls on immigration and greater emphasis on the nation state rather than globalisation, including sometimes supporting tariffs
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263



    I'd take issue with your premise. We aren't being impoverished by China which is actually quite remarkable. The fact is on a global level we as a whole our all very blessed and wealthy. If people in this nation truly believe in taking from the rich and giving to the poor then we should all be having wealth redistributed from us to the likes of China etc. Even today our poorest are luckier, healthier and richer than their counterparts in China. But when people say they believe in redistribution they don't generally mean from themselves or view themselves as wealthy.

    Even after decades of the so called rise of China the Chinese and the third world as a whole are still miles behind us on a per capita basis. Yet as a whole we aren't actually going backwards. We aren't being impoverished. Instead we are stagnating while the third world starts to rapidly catch up.

    We aren't going backwards but instead we are treading water. Or with a less positive word we are stagnating. The problem is we are used to having perpetual compound growth so being no better off than we were in 2007 feels like poverty. But in 2007 we were in a pre recession boom not poverty. The real poverty was in the rest of the world.

    We have had centuries of compound growth but we have no divine right to remain ahead of the rest of the world. If the worst that happens as the rest of the world catches up is that we stay the same then we have done ok. Despite the lack of growth not feeling pleasant.

    The danger is that autarky and isolationism don't work. There is a real risk in that due to the anger of the lack of growth we shoot ourselves in both feet and really do head backwards.

    +1. I've thought this ever since globalisation took off, and I positively agree that it's a good thing if the rest of the world catches up even if it means we stagnate. But clearly it's easier for me to say than someone in marginal employment facing the loss of jobs to Asia (whether by immigration of people or export of jobs). I think the left has to be strong on helping the left-behind, fighting tax avoidance (which seems to me a very strong argument for working with the EUI, but also for getting tough with British-flagged tax havens) and keeping the welfare state afloat.

    i remember a Christian Aid meeting I went to where someone said she'd just lost her job because production was moving to Vietnam. She said sadly, "I know it's a good thing really but it's hard." Which I thought was pretty heroic, and more than we can expect of people in that position. We need to give priority to helping them (whether by retraining or indeed benefits), and if it means taxing a bit more for those of us who are doing well, so be it.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    MaxPB said:

    The problem those in the liberal centre have is that they understand that this is a complicated world and that solutions to its inequalities are not easy to find - and even less easier to condense into Tweets and Facebook memes. People like Trump have no such issues and no great attachment to democracy, so do not worry about being dishonest. They will say whatever it takes. But in the end they will either lose power, because their solutions do not work; or they will need to engineer power grabs that allow them to stay in charge even when voters do not want them to.

    Neither the liberals or the authoritarians are going to help the left behind people. The liberals will plonk them all on benefits and tell them to shut up, the authoritarians will cause long term issues that will end up doing more harm than good. The only difference is that one side is proposing jobs today, the other has given up. Worse is that the liberals are happy to allow multinational companies to benefit from Western markets (prices, stability) but use eastern labour (cost effective) and let the companies hold on to the huge gains they have made in the process. On the other side of the fence they are at least trying to ensure companies pay their way, even though restrictive trade practices will be harmful.

    I am not so sure. If I look at the world's happiest and most prosperous countries I see countries where the liberal centre is in charge. I also see tax reform becoming a much bigger issue. It will take time and it will take international coordination - and we can expect the US to play no part (and the UK, too, post-Brexit), but it is going to happen. In the end, if there is democracy, the liberal centre - right or left, back and forth - will prevail because it is where most people sit. There are convulsions from time to time, but eventually everything reverts to the norm - unless guns prevent it.
    The UK is one of the world's happiest and most prosperous countries.
  • MaxPB said:

    The issue is much more basic than that. The UK (along with all the other Western nations) are being impoverished by the rise of the East. Wages as falling everywhere over the long term and in these times people who haven't done well are more likely to look for an authoritarian solution, someone who can make the bad go away (see Trump). Those who have done well will, of course continue to support the existing system, but over time there will be fewer and fewer people doing well out of a system where China heavily subsidises industry and western nations don't.

    I'm not saying people say, "oh look China has introduced more subsidies for steel production, I'm going to vote for Donald" but it's something they feel over time. Their lives are getting worse and no one from the liberal side of the fence is offering to do anything about it, in fact they tell these people it's a good thing that their jobs are all moving overseas or being taken by low wage immigrants, it "creates wealth".

    I'd take issue with your premise. We aren't being impoverished by China which is actually quite remarkable. The fact is on a global level we as a whole our all very blessed and wealthy. If people in this nation truly believe in taking from the rich and giving to the poor then we should all be having wealth redistributed from us to the likes of China etc. Even today our poorest are luckier, healthier and richer than their counterparts in China. But when people say they believe in redistribution they don't generally mean from themselves or view themselves as wealthy.

    Even after decades of the so called rise of China the Chinese and the third world as a whole are still miles behind us on a per capita basis. Yet as a whole we aren't actually going backwards. We aren't being impoverished. Instead we are stagnating while the third world starts to rapidly catch up.

    We aren't going backwards but instead we are treading water. Or with a less positive word we are stagnating. The problem is we are used to having perpetual compound growth so being no better off than we were in 2007 feels like poverty. But in 2007 we were in a pre recession boom not poverty. The real poverty was in the rest of the world.

    We have had centuries of compound growth but we have no divine right to remain ahead of the rest of the world. If the worst that happens as the rest of the world catches up is that we stay the same then we have done ok. Despite the lack of growth not feeling pleasant.

    The danger is that autarky and isolationism don't work. There is a real risk in that due to the anger of the lack of growth we shoot ourselves in both feet and really do head backwards.

    The other thing to bear in mind is that as economies advance, so do expectations. That is the same in Asia as it is elsewhere.
  • John_M said:

    MaxPB said:

    The problem those in the liberal centre have is that they understand that this is a complicated world and that solutions to its inequalities are not easy to find - and even less easier to condense into Tweets and Facebook memes. People like Trump have no such issues and no great attachment to democracy, so do not worry about being dishonest. They will say whatever it takes. But in the end they will either lose power, because their solutions do not work; or they will need to engineer power grabs that allow them to stay in charge even when voters do not want them to.

    Neither the liberals or the authoritarians are going to help the left behind people. The liberals will plonk them all on benefits and tell them to shut up, the authoritarians will cause long term issues that will end up doing more harm than good. The only difference is that one side is proposing jobs today, the other has given up. Worse is that the liberals are happy to allow multinational companies to benefit from Western markets (prices, stability) but use eastern labour (cost effective) and let the companies hold on to the huge gains they have made in the process. On the other side of the fence they are at least trying to ensure companies pay their way, even though restrictive trade practices will be harmful.

    I am not so sure. If I look at the world's happiest and most prosperous countries I see countries where the liberal centre is in charge. I also see tax reform becoming a much bigger issue. It will take time and it will take international coordination - and we can expect the US to play no part (and the UK, too, post-Brexit), but it is going to happen. In the end, if there is democracy, the liberal centre - right or left, back and forth - will prevail because it is where most people sit. There are convulsions from time to time, but eventually everything reverts to the norm - unless guns prevent it.
    The UK is one of the world's happiest and most prosperous countries.

    Yes - and it has largely been run by the centre right and the centre left.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    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's not just benefit fraud that angers people, it's generations of people getting welfare to pop out kids, contributing nothing to society and acting like arseholes. People who have worked hard and fallen on hard times get nothing, whilst scumbags never pay a penny and get everything paid for.
    What's more concerning is the cultural change and sense of entitlement. For example in the case that @Sandpit gave earlier: 30 years ago virtually no one would have thought that acceptable behaviour - now people nod and shrug
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,119
    edited December 2017
    Charles 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's not just benefit fraud that angers people, it's generations of people getting welfare to pop out kids, contributing nothing to society and acting like arseholes. People who have worked hard and fallen on hard times get nothing, whilst scumbags never pay a penny and get everything paid for.
    What's more concerning is the cultural change and sense of entitlement. For example in the case that @Sandpit gave earlier: 30 years ago virtually no one would have thought that acceptable behaviour - now people nod and shrug
    Agreed.

    What is worst is people facilitating this sort of behaviour then try to take the moral high ground.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    MaxPB said:

    The issue is much more basic than that. The UK (along with all the other Western nations) are being impoverished by the rise of the East. Wages as falling everywhere over the long term wealth".

    I'd take issue with your premise. We aren't being impoverished by China which is actually quite remarkable. The fact is on a global level we as a whole our all very blessed and wealthy. If people in this nation truly believe in taking from the rich and giving to the poor then we should all be having wealth redistributed from us to the likes of China etc. Even today our poorest are luckier, healthier and richer than their counterparts in China. But when people say they believe in redistribution they don't generally mean from themselves or view themselves as wealthy.

    Even after decades of the so called rise of China the Chinese and the third world as a whole are still miles behind us on a per capita basis. Yet as a whole we aren't actually going backwards. We aren't being impoverished. Instead we are stagnating while the third world starts to rapidly catch up.

    We aren't going backwards but instead we are treading water. Or with a less positive word we are stagnating. The problem is we are used to having perpetual compound growth so being no better off than we were in 2007 feels like poverty. But in 2007 we were in a pre recession boom not poverty. The real poverty was in the rest of the world.

    We have had centuries of compound growth but we have no divine right to remain ahead of the rest of the world. If the worst that happens as the rest of the world catches up is that we stay the same then we have done ok. Despite the lack of growth not feeling pleasant.

    The danger is that autarky and isolationism don't work. There is a real risk in that due to the anger of the lack of growth we shoot ourselves in both feet and really do head backwards.
    By 2050 though there is every chance China at least will be ahead of most western nations in terms of GDP per capita if it continues its current growth rate. India, Africa and Latin America will still almost certainly still be behind the West on a GDP per capita basis by mid century but China by then may well have joined the likes of Japan, Singapore and South Korea as a nation with a western world standard if living.


  • I'd wealthy.

    Even up.

    We world.

    We have had centuries of compound growth but we have no divine right to remain ahead of the rest of the world. If the worst that happens as the rest of the world catches up is that we stay the same then we have done ok. Despite the lack of growth not feeling pleasant.

    The danger is that autarky and isolationism don't work. There is a real risk in that due to the anger of the lack of growth we shoot ourselves in both feet and really do head backwards.

    +1. I've thought this ever since globalisation took off, and I positively agree that it's a good thing if the rest of the world catches up even if it means we stagnate. But clearly it's easier for me to say than someone in marginal employment facing the loss of jobs to Asia (whether by immigration of people or export of jobs). I think the left has to be strong on helping the left-behind, fighting tax avoidance (which seems to me a very strong argument for working with the EUI, but also for getting tough with British-flagged tax havens) and keeping the welfare state afloat.

    i remember a Christian Aid meeting I went to where someone said she'd just lost her job because production was moving to Vietnam. She said sadly, "I know it's a good thing really but it's hard." Which I thought was pretty heroic, and more than we can expect of people in that position. We need to give priority to helping them (whether by retraining or indeed benefits), and if it means taxing a bit more for those of us who are doing well, so be it.

    Tackling tax avoidance is a key issue. It'll be interesting to see how the UK approaches this issue post-Brexit. An anti-avoidance EU directive is due to come into force in 2020, which is within the transition period:

    https://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/news/new-rules-prevent-tax-avoidance-through-non-eu-countries_en

  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    Doesn't seem especially revealing to me - nice guy, badly dressed,, hopes to win. What's the amazing revelation?
    That he's just another politician

    Q. "Why didn't you give us an interview during the election campaign?"

    A. "61% of candidates are from all women shortlists"
    Have to say that remark struck me as very slippery - worthy of Blair at his most carsalesmanlike - but I don't see it as a particular revelation. 'Politician is unwilling to answer awkward question' is up there with 'bear craps in woods.'
    But Corbyn is different! He's Jeremy! He's not a politician!

    The building of the Corbyn brand is one of the great achievements of 21st century politics. It is all about being caring, understated, polite, peaceful and kind. What's not to like? It is a total nonsense, of course, doesn't survive any serious scrutiny of Corbyn's oft-stated views and it enables a group of very nasty people with very unpleasant views; but as a marketing exercise it is brilliant.

    In many ways he does resemble Blair, particularly his mastery of spin and his demonisation of his opponents. I'm particularly reminded of Blair's claim that he would demonstrate he was 'whiter than white, purer than pure' before becoming the only British PM to be interviewed by the police while in office.
    Could you give an example of Corbyn,s demonisation of his opponents ?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    HYUFD said:

    <
    True liberals ie economically and socially liberal would not people linger on benefits but require them to look for and take jobs and base benefits payments on contributions paid in. They also support free movement, free trade and lower taxes and lower regulation.

    It is authoritarians who want to tax more and regulate more and spend more, often including on welfare, they just combine that with much tougher controls on immigration and greater emphasis on the nation state rather than globalisation, including sometimes supporting tariffs

    "Require them to look for and take" sounds a shade authoritarian. One man's requirement is another one's diktat. Your definition of "liberalism" isn't mine but there you go.

    Wanting more regulation in terms of for example improving public safety isn't authoritarian - should we take away the law compelling people to wear seat belts or ride motior bikes with crash helmets ?

    Your definitions seem very confused and muddled as though you're trying desperately to make them fit a model - perhaps related to the EU Referendum ?

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    GIN1138 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

    https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/943025419716059136

    It will be 100 years since we had a general election in a year ending in "8" so the odds aren't great...
    Election? Puh! It's going to be a revolution that brings him to power, Comrade.....
  • HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    The issue is much more basic than that. The UK (along with all the other Western nations) are being impoverished by the rise of the East. Wages as falling everywhere over the long term wealth".

    I'd take issue with your premise. We aren't being impoverished by China which is actually quite remarkable. The fact is on a global level we as a whole our all very blessed and wealthy. If people in this nation truly believe in taking from the rich and giving to the poor then we should all be having wealth redistributed from us to the likes of China etc. Even today our poorest are luckier, healthier and richer than their counterparts in China. But when people say they believe in redistribution they don't generally mean from themselves or view themselves as wealthy.

    Even after decades of the so called rise of China the Chinese and the third world as a whole are still miles behind us on a per capita basis. Yet as a whole we aren't actually going backwards. We aren't being impoverished. Instead we are stagnating while the third world starts to rapidly catch up.

    We aren't going backwards but instead we are treading water. Or with a less positive word we are stagnating. The problem is we are used to having perpetual compound growth so being no better off than we were in 2007 feels like poverty. But in 2007 we were in a pre recession boom not poverty. The real poverty was in the rest of the world.

    We have had centuries of compound growth but we have no divine right to remain ahead of the rest of the world. If the worst that happens as the rest of the world catches up is that we stay the same then we have done ok. Despite the lack of growth not feeling pleasant.

    The danger is that autarky and isolationism don't work. There is a real risk in that due to the anger of the lack of growth we shoot ourselves in both feet and really do head backwards.
    By 2050 though there is every chance China at least will be ahead of most western nations in terms of GDP per capita if it continues its current growth rate. India, Africa and Latin America will still almost certainly still be behind the West on a GDP per capita basis by mid century but China by then may well have joined the likes of Japan, Singapore and South Korea as a nation with a western world standard if living.
    There is zero reason to expect China to continue its current growth rate indefinitely. The reason they can is that they are adapting our pre existing science and technology. Once they have caught up that comes to an abrupt end and they will rely upon genuine growth the same as us.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    The issue is much more basic than that. The UK (along with all the other Western nations) are being impoverished by the rise of the East. Wages as falling everywhere over the long term wealth".

    I'd take issue with your premise. We aren't being impoverished by China which is actually quite remarkable. The fact is on a global level we as a whole our all very blessed and wealthy. If people in this nation truly believe in taking from the rich and giving to the poor then we should all be having wealth redistributed from us to the likes of China etc. Even today our poorest are luckier, healthier and richer than their counterparts in China. But when people say they believe in redistribution they don't generally mean from themselves or view themselves as wealthy.

    Even after decades of the so called rise of China the Chinese and the third world as a whole are still miles behind us on a per capita basis. Yet as a whole we aren't actually going backwards. We aren't being impoverished. Instead we are stagnating while the third world starts to rapidly catch up.

    We aren't going backwards but instead we are treading water. Or with a less positive word we are stagnating. The problem is we are used to having perpetual compound growth so being no better off than we were in 2007 feels like poverty. But in 2007 we were in a pre recession boom not poverty. The real poverty was in the rest of the world.

    We have had centuries of compound growth but we have no divine right to remain ahead of the rest of the world. If the worst that happens as the rest of the world catches up is that we stay the same then we have done ok. Despite the lack of growth not feeling pleasant.

    The danger is that autarky and isolationism don't work. There is a real risk in that due to the anger of the lack of growth we shoot ourselves in both feet and really do head backwards.
    By 2050 though there is every chance China at least will be ahead of most western nations in terms of GDP per capita if it continues its current growth rate. India, Africa and Latin America will still almost certainly still be behind the West on a GDP per capita basis by mid century but China by then may well have joined the likes of Japan, Singapore and South Korea as a nation with a western world standard if living.
    Sorry @TheScreamingEagles you've been out-Spartaned
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited December 2017

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    The issue is much more basic than that. The UK (along with all the other Western nations) are being impoverished by the rise of the East. Wages as falling everywhere over the long term wealth".

    I'd take issue with your premise. We aren't being impoverished by China which is actually quite remarkable. The fact is on a global level we as a whole our all very blessed and wealthy. If people in this nation truly believe in taking from the rich and giving to the poor then we should all be having wealth redistributed from us to the likes of China etc. Even today our poorest are luckier, healthier and richer than their counterparts in China. But when people say they believe in redistribution they don't generally mean from themselves or view themselves as wealthy.

    Even after decades of the so called rise of China the Chinese and the third world as a whole are still miles behind us on a per capita basis. Yet as a whole we aren't actually going backwards. We aren't being impoverished. Instead we are stagnating while the third world starts to rapidly catch up.

    We aren't going backwards but instead we are treading water. Or with a less positive word we are stagnating. The problem is we are used to having perpetual compound growth so being no better off than we were in 2007 feels like poverty. But in 2007 we were in a pre recession boom not poverty. The real poverty was in the rest of the world.

    We have had centuries of compound growth but we have no divine right to remain ahead of the rest of the world. If the worst that happens as the rest of the world catches up is that we stay the same then we have done ok. Despite the lack of growth not feeling pleasant.

    The danger is that autarky and isolationism don't work. There is a real risk in that due to the anger of the lack of growth we shoot ourselves in both feet and really do head backwards.
    By 2050 though there is every chance China at least will be ahead of most western nations in terms of GDP per capita if it continues its current growth rate. India, Africa and Latin America will still almost certainly still be behind the West on a GDP per capita basis by mid century but China by then may well have joined the likes of Japan, Singapore and South Korea as a nation with a western world standard if living.
    There is zero reason to expect China to continue its current growth rate indefinitely. The reason they can is that they are adapting our pre existing science and technology. Once they have caught up that comes to an abrupt end and they will rely upon genuine growth the same as us.
    Even if their growth rate slows down a bit I would still expect China to be ahead of the likes of Greece and Spain and Portugal on a GDP per capita basis in a few decades.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    edited December 2017
    Charles 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's not just benefit fraud that angers people, it's generations of people getting welfare to pop out kids, contributing nothing to society and acting like arseholes. People who have worked hard and fallen on hard times get nothing, whilst scumbags never pay a penny and get everything paid for.
    What's more concerning is the cultural change and sense of entitlement. For example in the case that @Sandpit gave earlier: 30 years ago virtually no one would have thought that acceptable behaviour - now people nod and shrug
    Part only part, admittedly, of that shrugging arises from the fact that in some of the cases, the subject of screaming headlines, the facts have been ‘imperfectly’ reported. There was the mother who saved a few pounds a week to buy her children presents, but because she bought them all at once was the subject of vile abuse. Then there was the ‘Christian child handed to Muslim fosterers’ case, where the truth was a long way from the reports in the Heil and the Bun.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718



    I'd wealthy.

    Even up.

    We world.

    We have had centuries of compound growth but we have no divine right to remain ahead of the rest of the world. If the worst that happens as the rest of the world catches up is that we stay the same then we have done ok. Despite the lack of growth not feeling pleasant.

    The danger is that autarky and isolationism don't work. There is a real risk in that due to the anger of the lack of growth we shoot ourselves in both feet and really do head backwards.

    +1. I've thought this ever since globalisation took off, and I positively agree that it's a good thing if the rest of the world catches up even if it means we stagnate. But clearly it's easier for me to say than someone in marginal employment facing the loss of jobs to Asia (whether by immigration of people or export of jobs). I think the left has to be strong on helping the left-behind, fighting tax avoidance (which seems to me a very strong argument for working with the EUI, but also for getting tough with British-flagged tax havens) and keeping the welfare state afloat.

    i remember a Christian Aid meeting I went to where someone said she'd just lost her job because production was moving to Vietnam. She said sadly, "I know it's a good thing really but it's hard." Which I thought was pretty heroic, and more than we can expect of people in that position. We need to give priority to helping them (whether by retraining or indeed benefits), and if it means taxing a bit more for those of us who are doing well, so be it.

    Tackling tax avoidance is a key issue. It'll be interesting to see how the UK approaches this issue post-Brexit. An anti-avoidance EU directive is due to come into force in 2020, which is within the transition period:

    https://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/news/new-rules-prevent-tax-avoidance-through-non-eu-countries_en

    I thought that at least some Brexiteers wanted a society where avoidance was more easily possible than now.
  • stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    <
    True liberals ie economically and socially liberal would not people linger on benefits but require them to look for and take jobs and base benefits payments on contributions paid in. They also support free movement, free trade and lower taxes and lower regulation.

    It is authoritarians who want to tax more and regulate more and spend more, often including on welfare, they just combine that with much tougher controls on immigration and greater emphasis on the nation state rather than globalisation, including sometimes supporting tariffs

    "Require them to look for and take" sounds a shade authoritarian. One man's requirement is another one's diktat. Your definition of "liberalism" isn't mine but there you go.

    Wanting more regulation in terms of for example improving public safety isn't authoritarian - should we take away the law compelling people to wear seat belts or ride motior bikes with crash helmets ?

    Your definitions seem very confused and muddled as though you're trying desperately to make them fit a model - perhaps related to the EU Referendum ?

    When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.

  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
    Lammy thinks High Court judges “sit in judgement over us”.


  • I'd wealthy.

    Even up.

    We world.

    We have had centuries of compound growth but we have no divine right to remain ahead of the rest of the world. If the worst that happens as the rest of the world catches up is that we stay the same then we have done ok. Despite the lack of growth not feeling pleasant.

    The danger is that autarky and isolationism don't work. There is a real risk in that due to the anger of the lack of growth we shoot ourselves in both feet and really do head backwards.

    +1. I've thought this ever since globalisation took off, and I positively agree that it's a good thing if the rest of the world catches up even if it means we stagnate. But clearly it's easier for me to say than someone in marginal employment facing the loss of jobs to Asia (whether by immigration of people or export of jobs). I think the left has to be strong on helping the left-behind, fighting tax avoidance (which seems to me a very strong argument for working with the EUI, but also for getting tough with British-flagged tax havens) and keeping the welfare state afloat.

    i remember a Christian Aid meeting I went to where someone said she'd just lost her job because production was moving to Vietnam. She said sadly, "I know it's a good thing really but it's hard." Which I thought was pretty heroic, and more than we can expect of people in that position. We need to give priority to helping them (whether by retraining or indeed benefits), and if it means taxing a bit more for those of us who are doing well, so be it.

    Tackling tax avoidance is a key issue. It'll be interesting to see how the UK approaches this issue post-Brexit. An anti-avoidance EU directive is due to come into force in 2020, which is within the transition period:

    https://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/news/new-rules-prevent-tax-avoidance-through-non-eu-countries_en

    I thought that at least some Brexiteers wanted a society where avoidance was more easily possible than now.

    I could not possibly comment.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    <
    True liberals ie economically and socially liberal would not people linger on benefits but require them to look for and take jobs and base benefits payments on contributions paid in. They also support free movement, free trade and lower taxes and lower regulation.

    It is authoritarians who want to tax more and regulate more and spend more, often including on welfare, they just combine that with much tougher controls on immigration and greater emphasis on the nation state rather than globalisation, including sometimes supporting tariffs

    "Require them to look for and take" sounds a shade authoritarian. One man's requirement is another one's diktat. Your definition of "liberalism" isn't mine but there you go.

    Wanting more regulation in terms of for example improving public safety isn't authoritarian - should we take away the law compelling people to wear seat belts or ride motior bikes with crash helmets ?

    Your definitions seem very confused and muddled as though you're trying desperately to make them fit a model - perhaps related to the EU Referendum ?

    If people are taxed to pay benefits then clearly that money is being taken from others, hence the looking for work requirement and more contributions based benefits system to ensure the number of benefits claimants and the level of tax taken is minimised, an entirely liberal principle.

    In a purely liberal world wearing seat belts or crash helmets would be up to the individual, it is tgey who are taking the risk.

    There is nothing confused or muddled about pointing out a genuine liberal should be socially and economically wanting to reduce the size of the state and its control over people's lives while an authoritarian would want to increase the size and influence of the state in both the economic and social fields.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @faisalislam: Part of the EU27 internal prep presentations... seeks to communicate that the PM’s own red lines have pre-determined where the UK-EU end-state is heading - Canada or Korea style deal ... or No Deal twitter.com/jennifermerode…

    @faisalislam: It is basically an invitation by the Commission for the UK Government to have a think about just how crimson are its red lines, their implications, and the mandate for them from the referendum and the election
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited December 2017

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    <
    True liberals ie economically and socially liberal would not people linger on benefits but require them to look for and take jobs and base benefits payments on contributions paid in. They also support free movement, free trade and lower taxes and lower regulation.

    It is authoritarians who want to tax more and regulate more and spend more, often including on welfare, they just combine that with much tougher controls on immigration and greater emphasis on the nation state rather than globalisation, including sometimes supporting tariffs

    "Require them to look for and take" sounds a shade authoritarian. One man's requirement is another one's diktat. Your definition of "liberalism" isn't mine but there you go.

    Wanting more regulation in terms of for example improving public safety isn't authoritarian - should we take away the law compelling people to wear seat belts or ride motior bikes with crash helmets ?

    Your definitions seem very confused and muddled as though you're trying desperately to make them fit a model - perhaps related to the EU Referendum ?

    When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.

    Even now you can still look for a job just in your field for a few months if claiming JSA, after that you have to apply for any job going.
  • stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    <
    True liberals ie economically and socially liberal would not people linger on benefits but require them to look for and take jobs and base benefits payments on contributions paid in. They also support free movement, free trade and lower taxes and lower regulation.

    It is authoritarians who want to tax more and regulate more and spend more, often including on welfare, they just combine that with much tougher controls on immigration and greater emphasis on the nation state rather than globalisation, including sometimes supporting tariffs

    "Require them to look for and take" sounds a shade authoritarian. One man's requirement is another one's diktat. Your definition of "liberalism" isn't mine but there you go.

    Wanting more regulation in terms of for example improving public safety isn't authoritarian - should we take away the law compelling people to wear seat belts or ride motior bikes with crash helmets ?

    Your definitions seem very confused and muddled as though you're trying desperately to make them fit a model - perhaps related to the EU Referendum ?

    When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.

    Yes these are the advantages to not letting the welfare state get out of control. It allows you more leeway when necessary.

    Sadly we're well past that point now.


  • I'd wealthy.

    Even up.

    We world.

    We have had centuries of compound growth but we have no divine right to remain ahead of the rest of the world. If the worst that happens as the rest of the world catches up is that we stay the same then we have done ok. Despite the lack of growth not feeling pleasant.

    The danger is that autarky and isolationism don't work. There is a real risk in that due to the anger of the lack of growth we shoot ourselves in both feet and really do head backwards.

    +1. I've thought this ever since globalisation took off, and I positively agree that it's a good thing if the rest of the world catches up even if it means we stagnate. But clearly it's easier for me to say than someone in marginal employment facing the loss of jobs to Asia (whether by immigration of people or export of jobs). I think the left has to be strong on helping the left-behind, fighting tax avoidance (which seems to me a very strong argument for working with the EUI, but also for getting tough with British-flagged tax havens) and keeping the welfare state afloat.

    i remember a Christian Aid meeting I went to where someone said she'd just lost her job because production was moving to Vietnam. She said sadly, "I know it's a good thing really but it's hard." Which I thought was pretty heroic, and more than we can expect of people in that position. We need to give priority to helping them (whether by retraining or indeed benefits), and if it means taxing a bit more for those of us who are doing well, so be it.

    Tackling tax avoidance is a key issue. It'll be interesting to see how the UK approaches this issue post-Brexit. An anti-avoidance EU directive is due to come into force in 2020, which is within the transition period:

    https://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/news/new-rules-prevent-tax-avoidance-through-non-eu-countries_en

    That’s fine up to a point. The bigger question I have is whether companies such as Google or Facebook should be allowed to exist in their current form. One can’t help feeling that they think themselves cleverer and more moral than others so deserve to pay less tax and assume less responsibility for their actions. How one deals with that I don’t know but fines clearly don’t affect them - perhaps some dramatic thinking is required. Nobody believed Standard Oil could be broken up.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42411144

    The Liberal Democrats have been fined £18,000 for breaking spending rules in last year's EU referendum.
    The Electoral Commission said the party had "failed to deliver a complete and accurate spending return".
    Proper receipts and invoices were not provided for 80 payments worth more than £80,000, the watchdog said.
  • Scott_P said:

    @faisalislam: Part of the EU27 internal prep presentations... seeks to communicate that the PM’s own red lines have pre-determined where the UK-EU end-state is heading - Canada or Korea style deal ... or No Deal twitter.com/jennifermerode…

    @faisalislam: It is basically an invitation by the Commission for the UK Government to have a think about just how crimson are its red lines, their implications, and the mandate for them from the referendum and the election

    Yep - those red lines are going to fade into a much lighter shade of pink over the coming year.

  • stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    <
    True liberals ie economically and socially liberal would not people linger on benefits but require them to look for and take jobs and base benefits payments on contributions paid in. They also support free movement, free trade and lower taxes and lower regulation.

    It is authoritarians who want to tax more and regulate more and spend more, often including on welfare, they just combine that with much tougher controls on immigration and greater emphasis on the nation state rather than globalisation, including sometimes supporting tariffs

    "Require them to look for and take" sounds a shade authoritarian. One man's requirement is another one's diktat. Your definition of "liberalism" isn't mine but there you go.

    Wanting more regulation in terms of for example improving public safety isn't authoritarian - should we take away the law compelling people to wear seat belts or ride motior bikes with crash helmets ?

    Your definitions seem very confused and muddled as though you're trying desperately to make them fit a model - perhaps related to the EU Referendum ?

    When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.

    Yes these are the advantages to not letting the welfare state get out of control. It allows you more leeway when necessary.

    Sadly we're well past that point now.

    Yep - the Tories have their client vote to look after ;-)

  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745

    When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.

    Indeed but that's not how the thinking is today. Getting people into work is much more about reducing the unemployment figures (good politically) and reducing the amount to be paid out in JSA and other employment-related welfare than improving the quality of life for individuals.

    You can almost predict that with the withdrawal from the EU and "taking back control", we'll start seeing what few rights and benefits workers have chipped away in the name of "competition" or "globalisation" so it's the Working Time Directive now and it'll be the National Living Wage next - it'll have to be reduced so we can compete with Asia and other economies as we seek to make Global Britain an economic powerhouse - in order to ensure a regular supply of cheap labour.

    Things like paid holiday, maternity and paternity rights will be on the list as we see the dystopia of Dysonism come to the fore.

    It doesn't have to be like that but it'll be couched seductively and without menace but we all know what it will mean.
This discussion has been closed.