Some of the effects of Tory party policys

(89 Posts)
ttosca Sat 06-Jul-13 15:39:55

The National Housing Federation has released a report highlighting the impact of 100 days of the bedroom tax in Merseyside:

• 26,500 households in Merseyside are affected by the bedroom tax, only 155 managed to downsize due to shortage of smaller homes.

• 19,055 disabled people in Merseyside are losing over £13m a year due to the bedroom tax. Some grants are available but for three months only.

• 14,000 Merseyside households fell into arrears with their rent in the first four weeks.

“The bedroom tax is hurting the most vulnerable people in Merseyside. It is time to face the facts and repeal this unfair policy now.” David Orr, Chief Executive of the National Housing Federation

Read the National Housing Federation's summary here

bit.ly/1beczNM (includes a link to the pdf report)

---

More than half of benefit claimants ruled fit to work ended up destitute !

MORE than HALF of people stripped of disability benefits after being ruled “fit for work” by Atos Origin were left unemployed and without income, according to a Government study.

The Department for Work and Pensions - DWP, who hired the French IT firm to help them slash the benefits bill, have admitted finding out in a survey that 55 per cent of people who lost benefits in the crackdown had failed to find work.

Only 15 per cent were in jobs, with 30 per cent on other benefits.

The DWP claimed people left high and dry were given “tailored support” to find jobs.

But the extent of the hardship suffered by the Atos victims in the study will only add to the growing public fury about the firm and their methods.

Atos have assessed patients with terminal illnesses as “fit for work”. And thousands of victims of genuine, chronic conditions have complained of being humiliated by the company’s tests.

So far, Citizens Advice in Scotland have received a shocking 24,000 complaints about Atos, who rake in £110million a year from the taxpayer for their controversial work.

The extent of unemployment among people denied benefits after Atos assessments was revealed by the DWP after a Freedom of Information request.

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/atos-scandal-benefits-bosses-admit-1344278?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffer0762d&utm_medium=twitter

ironman Sun 07-Jul-13 11:37:12

I thought it was a coalition?

SilverOldie Mon 08-Jul-13 13:41:08

So it is Ironman but the OP is a Tory hating Labour supporter so won't let that stand in the way of yet another pointless rambling.

CogitoErgoSometimes Mon 08-Jul-13 14:36:42

No, not a Labour Supporter. Ttossa's affinities lie to the far left!

One of the two parties has to be responsible. I very much doubt it's a Lib Dem policy!

ttosca Mon 08-Jul-13 23:04:11

> I thought it was a coalition?

It's a coalition in name, yes. Not that the Lib Dems were anything other than economic liberals, but it's the Tory party where these truly nasty policies come from. The LDs are now Tory lapdogs in an effort to show that coalition politics can work. This is their number one priority seeing as they will never win a majority outright.

> So it is Ironman but the OP is a Tory hating Labour supporter so won't let that stand in the way of yet another pointless rambling.

I'm not a Labour supporter, and you shouldn't assume that I am just because I criticise the Tories.

---

So anyone care to comment about the actual policies which are destroying so many lives, or is it more important to play Red team vs. Blue team?

Does anyone still think that the 'Bedroom tax' is a good policy?

Does anyone still think that the so-called welfare 'reform' is not being done in a way which demonizes the unemployed and puts legitimate claimants at risk of destitute?

Madondogs Mon 08-Jul-13 23:14:53

I will comment. The replies to the op are childish I the extreme, obviously those posters lack the empathy to understand the traffic human consequences that lie behind the statistics. And since when has being a Labour supporter... Or even someone ' far to the Left' ( count me in on that) been a term of abuse.

SilverOldie Tue 09-Jul-13 12:54:37

The comments aren't childish just because you disagree with them.

The Tories and their supporters are routinely abused on this forum so why not Labour or Communists?

niceguy2 Tue 09-Jul-13 14:38:51

@Madondogs. I think if you read more of Ttosca's ramblings posts, you may see why the replies are like that. All things considered I think the replies have been fairly tame.

What you'll probably see soon is a barbed attack on the fact I'm a supposedly right wing Tory lover who wants to see the poor hammered whilst the rich laugh all the way to the bank. When in reality I actually think of myself as fairly centre and I'm not even a big fan of the current coalition. But given Ttosca's is so left wing that he/she makes the Socialist Worker party look like UKIP, it's hard not to be accused of being right wing.

ttosca Tue 09-Jul-13 16:23:57

Yes, yes, you're such a moderate nice guy for moderate policies and you're not really a big fan of the coalition, which is why you've pretty much defended almost every single coalition policy on here for the past couple of years.

It's a nice schtick, niceguy, but not really believable.

Can we talk about policies instead of this distraction about who is left-wing or who plays for what team or whatever?

TabithaStephens Tue 09-Jul-13 16:44:26

Why are so many people in Merseyside on benefits, would seem to be a relevent question. And why do they consistently vote for Labour, when Labour does absolutely nothing to improve the area.

Madondogs Tue 09-Jul-13 17:43:16

There were mass redundancies in Liverpool in the 80s and the area has never recovered. There is no manufacturing industry and high levels if unemployment.
As to why they vote labour, well it is traditionally a working class area, and people have historic loyalties.
During the 80s Liverpool council fought against the Tory policies and refused to make any council worker redundant .
I totally agree that since then the Labour Party / or government has done nothing for the working class .. In Liverpool or anywhere else in Britain, because they have follower a Blairite agenda, little different from the Tories.

Madondogs Tue 09-Jul-13 17:44:38

And hi Ttosca you sound like my kind of gal grin

TabithaStephens Tue 09-Jul-13 19:04:42

Did Liverpool council not consider the people of Liverpool who were paying for the council workers? Surely the council should work for the benefit of the people of Liverpool, not just their employees?

Madondogs Tue 09-Jul-13 19:22:29

How would making even more people redundant benefit Liverpool ?

MiniTheMinx Tue 09-Jul-13 20:19:51

And because its Merseyside no one can claim these people can move where there is cheaper housing. Great isn't it. Perhaps that is why it falls on deaf ears and those on the right are strangely silent.

The policy is short sighted as are other Tory policies, unless of course playing musical houses is part of some plan to kick start the economy! Maybe there is some logic in it. Make group A homeless, move in group B, Group B buy new white goods and default on rent, move in group C......

In what way is it beneficial to pay out of work benefits instead of wages TabithaStephens?

niceguy2 Tue 09-Jul-13 21:38:08

I think you are mistaking me asking where the money comes from as defending the coalition.

As for policies, we've been round this merry go round so many times. You will say evil tory scum repeatedly whilst cut & pasting lots of articles in case I cannot click on a link. I will ask you ok...what would you do instead and where the money would come from?

You will brand me a right wing fascist for asking such a question and cut & paste some more articles on how it's all the rich bankers fault and life was all tickety boo before they destroyed the universe with their reckless gambling. A point even if it were true is neither here nor there anymore.

TabithaStephens Tue 09-Jul-13 21:56:14

There's no point in keeping people in jobs that are no longer needed just to keep them off the unemployed figures. Liverpool MPs should be trying to attract investment into the area.

ttosca Wed 10-Jul-13 00:41:19

niceguy-

>I think you are mistaking me asking where the money comes from as defending the coalition.

No, no mistake, because the Coalition rationalises its sociopathic and counterproductive policies using the same line: "Where is the money going to come from?" You do the same. You defend the coalition policies as necessary. In reality, they are not necessary and are in fact, counter productive.

> As for policies, we've been round this merry go round so many times. You will say evil tory scum repeatedly whilst cut & pasting lots of articles in case I cannot click on a link.

And you still don't seem to take any of it in. Have you apologised yet for getting it wrong - for almost two years - that austerity bloodletting will have a negative impact on growth and the economy as a whole? No, you haven't. The best you can grudgingly come up with is that some of the money cut on spending should be invested in growth.

> I will ask you ok...what would you do instead and where the money would come from?

I've already explained to you many times that we're in the middle of a recession right now and that is our primary problem.

There is a difference between the deficit in the middle of a recession (which is always higher, due to lack of tax revenue and increased unemployments) and the deficit when 'normal' growth is resumed.

The coalition is pretending that the deficit is due to massive public over expenditure, when it isn't, because it wants to dismantle social security and reduce the size of the state.

If we stopped bloodletting and actually invested in the economy and put people back to work and got out of the recession, then a large part of the deficit would fix itself, because there would be a massive increase in tax revenue.

> You will brand me a right wing fascist for asking such a question

No, but I'm starting to think you might be a troll or spend your time on here purposely to disrupt discussion. I've explained the basic facts to you a million times but you ignore them every time and stick your head in a sand.

> and cut & paste some more articles on how it's all the rich bankers fault and life was all tickety boo before they destroyed the universe with their reckless gambling.

I've also addressed this point about a million times, too. Prior to the financial crisis, the deficit was high, but not drastically so (around 3%), and has historically been much higher many times before.

Furthermore, our accumulated debt/GDP was at a historical low point before the financial crisis.

I've explained these things to you a million times before, and I have shown you the charts and figures, and provided you with links to reputable links (such as the treasury) but you still ignore it and carry on with your nonsense -- as if the state of the economy is the fault of spending too much on health and education.

You're simply ridiculous.

TabithaStephens Wed 10-Jul-13 00:57:20

What do you mean by "investing in the economy and putting people back to work"? Making up public sector jobs? Labour already tried that, it didn't work. We need to encourage private sector investment.

I thought that having high levels of public sector employment did work. It kept the economy buoyant and also encouraged investment and employment in the private sector due to individual spending ability. It wasn't the Labour government's effort to have as many people in work as possible that caused the global recession and the cuts in the public sector are damaging the Coalition's fairly poor efforts at getting the UK out of recession, when so many other countries are recovering (obviously not including Greece etc). Now everyone's frightened to spend money because there's no job confidence.

niceguy2 Wed 10-Jul-13 08:32:15

High levels of public sector employment is fine as long as the private sector can sustain those jobs. Roughly half of our jobs nowadays seem to be public sector, it means the private sector have to fund those jobs somehow.

And given the dire straits of the economy, it's not really a surprise that right now we can't sustain those jobs. It's only logical that if the economy is bad and tax receipts collapse then the public sector which afterall is part of the economy also is affected. And when times are good, the opposite should also ring true as well.

What's wrong is when the public sector somehow think they should be immune from what's going on around them. That's simply not realistic.

MiniTheMinx Wed 10-Jul-13 13:14:25

High levels of public sector employment is fine as long as the private sector can sustain those jobs. Roughly half of our jobs nowadays seem to be public sector, it means the private sector have to fund those jobs somehow

Interesting point but arse about face smile

47% of GDP is government spending. Even under neo-liberalism and despite calls for less government, the private sector leans on the government to spend. Less government spending shrinks public sector investment. Corporate welfare sits in direct contradiction to the idea of a small state and less spending. So what is actually happening is a call for corporate welfare, scrapping of regulations, checks & balances and a complete marketisation of human welfare, be in health, education and welfare.

It isn't that the private sector supports government spending, rather that the state supports the private sector.

CogitoErgoSometimes Wed 10-Jul-13 15:00:38

"It isn't that the private sector supports government spending, rather that the state supports the private sector"

Oh dear. hmm When did you fall through the economic looking glass exactly?

niceguy2 Wed 10-Jul-13 15:45:11

Erm...i'm not sure how to respond to Mini's last sentence. Where do I start?

If you'd have said:

"...rather that the state influences the private sector" then I'd be with you.

MiniTheMinx Wed 10-Jul-13 17:05:15

I don't know where to start with you two either !

Here's a link www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAAmtZSIX54

If you listen to Professor Mariana Mazzucato approximately half way through that lecture (58 mins) it will explain how the state underpins the free market through state investment into R&D, subsidies and beneficial tax regimes. She isn't on the left, just in case you think its biased. Her argument is that the value is created through investment but the extraction of value goes to the private sector.

speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2013/01/15/myth-free-market-capitalism-rest/

You might also find this interesting, again not a left source.
www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2011/04/29/why-the-private-sector-needs-the-government-to-spend-money/

Government spending after 1945 drove huge increases in GDP, drove down the debt to GDP because of how the money was invested (rather than just spent on war) & drove huge growth in the private sector despite progressive taxation.

niceguy2 Wed 10-Jul-13 21:45:38

OK, let's try to agree upon this. The state gets it's money from taxing the private sector. The private sector needs the state to spend money on various things like healthcare, police, defence, education, roads etc etc. Things which left to market forces alone wouldn't be a good idea.

The question is of balance. And there has to be a balance. The state cannot exist without the private sector and it would be pretty much anarchy without the state.

We'll probably disagree where the balancing point is but there has to be one correct?

What a Tory/Labour govt are in reality doing is moving the point a cm to the left or right depending on who is in power.

But my main point as I said before is that if the private sector does badly then it follows that the public sector also ends up suffering.

MiniTheMinx Wed 10-Jul-13 22:39:25

No incorrect.

We can have no state spending on welfare, health and education and a completely liberal economy, much as we did in the 18th and 19th century. We could then return to business as normal with people dying of preventable disease, children dying in childhood, a return of malnutrition and starvation. Scameron et al could all saunter out and wag their finger at the naughty immoral poor. oops, isn't that what they want.

Or we could have a complete command economy, as is the case in Korea.

There is no golden rule that says we must have state spending and a private sector.

Or we could just try something radically different. The struggle to control the state is historic with one class always having the odds stacked in their favour. In the interests of democracy I wouldn't ask them to get out their cheque book, I would request they pack their bags. smile

MrJudgeyPants Wed 10-Jul-13 23:48:01

In the interests of democracy I wouldn't ask them to get out their cheque book, I would request they pack their bags.

Are you suggesting that the wealthy should be chucked out of the country... in the name of democracy?

Wasn't that tried in Zimbabwe and Uganda? Remind me again how that turned out... Must have been the Bilderbergers, the Neo-Cons and probably even the Freemasons who deliberately trashed those countries economies pour encourager les autres.

niceguy2 Thu 11-Jul-13 00:37:28

Mini, i've no clue what you are arguing for anymore. Are you suggesting a command economy like Korea is a good thing? Because already I agree that a pure private economy is a bad thing.

The world is not black & white. That's why too much of any type of economy is bad. The 'best' is a mix of both.

As for the rich packing their bags and leaving, that's just foolishness. The rich tend to take their riches with them. Unless you are now going to promote state legalised theft?

ttosca Thu 11-Jul-13 01:16:16

Mini is quite correct.

Either extreme of liberal Capitalism or a centrally controlled command economy are anti-human and anti-freedom and are doomed to failure.

What he or she is calling for is something different, which presumably (I won't put words in to her mouth) is democratic socialism. That is, an economy where we produce goods to meet humans needs first, decided democratically.

Capitalism has historically been productive and has served its purpose. It has now reached its limit and is not sustainable if we want to have any semblance of democracy, nevermind neverending war, mass poverty, and environmental disaster.

flatpackhamster Thu 11-Jul-13 07:57:35

niceguy2
Mini, i've no clue what you are arguing for anymore. Are you suggesting a command economy like Korea is a good thing? Because already I agree that a pure private economy is a bad thing.

She is arguing for a communist command economy. As usual. Some people just won't learn.

MiniTheMinx Thu 11-Jul-13 09:50:16

I am not arguing for a command economy and a large state. The state itself is not democratic. Historically we have always struggled for control of the state. Under feudalism the state was not headed by an elected individual but by someone who claimed to have the divine right to rule.

Now we have governments made up of elected individuals that serve the class interests of those who pay the bills and those who pay the piper call the tune. And for those of you who think that is the tax payer, you are duped.

The state is corrupt, serving the interests of those with property, through laws and institutions that ensure that those without stay without.

I don't think we need a large state or even huge state welfare, what is needed are changes to property relations (I'm not suggesting you share your bathroom) we need changes to way in which businesses are owned and managed. Democracy needs to start from the ground up. We need to unpick the link between large finance capital and productive business, so that productive capital isn't subordinated to finance. Right now small businesses are still being denied investment or lending whilst the banks favour monopoly. That isn't a free market, that is a rigged market. And the capital flows in one direction, enclosing public and private life, inclusion into this necessitates the exclusion of others.

niceguy2 Thu 11-Jul-13 12:28:33

Ok, i'm genuinely interested in how you see this brave new world which Ttosca calls 'democratic socialism' would work.

So...correct me if I am wrong but you believe that the state is inherently corrupt. And that despite one person one vote that the resulting government only serves a narrow interest. Correct?

If so how would the new democratic socialism work? In other words, how would decisions be made? What changes are you suggesting need changing to business ownership? If I start off say a takeaway business and grow it into a big chain of takeaway businesses, who owns/manages it? Me or the state?

Picking up Ttosca's point on producing goods on the basis of meeting human need first. Who decides that and how? So for example if I don't like Brocolli, who decides that is more important than chocolate? And if I've worked and earned £x. And I just want to have a fun time and spend most of it on rubber dog shit, in a democratic society, who decides I cannot buy it because it fails the 'human need' test?

ttosca Thu 11-Jul-13 15:58:40

So how it is that this thread has again been diverted from discussing the harmful effects of the Tory's sociopathic policies?

----

Food banks say use has doubled since benefit cuts

Thu, 11/07/2013 - 13:52 -- nick

Despite the government's insistence that benefit cuts have nothing to do with increased food bank need, the number using them has doubled since cuts came into force.

The Trussell Trust, the UK's biggest food bank provider, says it has seen a 200% increase in the number of referrals for help since the April changes, and that more than half of these were linked to benefits issues.

The major reasons for the rise were sanctions, benefit delays - which will be worsened by Chancellor George Osborne's recent announcement of longer waiting times for first claims - the bedroom tax, and cuts to council tax relief.

The Trussell Trust fed more than 150,000 people in the three months from April to June, and the numbers are increasing.

www.unemployednet.org/food-banks-say-use-has-doubled-benefit-cuts

flatpackhamster Thu 11-Jul-13 16:01:03

ttosca

So how it is that this thread has again been diverted from discussing the harmful effects of the Tory's sociopathic policies?

Why not just create another 15 threads, like normal?

I'm not sure the word 'discuss' covers what you do.

MiniTheMinx Thu 11-Jul-13 16:38:00

You don't have to respond Flatpack, no one forces you.

Lord Freud, "which came first, the supply or the demand … Food from a food bank – the supply – is a free good, and by definition there is an almost infinite demand for a free good." There, again, see these people make their judgements about others based on their belief that everyone is like them, avaricious. Except the poor are not just greedy, they are lazy.

An MP asked Freud if the Job centre was issuing vouchers, to which he said that the job centres were encouraged to make links with food banks. So it would seem that the delays, the sanctions and the mistakes are part of some well thought plan. Lets not use tax payers money to keep people when they find themselves down on their luck, lets make tax payers dig deeper and give their neighbours food, whilst we siphon off expenses, freebies, give welfare to corporations, wage wars and drink subsidised gin whilst we plan our £10,000 hike in salary.

And this is not a single party issue, Freud was hired by Blair to produce a white paper on welfare reform. So, what to do?

MrJudgeyPants Thu 11-Jul-13 22:27:59

Any democracy worth its salt has to acknowledge economic democracy - who can buy what and when is no business of the states. This extends to the wider issue of capitalism. If an individual or organisation can see a return on an investment it should be unimpeded in its pursuit of that return (provided there is a level playing field for all). The problem that the country faces is a dearth of investment opportunities which will deliver a suitable reward for the risk these banks are being asked to take.

For example, if HS2 was capable of providing a decent return on investment (as opposed to being a colossal white elephant waiting to happen) there would be banks and private investors queuing around the block for a piece of the action and the governments money wouldn't be necessary.

With government spending at around 47% of GDP, and taxation not being too far from that point, it isn't hard to find some way of boosting profits for companies leading, in turn, to more investment opportunities... leading, in turn, to more investment... leading, in turn, to more jobs...

I get fed up saying it but taxation (especially that on businesses and the poor) is unacceptably high.

MiniTheMinx Fri 12-Jul-13 22:19:46

We don't have a level playing field and capitalism isn't sustainable because of the capital absorption problem. The engine of capitalism is accumulation, what is accumulated grows bigger which means effectively larger and larger amounts of capital must find suitable investment opportunities. Do you want every surface of the globe concreted over, eventual under-consumption problems and every other social, bio and private sphere of life marketised only to find that it will still crash under the weight of its own contradictions.

Companies already have "boosted" profits, at the moment they are sitting on a $300 trillion surplus that they can't find investment for in productive areas of the economy.

Leithlurker Sat 13-Jul-13 11:07:55

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

So interestingly another way of looking at the OP is to say that the Tories have deliberately added to the problem by misleading and in a partisan way setting the context of benefits as one where lies and misunderstandings lead public opinion, not an honest and open debate about what the welfare state is for, nor what kind of society we want to live in. Easy to say that the public support getting tough on benefit scroungers which leads to the safety net of benefits being pulled out from under those most in need, if the public have no idea of the reality of the cost and where the money goes.

niceguy2 Sat 13-Jul-13 12:18:23

I do think there is a huge problem between perception and reality.

But I don't think there's a very easy solution to make papers like the DM right objectively without seriously encroaching on freedom of speech.

And naturally MP's will skew the figures to suit them just like night follows day.

What I would like to see though is these personal tax statements mentioned a while back.

Right now your average Joe Bloggs on the street hears of these billions of pounds spent every year on benefits whilst he's working his arse off and barely meeting the mortgage. Naturally he's not right happy and gets the impression he's being milked.

But if he got a statement each year which shows actually, out of the say £5000 tax he paid last year, £1k went on this, 2k went on that. Those are figures he can understand and relate to.

And when the DM or MP's are wittering on about cracking down on fraud, he can also see 'wait...only a tiny amount lost there. The elephant in the room is the £2k I'm paying towards xyz'.

MrJudgeyPants Sat 13-Jul-13 23:52:52

Mini, the first part of your argument doesn't stack up. The market is merely an efficient arbitrator of supply and demand. The trick is to maximise efficiency of a given resource (whether its land, oil or any other traded good) - this is the creative destruction of capitalism. Think about it like this, if the price of wheat spikes due to a bad harvest, there is a simple mechanism by which farmers can tweak the following years supply, similarly, the price acts as a disincentive to purchase (why buy wheat when rice is cheaper for example) - the nett effect is to smooth the price out over time. This just isn't possible in a planned economy.

Similarly, the 'contradictions' in capitalism, when compared to the alternatives, should be seen as features, not bugs. Even your point about concreting over the countryside is wrong as eventually farm land adjusts in price to balance supply and demands.

Your final point about companies sitting on cash reserves but not investing (whilst I question your figures) actually supports my point. More investment opportunities could be supported by a lower tax rate on companies.

Niceguy - I totally agree about the need for tax statements, particularly at a time when money is tight and spending budgets are being squeezed.

flatpackhamster Sun 14-Jul-13 09:25:32

Leithlurker

So interestingly another way of looking at the OP is to say that the Tories have deliberately added to the problem by misleading and in a partisan way setting the context of benefits as one where lies and misunderstandings lead public opinion, not an honest and open debate about what the welfare state is for, nor what kind of society we want to live in.

'Misleading' and 'Partisan' could be used to describe people using the term 'bedroom tax' or claiming the NHS is being privatised. In fact practically every chicken-little sky-is-falling story that has poured out of the left-wing press since 2010 fits the same description.

ISTM that your objection is not that there is misleading and partisan information, but that you are losing the propaganda war, despite the vast taxpayer resource (the BBC) which is fighting it on your behalf.

Easy to say that the public support getting tough on benefit scroungers which leads to the safety net of benefits being pulled out from under those most in need, if the public have no idea of the reality of the cost and where the money goes.

If they had any idea of the reality of the cost, I think they'd be even more appalled at the expenditure.

ttosca Sun 14-Jul-13 10:33:10

> Mini, the first part of your argument doesn't stack up. The market is merely an efficient arbitrator of supply and demand. The trick is to maximise efficiency of a given resource (whether its land, oil or any other traded good) - this is the creative destruction of capitalism. Think about it like this, if the price of wheat spikes due to a bad harvest, there is a simple mechanism by which farmers can tweak the following years supply, similarly, the price acts as a disincentive to purchase (why buy wheat when rice is cheaper for example) - the nett effect is to smooth the price out over time. This just isn't possible in a planned economy.

This is hilarious. It's like some guy time traveled forward from the 19th Century.

'The Market' is so efficient that 1% of the population own nearly 40% of the wealth. Thousands of pounds of food are thrown away by supermarkets every day whilst thousands of people go hungry. And whilst there are a large number of unoccupied homes in the UK, there is a huge shortage of homes, especially affordable homes, for ordinary people to live in.

It's such an efficient arbitrator of supply and demand that there is a chronic problem of unemployment and wages so low that the state has to intervene to subsides peoples wages so that they can afford to live.

Leithlurker Sun 14-Jul-13 10:38:46

You must really hate the idea that you were born 100 years to late FPH, you would have so loved to have been a victorian/Edwardien, except of course if you had have been born poor.

ttosca Sun 14-Jul-13 10:40:21

> Easy to say that the public support getting tough on benefit scroungers which leads to the safety net of benefits being pulled out from under those most in need, if the public have no idea of the reality of the cost and where the money goes.

> If they had any idea of the reality of the cost, I think they'd be even more appalled at the expenditure.

In fact, the more the public is informed about the cost of social security and the rate of fraud (which is tiny), the more likely they are to support it.

The problem is that politicians don't merely exploit ignorance, they actively promote it. Ian Duncan Smith, the serial liar and sociopath is a case in point. He has repeatedly bastardised statistics to push through his anti-social security agenda.

The Office of National Statistics has officially rebuked IDS for his lies and told the govt. they must stop abusing statistics in this way.

Meanwhile, you can sign this petition to get that vile shit, IDS, kicked out of Parliament for lying to Parliament:

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/speaker-of-the-house-of-commons-expel-iain-duncan-smith-from-the-house-of-commons

MrJudgeyPants Sun 14-Jul-13 11:20:48

"It's like some guy time traveled forward from the 19th Century."

Oh the irony of a Marxist saying THAT!

"It's such an efficient arbitrator of supply and demand that there is a chronic problem of unemployment and wages so low that the state has to intervene to subsides peoples wages so that they can afford to live."

Ok then a) why the fuckity bumble does the state tax the lowest earners? and, b) the state sets a minimum wage AND we have high unemployment - wouldn't it be better to allow individuals to earn a 'clearing rate' and have more people in employment?

niceguy2 Sun 14-Jul-13 12:45:10

You are totally correct Ttosca that we throw away a lot of food and it's not a desirable thing given all the starving people in the world. If your definition of efficiency is for us not to be throwing away food then beware.

Look at the alternatives. When USSR was under communist rule following a planned economy...sure there was very little wastage. But then there was very little produced! In China before they adopted free market reforms people literally starved. To the point where to be called fat was actually a compliment since only the rich could afford to eat so much!

And look at the world today. One of the few remaining planned economies, North Korea. Many of it's citizen's only survive because of the generousity of the wicked capitalists giving food aid made from their evil free market economies.

So if you give me the choice of living in an 'inefficient' free market economy or the 'efficient' planned economy then I'd take the first everytime. Call me but I do like to eat.

flatpackhamster Sun 14-Jul-13 12:46:22

Leithlurker

You must really hate the idea that you were born 100 years to late FPH, you would have so loved to have been a victorian/Edwardien, except of course if you had have been born poor.

I assume that by choosing to attack me personally (with one of the laziest, most contrived and pig-ignorant smears I have seen in quite a while, so well done) rather than address the point I made, you are happily admitting that your lunatic socialists are quite happy to dissemble and smear your wicked propaganda?

Jolly good.

MiniTheMinx Sun 14-Jul-13 15:19:37

North Korea has suffered from typhoons and flooding and several other natural disasters. The USA sees itself as the guardian of capitalism, any help or relaxation of trade restrictions is subject to demands, all of which are in relation to opening up North Korea to capitalist expansion. Now North Korea is communist and quite understandably is trying to resist this imperialism. "We will continue to keep the pressure on them and they'll continue to isolate themselves until they take a different path," Obama said, so the plan is to starve them into submission.

Its all very well saying that Korea shouldn't be testing missiles but they are under threat, the threat may not be violence in the sense of all out war, but what is waged upon all socialist nations is a form of war, an economic war waged through sanctions, CIA coups, media. Did you know that the CIA owns media companies around the world? do you care? what is more the USA spends more on its military than almost all other nations combined.

"The countries directly battered by US military actions in recent decades (Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, then again Iraq), along with numerous other states that have been threatened at one time or another for being “anti-American” or “anti-West” (Iran, Cuba, South Yemen, Venezuela, Syria, North Korea, and others) have one thing in common: not one of them has wielded a nuclear deterrence—until now......... “No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons.” But that is exactly what the United States is trying to do in regard to a benighted North Korea--and Iran. Physicist and political writer Manuel Garcia, Jr., observes that Washington’s policy “is to encourage other nations to abide by the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty--and renounce nuclear weapons--while exempting itself. Michael Parenti. www.michaelparenti.org/NorthKorea.html

Look at all the money America stole and borrowed to fund its war against Russia. Regan tripped the american debt, not because he was protecting ordinary citizens but because he was acting in the interest of capitalism.

And the first part of my argument does stack up and here's why.

If I have two pairs of shoes, you have £20, you can buy one pr. If I have two prs of shoes and £20 and you have no money, I keep the shoes and the £20 and you have no shoes. I could invest my capital to make more shoes but because you have no money there is no effective demand for the shoes. Unmet human need sits beside capital surplus and in this instance commodities, I will not employ you because there is no demand and therefore I can not accumulate more money. Some Marxists have tried to say that under-consumption theory isn't correct by saying that capitalists themselves make up the difference in purchasing power. If this is so, why does the west indebt its governments to cleave open non capitalist countries to trade/investment and try to open up every area of human life to profiteering? The answer is because: wages are too low to create demand for service/commodities and also because the capitalist class themselves do not make up the short fall. There is after all only so much food anyone can eat, miles they can travel, clothes they can wear. Even for those who have vast wealth, there is a limit to how much they spend, the rest must find suitable investment opportunities. The only reason we do not have piles of waste is simply because capitalism regulates to some extent the excess by people withdrawing investment. But when this happens as has been the case over the last 20-30 years, we see financification where money is invested into markets and not into production for human need.

We need a larger percentage of the wealth created to be shared through wages, we need effective global tax rules and we need governments to continue to meet the welfare needs of people or we need a far more radical solution. Otherwise this system will fail sooner rather than later.

MiniTheMinx Sun 14-Jul-13 15:23:09

*tripled the American Debt (must proof read)

MiniTheMinx Sun 14-Jul-13 15:32:58

And thanks ttosca, I have signed the petition.

ttosca Sun 14-Jul-13 15:34:54

MrJudgeyPants-

> Ok then a) why the fuckity bumble does the state tax the lowest earners? and,

It shouldn't, though the taxation rates for lower earners is decades old, when the min wage was higher and the cost of living lower. Since the 1970s, productivity has increased massively, but wages have not caught up with productivity. In real terms, wages have stagnated for the majority and decreased for the worst off.

Meanwhile, the cost of public transport, utilities, etc. have all increased...

b) the state sets a minimum wage AND we have high unemployment - wouldn't it be better to allow individuals to earn a 'clearing rate' and have more people in employment?

Unemployment isn't caused by the min. wage. It's endemic to Capitalism. The ruling class don't want full employment otherwise people can demand higher wages. If there is a pool of unemployed, this suppresses wages and adds to 'work flexibility'.

ttosca Sun 14-Jul-13 15:35:59

Great post, Mini.

niceguy2 Sun 14-Jul-13 20:02:52

North Korea has suffered from typhoons and flooding and several other natural disasters.

So have other countries in the region. In fact we've had floods here ourselves last year and hurricane's are commonplace in the Americas region. Yet despite that, most other countries can still feed their population. So your logic is somewhat flawed.

Why don't you just admit that planned economies are a big steaming pile of poo. Can you even think of a single country past or present where a planned economy has been a good thing?

MiniTheMinx Sun 14-Jul-13 20:33:02

We once had a thriving cotton industry niceguy but could we grow cotton?

claig Sun 14-Jul-13 21:08:51

"Can you even think of a single country past or present where a planned economy has been a good thing?"

I think the French are much more planning orientated than our laissez-faire approach and they have been successful with it. I think they originated "indicative planning" and this has successfully been used by the Chinese government too.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicative_planning

I think some sort of planning, foresight and forethought are necessary.

The only problem appears to be if the planners are the progressives of New Labour - because that appears to be the road to rack and ruin and the pathway to progressive perdition with money pissed up the wall and up a windmill on a windswept windfarm in order to combat what they claim is "catastrophic climate change". It is catastrophic alright, which is why the public kicked them out of office!

MrJudgeyPants Sun 14-Jul-13 22:30:36

One problem with the North Korean planned economy is that they consistently fail to plan to grow enough food to eat. However, and by no means coincidentally, they are able to plan hugely effective gulags, the Kim family have planned it that they never starve and get access to many western luxury brands and they've planned one of the worlds largest standing armies. Holding North Korea up as an exemplar of planned economies is disrespectful to those who pay the ultimate price for having the misfortune of being born in such a shithole.

www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2012/12/new-highly-detailed-image-north-koreas-lack-electrical-infrastructure/4201/

ttosca Mon 15-Jul-13 01:26:50

Who cares about North Korea? No one is arguing in favour of a totalitarian state.

MiniTheMinx Mon 15-Jul-13 09:41:10

er, no one is suggesting that North Korea is an example of a brilliant democracy ! or planned economy. In fact to have a planned economy puts you at a disadvantage because the liberal west is hostile.

I'm making the point that we have to trade with other nations. Some nations are excluded on ideological grounds, this impacts their ability to feed their populations. Haiti is another good example of where neo-lib reforms were forced on a population that repeatedly shows it doesn't want privatisations and foreign investment, unless its on their own terms. Instead they get totalitarian regime that implements policies favoured by corporations and the american state. They are of course still hungry and nothing materially has changed for these people.

The liberal west is always happy to support totalitarian regimes, Pinochet, saddam, Shah of Iran, The Reagan administration gave varying degrees of support to anti-Communist dictatorships, including those in Guatemala the Philippines and Argentina and armed the mujahideen in the Soviet war in Afghanistan, gorillas during the Angolan Civil War, Contras in the Nicaraguan Revolution as a means of ending Left or Communist governments in those countries, it matters not whether these brutal regimes created gulags and killed their own citizens, as long as it was business as usual with nothing impeding capital accumulation.

MiniTheMinx Mon 15-Jul-13 09:52:56

In regards to the Conservatives and the assault upon welfare, I would point to increasing spending on security, there are parallels with the Reagan amd Maggie era, but now we are fighting "terrorism" the new bogey man because communism is dead, hahahahah, you might be, but they are not. The boggey man is anything be it individuals, states, organisations that threaten capitalist hegemony. Although they will convince you its cultural or religious fundamentalism.

Its ideological only in the sense that they are waging a class war, they can't do this without your ignorance. Which makes perfect sense when you read the piece in Leithlurkers link. Because George and Scameron are not idiots they know what effects their economic policies are having, they also know from history that waging war on welfare goes hand in hand with waging war on the left, and that right wing politics necessitates huge state spending and debt, just not on things that benefit ordinary people.

JuliaScurr Mon 15-Jul-13 10:03:35
JuliaScurr Mon 15-Jul-13 10:09:23

mrjudgey you say it's anti-democratic to make the wealthy leave the country; how about the poor made to leave London & south east?

JuliaScurr Mon 15-Jul-13 10:10:32

<waves to mini & ttosca>

MiniTheMinx Mon 15-Jul-13 10:20:48

Hi Julia

I heard on the radio that the average salary of only 23,000 excluded you from living in almost all of the south east and greater london.

TheFallenNinja Mon 15-Jul-13 10:31:11

I wonder if anyone's political view has actually changed during one of these threads?

niceguy2 Mon 15-Jul-13 11:20:10

@Ninja Nope!

JuliaScurr Mon 15-Jul-13 11:48:30

yes mini and those on housing ben are forced to move from friends and family

Leithlurker Mon 15-Jul-13 12:20:40

FPL, I was actually referring to the level of moral certantity that accompanied those days. Plus the notion that the poor knew their place and certainly would not be as uppity as demanding that such modern day inventions as a government found to be deliberately telling lies in order to keep the poor...well poorer would be brought to account.

However your last post makes all my points abundantly clear for me, any one who could construe a personnel attack from what I said about you is indeed a prime example of the type of Victorian repressed man that would rather no conversation than a conversation that they feel threatened by.

Just in case that was not a clear enough attack, and since you invited me to let me just say that your a complete knob end who truly deserves all you wish for. I hope you get your society as it will only rival Zimbabwe for lack of freedom, economy, diversity, and fairness. Just like the Victorian age.

(Disclaimer This government want to treat me like a child by telling me lies, giving me rules about when I get up, who I talk to, what I should do, who I should be friends with, how I should spend my pocket money...So I am going to act like a child it's the response they seem to want.)

MiniTheMinx Mon 15-Jul-13 12:56:41

Yep, making people move many miles away from all their connections to where housing is cheap because there is no work. Well I guess that ties in with another issue talked about in the news today......cost of childcare. The poorest workers have to work opposing shifts or rely on grandparents and friends for childcare just so they can work. Why subsidise childcare? why not just get all the essential NMW workers to down tools and move to Hull !

flatpackhamster Mon 15-Jul-13 15:11:36

Leithlurker

FPL, I was actually referring to the level of moral certantity that accompanied those days. Plus the notion that the poor knew their place and certainly would not be as uppity as demanding that such modern day inventions as a government found to be deliberately telling lies in order to keep the poor...well poorer would be brought to account.

You know, of course, that figures released in the last fortnight indicated that the gap between rich and poor has shrunk to its lowest level in 25 years? I'm sure whichever left-wing rag you choose to flick through this week didn't run that story. But of course, your sainted propaganda isn't "misleading" or "partisan", can it?

The point I was making - the one you so assiduously missed - is that propaganda is being doled out by both sides and whining that people who share a different ideology to you are saying different things is a bit ridiculous.

But feel free to play the victim card.

However your last post makes all my points abundantly clear for me, any one who could construe a personnel attack from what I said about you is indeed a prime example of the type of Victorian repressed man that would rather no conversation than a conversation that they feel threatened by.

Don't give yourself airs. I didn't find you remotely threatening. Dispiritingly ignorant, yes. Utterly lost in a world of nuance, yes. Lazily attempting to paint yourself as a victim, yes.

This isn't a conversation. It's you objecting when anyone contradicts you.

Just in case that was not a clear enough attack, and since you invited me to let me just say that your a complete knob end who truly deserves all you wish for. I hope you get your society as it will only rival Zimbabwe for lack of freedom, economy, diversity, and fairness. Just like the Victorian age.

So Victorian England is like Zimbabwe, is it? I take it you were schooled under New Labour.

(Disclaimer This government want to treat me like a child by telling me lies, giving me rules about when I get up, who I talk to, what I should do, who I should be friends with, how I should spend my pocket money...So I am going to act like a child it's the response they seem to want.)

I somehow doubt you could manage anything else.

Leithlurker Mon 15-Jul-13 15:41:56

To further enrage FPH and perhaps hasten his like minded citizens on their way to less socially responsible climes, I give you the "common weal"

Ttosca and Mini I would be interested in your comments, this is catching a lot of attention as a possible blue print for how Scotland could look after independence. With a few additions to cover social responsibility and enshrining democracy and diversity, it is what I would hope to see rather than any of the major politicle parties take on capitalism with a light tartan weave.

Interest to think that if we in Scotland get this right and offer a real alternative to neo liberalism, how many of those south of the border will start to either move north, or start to become even more dissatisfied with London rule for London people.
scottishcommonweal.org/

MiniTheMinx Mon 15-Jul-13 17:10:52

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ttosca Mon 15-Jul-13 19:04:05

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ttosca Mon 15-Jul-13 19:05:03

Ooops - apologies for including all that extra text I pasted in!

So annoying that you can't edit posts...

ttosca Mon 15-Jul-13 19:05:43

flatpack-

> You know, of course, that figures released in the last fortnight indicated that the gap between rich and poor has shrunk to its lowest level in 25 years? I'm sure whichever left-wing rag you choose to flick through this week didn't run that story. But of course, your sainted propaganda isn't "misleading" or "partisan", can it?

No, the income gap has shrunk, temporarily, as a result of the depression. The wealth gap is as wide as it has been since the 1920s.

And yes, it was reported by 'left-wing rags', including the Guardian:

www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/jul/10/income-gap-poorest-richest-ons

Despite this fall income inequality, homelessness and the use of food banks (i.e. absolute poverty) has substantially increased since the Tory scum came in to power.

Leith is absolutely right that we are slowly reverting back to Victorian conditions in England. Wealth inequality, poverty, homelessness, poor health, poor healthcare, are shamefully high in this country and have been made worse by Tory scum policies since they've come to power.

ttosca Mon 15-Jul-13 21:17:54

Mumsnet deleted TWO of my posts. I requested one be deleted, but they deleted the original and the corrected on. sad

flatpack-

> You know, of course, that figures released in the last fortnight indicated that the gap between rich and poor has shrunk to its lowest level in 25 years? I'm sure whichever left-wing rag you choose to flick through this week didn't run that story. But of course, your sainted propaganda isn't "misleading" or "partisan", can it?

The story you are referring to doesn't indicate that 'the gap between the rich and the poor has shrunk to its lowest level in 25 years'. It refers to income-inequality only. The Wealth gap is still the largest it has been for over a half-century, and continues to grow.

And yes, it was printed in 'left-wing rag[s]' like the Guardian:

www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013/jul/10/income-gap-poorest-richest-ons

The full story is that absolute poverty has increased substantially under the coalition, as evidenced by the rise in homelessness and the manyfold rise in the use of foodbanks.

ttosca Mon 15-Jul-13 21:18:10

Ahhhhhhhhhh ;)

MiniTheMinx Mon 15-Jul-13 22:35:43

Leith thanks for the link. It looks good, I especially like: industrial democracy, local democracy, indigenous companies and more extensive public and community ownership and cooperatives, and make finance a means of sustaining industry. I picked these because changing the ownership of companies and compelling the financial sector to invest and lend to local businesses esp co-operatives where the value created is shared actually starts to deliver on wealth redistribution and tackle inequality. I have saved in favourites to check back.

I asked for one of my posts to be deleted.

Leithlurker Tue 16-Jul-13 06:54:19

Mini I am going to be actively involved in a piece of work that will use the weal model as a tool to engage the public, the referendum has been very negative so far and has in the main been about the happy fairyland of getting a yes vote. No attempt to involve the public, or should I say the majority of the public in creating the "morning after the night before" if you see what I mean.

Our project will get real people, poor people in fact all the disenfranchised to have a voice. This is to important to leave to the politicians.

On a diffrent ote, I have come to believe that the only way to rest control back to the democratic principle, and bring about the end of massive inequality is to nationalise the banks. It is they that control mostly everything, taking action on bonuses, tax cuts, tax evasion, as well as how and where the government spends it's money all seems pointless as it is international money markets that are the problem.

TheFallenNinja Tue 16-Jul-13 09:16:38

Didn't think so.

MiniTheMinx Tue 16-Jul-13 09:27:40

I think it was Rothschild in the C19th who said "he who controls the supply of money, controls the country, and I control the money supply" In the lead up to the great depression the banks had massively contracted the amount of money in the system. Governments are in hock to banks. I agree with you, what is needed is banks that are under democratic control. The root cause of imperialism, war, inequality, monopoly and third world poverty is banks. They favour monopoly interests and those corporate global giants they help create answer to no one, some have profits larger than the GDP of smaller countries, because of the way in which they are owned a small percentage of people are literally holding governments and us to ransom. This is what I mean when I speak about private property (note to Hamster et al, I am not suggesting you to share your kitchen or even your last rolo!)

Leithlurker Wed 17-Jul-13 07:51:35

Another link for the interested, this time 5 FACTS why the benefit camp is a load of class war tosh.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/five-things-iain-duncan-smith-doesnt-want-you-know-about-benefit-cap

flatpackhamster Wed 17-Jul-13 13:31:14

3, 4 and 5 are opinions, not facts. 1 is debatable, and 2 is unproven.

ttosca Wed 17-Jul-13 15:19:20
longfingernails Wed 17-Jul-13 21:57:07

The National Housing Federation? I've just looked at their website. They seem like a typical Labour-style quango, lobbying for council houses. Assuming it falls under Eric Pickles' purview, I hope he gets rid!

Leithlurker Wed 17-Jul-13 22:07:06

How interesting Long, you disagree with the provision of social housing? Or just that those who do the providing should have any kind of representative voice?

Housinf associations are the largest landlords these days as collectively they own more housing and provide social housing to more people than any other type of landlord, something I am sure you found out by looking at the web site, I am at a loss then to see why Eric Pickles as minister for local authorities would want to have housing associations in his department.

MiniTheMinx Thu 18-Jul-13 17:40:16

ttosca, thanks for the update, lets hope they make mince meat of him.

Longfigernails, what would you suggest, would you like to see no affordable housing? Do you think the market alone can meet the need for affordable housing and diverse communities? because right now we are not building enough affordable homes and one third of the UK is off bounds for ordinary working families on the average income. Central london is becoming a ghetto of the rich and essential workers are being pushed out.

Solopower1 Sat 20-Jul-13 19:12:23

Thanks, Mini, I've learnt a lot from your posts.

The housing problem could also be helped by adapting existing empty buildings and by stopping private landlords from charging high rents and exploiting the housing shortage and the Housing Benefit system.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now