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?

I just don't agree with that at all. If it was true no-one would voluntarily work in the NHS, the voluntary sector wouldn't exist etc.

I actually think one of our needs/drives IS to be valued by and valuable to society. It's normally people who are broken in some way who don't feel this way when it comes down to it IME.

Oh god, it's pointless. I give up, finally. (I'm sure you'll be glad to hear it.)

No one said anything about 'getting all your needs met'. No one said anything about not having to work for 'housing, clothes and food'. And no one said anything about Utopia. For god's sake.

You are so locked into your rhetoric of strivers and skivers that you can't even entertain the tiniest possibility of anything even slightly different, can you?

Yes, I think that is what is being proposed!

The proposal that seems to have been accepted by the 'left' on this thread is that we should have a citizen's wage equating to the living wage... The living wage being enough, by definition, to have all your needs (not wants necessarily) met!

In such a scenario all work would be voluntary... And yes, many, if not out would do it. I would do it... I, and millions of others, wouldn't 'shirk', and those that did would probably be from all sorts of backgrounds..... But, I very probably wouldn't work as hard as I do now, I'd do what I felt I wanted to do or what was needed.... It sounds utopian, but would it work? Would food be in the supermarket on a Monday morning or would people understandably decide they didn't want to drive the trucks overnight that enabled restocking.... i might need to go the local pharmicist for essential medicine but the pharmicist had understandably they wanted a six month sabbatical...all paid for via the citizen's wage.... The pharmicist in the next town decided he wanted to learn a new language at the local uni....free tuition of course whilst she continues to get her citizen's wage..... Nobody being particularly lazy or feckless, just being people. Nobody forced to do anything because unions and worker's cooperatives rule, their managers subservient to them.

All rights, no responsibilities.... This is the madness, utter madness, and the anarchy that would ensue if we actually carried out this bizarre social experiment. Yes, there are citizen wage experiments that may have worked somewhat, but none are as comprehensive as the one I proposed and was accepted.

You are so locked into your rhetoric of strivers and skivers that you can't even entertain the tiniest possibility of anything even slightly different, can you

I am not as you describe.... I'm not even particularly right wing, and have voted for all three main parties in the past few years... I do not agree with all Tory polices and, for instance, I am concerned that there has been an undue emphasis on the removal or working age benefits.

I was just trying to work out what those on here actually want to see in a society, and I tried to take it to its logical conclusion, a citizen's wage at the living wage, and that has been accepted.... This is not a 'slightly' different idea,nits completely and utterly different from what we now have, and in my view it is madness!

No-one suggested a citizen's wage should be equivalent to full time hours of NMW apart from you! What people are suggesting is that support and investment brings a return.

It's vastly more likely people would suggest a citizen's wage of similar amounts to JSA (which is designed to be so low it 'motivates' ppl to work).

And you know I don't see that it's so ludicrous a suggestion. We pay pensioners a basic subsistence pension and they are arguably one of the groups making the biggest social contributions to society and they are much more likely to have physical barriers to contributing that younger people don't.

Apologies for misunderstanding.... However, I'm guessing that no one would just get the CW.... The minimum 'allowance' anyone would get would be at or around the living wage... The CW would be topped up via housing and other benefits, thus leading to the same result...

Or is the view that some people would be expected to subsist at below living wage levels?....

Interesting analogy with pensioners... Helpful and revealing. What you basically appear to be saying is that we should all be entitled to something akin to a pension from 18.... Now that is radical!!!

Or is the view that some people would be expected to subsist at below living wage levels?....

No, that's virtually everyone right now. There's no such thing as a "living wage" given that living costs vary massively. Some people could live on a living wage some people could not.

I don't think it is at all radical to suggest a citizen's wage. Citizen's wage is a term with an actual meaning - it means a payment which is akin to a pension yes. That's what it means.

It doesn't mean a wage equivalent to the national minimum wage and it never has!

Might I remind you that top up benefits for specific costs like housing are not money in a claimants hand - they are money to banks, landlords etc.

JSA for adults is around £3700 per year, I'm not sure whether you have tried paying utilities/food/clothes/travel etc on that but it certainly isn't easy...

Having the CW would be designed to give people a basic level of security.

Yes I have also travelled the world and see the failure of right wing thinking in this country, from giving tax breaks to companies in the hope, fingers crossed, touch wood that wageswill go up and it won't get pocketed by senior executives.

The privatisation obsessions has also failed, how does the utility sector feel to you, majority foreign owned losing us profits overseas and these people talk about Europe being bad.

Offred - thank you for correcting me.... So the idea is that everyone is entitled to a citizen's wage accompanied by the benefits they require to ensure they have all their needs met and do not live in poverty. I'm assuming that benefits would be higher than current levels thus enabling all to live a reasonably comfortable, if not luxurious, life.

Of course, living on JSA is extremely hard, but as I understand it, in your vision of society, no one would need to because benefits would be sufficient to keep them out of poverty.

Maybe we need to think a bit more about food self sufficiency. There is an enormous assumption that everything that is eaten needs to be purchased.

I think I explained just fine already. A home is not a luxury. £3700 a year (or the equivalent per person) is not luxurious. It is basic subsistence. If you insist on making ridiculous and ignorant assumptions it is hard to have a dialogue. Having a basic subsistence level income available to all without moral judgements made on the poor is what the whole citizens wage thing is about and the reasons people support it are because it gives some stability and basic security to all citizens which is an investment in productivity and achievement.

I've never said that anyone is proposing that benefits are paid to fund a luxury lifestyle.... I was attempting to confirm my understanding that in the society you aspire to, whether benefits would be paid to cover all basic material needs, or would it be more than that, to ensure no one is in poverty (where poverty is measured in relative terms against median levels of income)?

What annoys me most is the dialogue of 'personal responsibility' that gets continually bandied about. A modern society realises there are shockwaves that happen to people's lives, and as we have the financial resources to help mitigate them, we morally should.

The US holds on to this fallacy of you just need to work harder, spouting examples of the few successful people even though lots of people have done the same thing, and its only luck, tax evasion, etc that has swung it.

You can't plan for you partner to run away with loads of debt, most people aren't going to assume their children, parents etc will need special care at some point or for their whole life.

Flash, do us all a favour. Actually try reading, both the posts on this thread and the vast amount of information elsewhere on this thing called the Internet.

I'm not asking you to agree. But if you're going to disagree, at least disagree with the actual idea, rather than your random version of it.

A citizens income, would effectively replace the vast majority of the benefits system as it now stands. There would probably have to be some extra payment for disability (ie for those who cannot work) but for everyone else there wouldn't be any benefits on top - seriously, I'm astonished you can't grasp this. Pensioners would get a different level of income, given that they can no longer top up with wages.

But everyone else would absolutely still have to work, just as they do now. A citizens income is not a pathway to worklessness.

You say that humans are naturally inclined to do as little as possible and would therefore do bugger all on a citizens income. I say that humans are naturally inclined to maximise their standard of living wherever possible and that no one would consider, say, £4k per annum sufficient to live on. Therefore work is still an absolutely necessity. Your scenario of there being no food in the shops on a Monday morning because no one can be arsed to come into work is ridiculous, insulting and as a big giveaway as to how low your regard is for the average working person, frankly.

And why on earth shouldn't someone take a sabbatical, if they need it? Maybe on sabbatical that person is going to write a mindblowingly brilliant book, or invent a device the world decides it can't live without. And if they don't, if they spend those six months lying on a beach, so what? Someone else will have their job in the meantime.

Why shouldn't they learn a language? Since when has furthering your education, expanding your horizons, been something to sneer at?

These are good things for society. These are things that help us move forward, make us happier, more productive, not less.

It'll never happen here though.

"...because no one can be arsed to come into work is ridiculous, insulting and as a big giveaway as to how low your regard is for the average working person, frankly."

I really don't think it is... If I had a citizen's wage that meant I had all my needs met, I doubt I would take a job as an overnight delivery driver for the love of it, which is what it would be as I'm presuming that such a role would paid at or very slightly above citizen's wage levels. Would you?

I'm not denigrating the workers, I'm just being realistic... By the way, I'm a worker too... One that wants and likes to work hard too, but out of a sense of responsibility. I enjoy that feeling, and the responsibility of doing my bit, whether that's in the work place or out of it through family or charity work, is one I enjoy sharing with others to build the society in which we live...

Your vision of society sounds great but it's all rights and no responsibility (or at least one with accountability) and idyllic as that sounds, it is I believe unworkable. Human nature is essentially good, but it is not as saintly as it would need to be. Perhaps that is why no society has come close to true socialism. It's a pity perhaps, but that's the reality and we must work with it rather than shake our fists angrily at it wishing it wasn't so.

So, in this Utopia that we're not allowed to call utopia, where people work for the same salary no matter what they do.

I quite fancy being a painter. I'm certainly not going to be a lawyer, far too stressful. But I'll kindly let someone else do it. But hey! At least it'll get rid of time recording, as there will be no way of billing clients any more. I'm rubbish at painting, but that doesn't matter, because I want to express my inner self.

And when will there be any time for mumsnet? Because I can't help noticing that all these left wingers seem rather more fond of bossing people about on the internet than actually working.

Don't be so bloody ignorant and superior. People have explained several times about the citizen's wage and what it is. People have pointed out that if you are still not aware of what it is you can read about it on the Internet.

It just seems as if you refuse to understand what it means so that you can carry on disagreeing with it.

As for left wingers posting on the Internet rather than working - err? What? Was that not a post on the Internet? FYI I'm in a different time zone doing an internship (you know wher you work for free?!) where out of 35 days I will have had 5 days off and some days worked 8-7...

Chandler, you'll probably be strung up for thinking everyone gets the same wage... My understanding is that you can earn more for higher skilled professions... Though the tax you'd be paying to fund the utopia would probably mean you weren't much better off.

Also, if you couldn't find a job as a painter, don't worry, you could take 3 years out to do a degree in art, all paid for, tuition and living costs, by the state... Then you could always take a fully paid for masters if you wanted another year.... That sounds quite tiring so I think you deserve a year-out sabbatical to find yourself... As a citizen, that is your right! Responsibility? Well, that's up to you and your conscience.

As for comments about a citizen's wage... The socialists on here aren't in agreement (one post saying it's at JSA levels topped up with benefits, another than benefits are rolled into a CW with some extras for those have particular needs). That's fine... I'm not berating anyone for that, but it's unfair for people to get narky when I then define the CW (with a caveat saying this is what I believe it is) in a manner differently to themselves.