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?

How would I motivate him? If he has enough of his own money to survive and is happy being poor then fine, but if not, I'd remove all benefits that enabled him. Not sure what the socialists would do- appeal to his better nature?

Probably offer counselling for depression.

Actually, it probably wouldn't be a problem to some... 'Why shouldn't he express himself in his hobbies and resist wage slavery?'.... They would then berate those that question on how all this is funded as ignorant and classist, without ever really answering the question.

Oh FFS I told you I was out all day.

Benefits are not a living wage, nothing like it. They are a subsistence income of that. I'm so sick of you just deciding for me what I think. It's utterly futile even bothering when you are perfectly able to make up things to be outraged about.

I was never out of work before I had DC. I was made redundant on maternity leave. Stop judging people's worth by whether they have a paid job or not.

'Why shouldn't he express himself in his hobbies and resist wage slavery?'.... They would then berate those that question on how all this is funded as ignorant and classist, without ever really answering the question.

It would fund itself. The small amount of money it would take to provide this man with enough for essentials would go back into the economy. When he buys food it would go to butcher, green grocer, supermarket etc. If he needs to buy equipment for his hobbies (lol I know I will probably get flamed) the money would go to whoever supplies such equipment, who would in turn spend it. It wouldn't get sucked into a black hole.

Even if you disagree with his lifestyle, taking away his benefits wouldn't serve any purpose. It wasn't people like him who caused the recession.

If a Universal Citizen's Wage was introduced the main thing it would do would increase everyone's disposable income which would increase spending and promote economic growth.

The government are already trying to increase spending but by different methods. They want people to borrow money to spend so they lowered interest rates. The central bank printed money to buy bonds in financial institutions so they could lend more money. This increases house prices and shares in hedge funds etc but its all unsteady and based on speculation, not "real" money and will lead to another recession.

The Tory politicians know this but they are funded by developers and hedge-fund managers so they don't care. In order to get the votes of ordinary people they need an "other" to ridicule and portray as a blight on society who they will sort out. It has always been a feature of the right. With Hitler it was the Jews, with UKIP it's immigrants, with the Tories it's benefits claimants.

The green party is in favor of a CW. These are reasons listed in their manifesto.
"The advantages are many and we support the principle of a Universal Basic Income because it has the potential to:
Act as a springboard rather than a safety net; people can take jobs without fear of prosecution for working while on benefits;
Prevent people falling into absolute poverty rather than trying to help them when they are already there;
Reward people for all the work that's done outside the formal economy, and most of this work is done by women;
Encourage more of this unpaid activity, much of which - such as food growing, fixing things that have gone wrong, converting older buildings, protecting the natural environment - is a vital part of a transition to a more sustainable economy;
Avoid the poverty trap in which an increase in wages leads to a massive loss of benefits;
Make everyone who earns, however little, a citizen who contributes to society by paying taxes, giving almost everyone a stake - raising the personal allowance takes us in precisely the wrong direction;
Be simple to administer and easy to understand"

I also think it would give SAHP more financial independence and make it easier to leave abusive relationships.

Benefits cuts and right wing policies don't only affect those directly dependent on state support and left wing polices benefit more than the poor. I live in a poor area and the cuts will mean local shops and business will suffer heavy losses.

Say if you take housing for example. If the government invested in social housing for everyone that needed and wanted it, the money would be replayed over and over again through rents. This would mean there would be no need for housing benefit, which is vasts sums of government money going to private landlords mortgages which goes back into the banks and financial institutions, not the real economy. Rents would fall and house prices would fall so people who could afford to buy or rent privately if they wanted could do so without all their disposable income going into banks and financial institutions. This would mean they would spend more in local shops and restaurants, who provide employment to people. People who have money to invest could invest in other areas such as food, clothing and technology, and because people have more disposable income they would be able to buy local rather third-world sweatshop produce.

Free education for all would mean more teacher's and lecturers would be employed. An educated workforce would attract businesses.

Hillingdon, you are talking about well off parents or those who have parents that care about them. That is not typical out of MN world.

I do agree it is

I do agree that some of the well off on here won't do things they don't want to. They also are bought cars, driving lessons and even house deposits Then you have people saying they didn't work whilst at university, whereas even on courses with full time placements most work ime. It just isn't real life for the vast majority.

I always identified as being left wing however the left and right both seem to becoming far more extreme and unrealistic that I now realise that I'm somewhere in the middle. I find both extremeties very patronising.

OP, I largely agree.
I found it very interesting that immediately after the tories won the election that the 'left' decided to go on a protest march through London which culminated in riots and graffiti on war memorials!
Then there were the stories peddled by the left of a load of ballot papers allegedly going missing - I mean, for Christ sake this is 21st century Britain not fucking Zimbabwe. They need to pull themselves together, stop getting all hysterical and sit down for a grown up , debate backed up with facts.

It would fund itself. The small amount of money it would take to provide this man with enough for essentials would go back into the economy. When he buys food it would go to butcher, green grocer, supermarket etc. If he needs to buy equipment for his hobbies (lol I know I will probably get flamed) the money would go to whoever supplies such equipment, who would in turn spend it. It wouldn't get sucked into a black hole.

If you follow this logic, then surely the more the Government gives in citizen's wage/benefits, the more the economy would be boosted! It sounds absolutely amazing! If so, it seems reasonable that any Socialist/Green Government delivering should give us all ?50k per annum (I was tempted to ask for more, but that would just be greedy) to spend on our hobbies and interests... that's a lot of happy people and ?50k more per person into the economy! ?50,000*60,000,000 people = ?300 billion added to the UK GDP at a stroke!!

This seems a little too good to be true though....

"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."

I find this extremely funny actually. I often find people on the right are very focused on a few points and actually refuse to listen to anything that fails to panders to their prejudices.

The constant trotting out of the Labour over spending myth for example, and it is a myth, and I can elaborate on that if you wish. The constant harping on about the need for austerity whilst taxes for the wealthy and corporations are lowered. The failure ever to mention the massive amount of corporate subsidy and aid paid to firms who pay little tax (which accounts for more than the benefits bill paid to anyone other than pensioners).

Constant references to the "politics of envy" and failing to realise the irony when they jump up and down and talk about what people on benefits, public sector pensions have etc.

The failure to recognise the contributions of the society they live in to success, the failure to understand the benefits of privilege and luck in the success of individuals. The mantra of hard work pays off, and then arguing to cuts to inheritance tax which merely entrenches privilege.

I'm prepared to have a reasonable dialogue, I'm not a loony lefty, I understand some things have to change etc. I will not however accept this assertion that those on the left appear to be in their own little world until most of the above are actually acknowledged.

I also find the right to be very, very nasty on occasions, accusatory, judgemental and down right vindictive on occasions.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/13/david-cameron-open-to-workers-saving-up-fund-own-sick-pay

This for example as an idea. Well we already pay into this, its called N.I but lets see, the Tories may roll N.I into general taxation, the have nots will have even less and be told off for their poverty even more.

I wish I was in my own little world with the other people on the left.
Ho hum.

I always identified as being left wing however the left and right both seem to becoming far more extreme and unrealistic that I now realise that I'm somewhere in the middle. I find both extremeties very patronising.

This may be partly directed at me for coming 'from the right' (or it may not have anything to do with me!). If so, I apologise and can see how my opinions may come over a patronising as I have sought to battle the left on here.... The ironic thing is, I'm not actually particularly right wing:

For instance:

I led the introduction of the living wage in my work, benefitting numerous employees;

I feel welfare budget cuts are skewed towards those in work, and that the top rate of tax should have been left at 50%.

I believe strongly in the need for a strong society as opposed to atomised individuals.

That said, I do believe in the general principle that the best way for society to become stronger, fairer, wealthier and happier, is for individuals to take personal responsibility for their actions, and not to expect that 'the state' owes them a living, and that we should work towards a society where people strive to wean themselves off state benefits, as opposed to a society where people are encouraged to embrace and depend upon them. This is pretty centrist, but in comparison to 'the left' on here, which scornfully derides any suggestion that in any way reduces the scope of 'the state' (be that public sector cuts or requiring individuals to take responsibility rather than 'the state'), I feel like a baby-eating monster who takes pleasure in pushing disabled out of their wheelchairs whilst snatching their benefits!

Correction: I feel welfare budget cuts are overly skewed towards those in work

Thing is though, that the "state owes people a living" attitude is much lower than most on the right think as proved by the data given by the Joseph Rowntree foundation.

Weirdly the idea that " we shouldn't have to contribute to the state" seems prevalent amongs many on the right who fail to recognise the states facilitation of their success.

�50,00060,000,000 people = �300 billion added to the UK GDP at a stroke!!*

Perhaps I could sell this idea to the Government, take a 1% cut, and be a billionaire!

the "state owes people a living" attitude is much lower than most on the right think

I agree... It's the view of some vocal individuals on here though!

" we shouldn't have to contribute to the state"

Not sure how prevalent this is, but it's very selfish and smug attitude imo for the reasons you suggest.

I've seen more of the " we shouldn't have to contribute" and the reasons stated than that the state owes someone a living on here. I have however seen people who are poorly paid or in difficult situations discussing the need for some state support.

I've also heard Daily Mail brigade who believe benefits claimaints ALL have sky and flat screen TVs and seem to think that there are millions like this across the country ( along with immigrants who lower house prices, bring diseases, bad weather and killer bees)

Benefits are not a living wage, nothing like it. They are a subsistence income of that.

Are you saying therefore that benefits should not be paid (either directly to you or to a third party such as a landlord) at a level enables people to purchase/enjoy the necessities of life, but only at a level that enables basic survival/subsistence? Surely that's what a living wage is calculated to be equivalent to (at least that agreed by the living wage foundation).

If so, then you're further to the right than me! If not, then I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about (in this instance).

Hah! You should have put "(Jam)" in the title OP, you've attracted all sorts of angry, biting people.....

I do wish you would read about the CW. Benefits have always been paid at a subsistence level and there is a difference between living and subsisting. I think the CW should be paid and it should be paid at subsistence level (like benefits are now) because that actually would enable financial security. It would enable me to take the kind of work that would fit around my degree and my childcare responsibilities to top up my income. It would mean no-one would have to take pay day loans just to eat, people wouldn't have to get into housing arrears just to eat etc. The whole point I have been making is that you have never even understood or considered anything I have spoken about TO disagree with it. You have been running away with your prejudices hysteria about what you decided 'left wing people think' and you haven't bothered to listen to anyone or read anything about what people proposed. Further, whilst doing that you whipped yourself up into such a lather that you reduced yourself to making a nasty and personal attack. Fair enough you realised that part but it would have been far simpler and fairer if you had taken a little time to read and consider what people are actually saying. I've read and considered a lot of tiny wing policies and determined that I don't agree with them and why that is. No-one has been quite so personal as you have on this thread (and it reflects my common experiences - "oh we don't mean you but you know some people have to suffer unfairly" followed by a load of prejudice without bothering to listen and then "you're a leech" comments when I try to explain why I think my way is preferable for everyone). Some people get personal on left and right but generally what left wing people believe is there is a better way to achieve a healthy economy than right wing policy (which led to the recession) and that starving people a. Doesn't achieve what right wing people seem to think it will and b. Is morally repugnant.

If you follow this logic, then surely the more the Government gives in citizen's wage/benefits, the more the economy would be boosted! It sounds absolutely amazing! If so, it seems reasonable that any Socialist/Green Government delivering should give us all ?50k per annum (I was tempted to ask for more, but that would just be greedy) to spend on our hobbies and interests... that's a lot of happy people and ?50k more per person into the economy! ?50,00060,000,000 people = ?300 billion added to the UK GDP at a stroke!!

This seems a little too good to be true though....*

No that's not what I mean. I was just referring to this particular man another poster mentioned who is happy to live on the bare essentials.

The majority of people are not. But they may need to for a short time if they loose their job or are studying or are raising young children. Research shows that most job-seekers find work before they are placed on a work scheme and that sanctions are unnecessary and counterproductive. www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths

The small amount of people who want to be permanently unemployed like the man mentioned are a red-herring because providing them with enough to meet their basic needs doesn't do any harm to the economy as the money is spent locally. They don't have any effect on the current system or if a citizens wage was introduced.

I think the main thing is if you want to have a dialogue with someone who has a different view of things unless you come to that discussion with somewhat of an open mind. If you have an entirely closed mind and your intention is that people should just accept the surperiority of your view when they are told to - that isn't a dialogue in any real sense.