Left wing dialogue

[TrueBlueYorkshire]

As someone who has worked all over the world and is interested in politics I just wanted to see if I am only one who finds the language of the left tiring.

To give you an allusion of the type of language i mean below are two prime examples:

1. Taking the most extreme view and expressing it as if it is common.
2. Denying that people should show personal responsibility (this quite often goes hand in hand with point number 1).

I just find the language instantly de-rails any sort of constructive conversation regarding policy into a haves vs have-nots type argument which puts most people on the defensive. While people on the right are having sensible arguments with each other regarding society; in general people I talk to on the left seem to be in their own little world.

AIBU to think this sort of language is all to common from the left and it is what is isolating them?

If you don't know your worth you can't prove it. I also rather suspect that actually if they were to have rules like that (and people did fight to be valued) they wouldn't have cut the benefits bill by very much at all either.

I have only ever met one person who purports to be a happy leech on the state and he, in actual fact, has a severe mental health problem which limits his ability to work and which he refuses to seek help for because he would rather be seen as a leech than as ill.

And if this philosophy is so desirable surely wealthy parents should be expected to keep their children in poverty in order to breed aspiration and no-one who had benefitted from wealth as a child would be successful.

Offred - I may be wrong on this, but I thought the budget only affected benefits for 3 or more children for those born from 2017?

Not many poor people are willing or able to advocate for their worth as well as I am in the face of society's judgement (as I know from CAB etc). You just can't make moral judgement based on wealth. I just think it's unacceptable to do this.

Yes, it does. The maximum benefits rule means I will lose £152 per month in housing benefits meaning the government expect me to house five people on £453 per month. If the limit applied to me I would lose more like £100 per week.

The bedroom in an HMO costs £380 per month where I live btw and there really aren't many places that are cheaper to live in than the NW in terms of housing (and LHA rates do not give you much leeway anyway).

Ok... Firstly, i'll have a closer look at the scandanavian model - I'm not closed minded on this kind. Secondly, lemonade/Offred etc, we know you're strongly supportive of a generous welfare system, but I'd be interested to know where you draw the line.....

For instance, should everyone, irrespective of whether or not they have dependents, have income set at a living wage, irrespective of whether they work or not (i.e. Set dole at £10 per hour) and if so, under what circumstances would an unemployed person's benefits be withdrawn? (E.g. Hadn't looked for work for month?)

In my current house I already have 3 DC sharing a room as the box room is too small for 2 btw. I do not live ostentatiously and had to give extra deposit because of the kids and have a guarantor because of HB - without my parents even this house would not have been possible.

I support a citizen's wage yes and I would not remove benefits because someone was unemployed for any reason. This is a false economy as the people exist and therefore still have to be fed and housed whether you give them money or not.

I'm aware the Scandinavian model is not perfect btw. But more generous benefits did not lead to lower aspiration there.

Plus there is evidence that universal benefits/provision of services actually better targets the poor than targeted benefits/services and is more cost effective.

(Like the NHS)

A lot of money is spent on administration and dispute resolution with targeted services/benefits.

I support a citizen's wage yes and I would not remove benefits because someone was unemployed for any reason

What you have suggested is the logical conclusion of those who decry all benefits cuts, and for that's I admire your consistency, but this is a shirker's charter surely! For people from all backgrounds! I can't see how this could work... It would be great if it could, but human nature being what it is...

I think it is workable and would have many benefits for the economy. It's not all that different to the capitalist idea of investing (money and resources) to see a return in business. Yes the economy doesn't behave like a business but from what I have read and experienced I believe in it.

OP came back then?

I'd rather the TINY percentage of people who 'shirk' and more importantly, their children, where NOT penalised to prove a point :)

There has historically been support for a citizen's income from both left and right; for different reasons it is something that appeals to aspects of both.

The evidence, from the (admittedly, necessarily, small) experiments that have been done so far, is that it is the exact opposite of a 'shirkers' charter'. In fact, partly because it removes the uncertainty and insecurity of a means tested, work dependent benefits system, it actually increases motivation and people tend to work at least the same as they did before, and many work more.

It also removes the incredible administrative cost of a means tested, application based system. Payments cannot be late, or stopped, or adjusted. They just happen, regardless of your work status. Moving into work from benefits, or Switching between jobs, or changing hours, will not leave you destitute for a few weeks or months while the system catches up, as it does currently.

All the levels of payment that have previously been trialled are not enough to promote worklessness, but they do promote security, which in turn encourages people to take opportunities arising.

Utrecht is just about to start a basic income experiment. It's also been done in Alaska, Namibia and Canada - all found that it encouraged economic activity and did not increase worklessness.

So everyone gets a citizen's wage, equating to the living wage... I could laze around all day, and get enough money to have all my housing, clothing and food needs met... I'd get bored doing that, so I might get myself a part-time job that I could presumably do as little or as incompetently as i liked because the union would make sure the 'bosses' could never sack me - I'd just say I needed some more training - or ever make me redundant! Sounds great!.... Maybe not.

If the country were ever run this way, productivity would plummet and we'd have a depression that would make Greece look like Qatar!

I'll have a look for those studies....

You can only speak to what you believe your own sense of social responsibility to be I guess. I don't think many people are actually just purely on the take as you describe. Most people want to feel valued and be valuable.

And actually wealth levels do not have anything to do with someone's sense of personal responsibility. Loads of wealthy people just out for what they can get or take.

Nope, not equivalent to the living wage. Enough to provide a measure of security, not enough to live on indefinitely. Enough to remove the 'trap' aspect of means -tested, work-related benefits, not enough to sit around on your arse forever.

Work would always pay. But there would be no need to live in fear of work suddenly not being available, or of circumstances changing hugely for some other reason.

Look, this idea has been around for centuries, supported by economists on the left and on the right. Not a perfect system by any means - and almost certainly never going to be adopted in the UK, for bleeding obvious reasons, so don't worry - but try and have a bit of an open mind before deciding you absolutely know better, maybe?

Maybe some of the right wingers should come visit the tenderloin and have a look under the freeway/all around the streets in San Francisco to see what happens without welfare/healthcare. So many homeless people the other residents now see them as Londoners see pigeons.

I don't think they are all on the take either, but we are all human... If we can get all our needs met without doing any work, we will do just enough - we wouldn't work as hard as we would if we knew we were responsible for our own well being rather than the state.

It seems the utopia that is being y presented is one where citizens has very many rights, and very few (enforced at least) responsibilities. I don't know any society that has successfully operated on that model.... I'd be happy to hear of any cases.