To think Toby Young deserves scorn for this article?

[BowieFan]

Apologies for linking to the Daily Mail, but I've used a service that denies them advertising revenue: <a class="break-all" href="https://anonym.to/?www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3869182/Why-Lefties-misty-eyed-movie-romanticises-Benefits-Britain-says-TOBY-YOUNG.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">anonym.to/?www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3869182/Why-Lefties-misty-eyed-movie-romanticises-Benefits-Britain-says-TOBY-YOUNG.html

Aside from the basic errors (it's 100minutes long, not nearly 3 hours), it's just an awful article. The fact that Toby Young thinks everyone claiming benefits is a smoking/gambling/drinking loudmouth is just offensive. I'm shocked - not that it was published - but that he thinks his opinion is the opinion of everyone.

I'd love to see him survive on benefits. I wonder if he'd be saying the same things then?

Smallfox - if this theory is right as you say then why do any govts ever pay any debts? Or is it that the long ranging impact of countries simply defaulting is slightly more serious than Bowie is suggesting?

Bowie - I put 'true' rather than true for a reason. Neither piece of work is the truth, both have an agenda and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

bowie - I think it would interesting to see what steps Russia or China took if countries just defaulted? I guess it depends who you are but I have no doubt Putin would happily invade and seize the assets of several nations if they chose to default on a massive scale. Also defaulting on debt is a pretty shitty thing to do in my opinion, how do you think the uk would manage if everyone defaulted on their debts to the UK? Defaulting on debt is not admirable IMO

bowie -

'Yes, but the difference is Benefits Street was created to get Little Englanders who read the Daily Mail wound up.'

Daniel Blake was designed to do exactly the same thing for Corbynistas!

"Inclusive. It’s one of those ghastly, politically correct words that have survived the demise of New Labour. Schools have got to be “inclusive” these days. That means wheelchair ramps, the complete works of Alice Walker in the school library (though no Mark Twain) and a Special Educational Needs Department that can cope with everything from Dyslexia to Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy."

"any exam that isn’t “accessible” to a functionally illiterate troglodyte with a mental age of six will be judged to be “elitist” "

Toby Young's own words - he did later try to back track but you can't polish a turd!

and Toby Young is a giant turd it must be said!

I think bowie was speaking hypothetically, if every country defaults there'll be no lending so yes it would collapse.

In essence though she is right about the no more money theory. Dent to gdp is lOwer than for many years ( and was lower under labour) so the there is no money left rhetoric is incorrect.

I think if people are asked to accept that the Daniel Blake is 'true' then they also need to accept that Benefits St is 'true'. Clearly neither of them are objective factual pieces of work, they are both pushing a certain agenda and use some facts and some hyperbole to make their point.
There are an awful lot of reputable social media platforms and newspapers joining the hyperbole. There is a great deal of evidence supporting those creating said hyperbole. At what point does it stop becoming hyperbole, despite the evidence presented?

smallfox- I didn't read it as hypothetical as she seemed to be saying it as a riposte to some peoples perception of the current situation.

Hypothetically there are all sorts of solutions to problems but unless they are actually applicable to the real world then they are somewhat irrelevant.

No more money is of course not true but people and govts will always have different spending priorities to each other. More can always be spent and less can always be spent but both those choices will have consequences. The idea that more money can be produced/borrowed and spent without any consequences is simply not true.

So in that case how do you explain qe?

It was hypothetical. I said "this will never happen" because it's hypothetical. I was trying to get you out of the mindset that we should be falling to our knees to please bankers, and to smash the myth that we have no money. We have loads of money, it's just that the Tories would rather spend it on their mates who run private companies - they'd rather give them £15bn to create Universal Credit, or £1bn to run their ESA assessments.

smallfox - do you think that QE has no impact on anything is that what you're saying?

bowie - I am not of the mindset that we should be falling to our knees to please bankers! I think you may have me confused with someone else

No just qe has benefitted a certain group of people vastly, and has not had the intended effect. As havested other economic policies.

If we are going to discuss not enough money, we need to.include the fact that 35,000 or so for every man woman and child in the UK has been created to give to the banks and create asset bubbles.

In terms of spending g and effects the money for benefits, the majority of those that are not paid in pensions are paid to those in work, are rather small

I think 'helicopter money' would have been a better version of QE!

Like corbyns people's qe?

No not quite! Like actual money in our pockets! If qe is going to happen I would rather the govt have as little say in where it goes as possible!

That would just cause rampant inflation. Corbyns idea of spending it on infrastructure projects etc works better.

Hard for me to admit but it's true.

Both options risk rampant inflation at least we could enjoy the cash before the inflation takes hold

Creating jobs stimulates the economy now, the infrastructure improves the long term capacity of the economy. It's the better option.

Ken loach on question time now

Esa haven't bothered to pay me this week, apparently the certificate that was sent (two weeks ago) goes to an office in Wolverhampton and then gets sent elsewhere. This can take up to a week. They've told me it'll go in by close of business today. Don't believe a word of it.
This is the reality of a life in the welfare system.

I hope you do get it today Dawn. It must be stressful

It's a difficult issue as to whether higher inflation is good or not. We have just had the biggest pay rise in 20 years for the lowest paid (and under the Tories - as I say the party who cares most for the less well off) due to the minimum wage rise. So those people have more money (subejct to effects on any benefits they may also get of course but even that is to the good -why should the state subsidise employers paying low wages?).
On the other hand some countries in Europe are coping with virtual deflation and Swiss banks charge to hold your money (as Natwest UK business accounts I think are starting to do so will be cheaper to hold your mnoey in the safe ifyou are lucky enough to have any).

Inflation used to help those rich enough to buy a house in the 70s and 80s to wipe out the real cost of their mortgage debt whilst wages also rose so is not always a bad thing for most people but it breed uncertainty. The old tend to like it if they have any savings as it can mean their interest rates on those go up.

We are currently about in the middle of EU states with 1% inflation still very low from the 20% per year I just about remember from the 1970s which was terrible for all sorts of reasons.

I am not a QE fan. I would have let the banks fail too but which ever political party is middle ground in the UK - currently Tories - tends to win elections and most politicians do what wins them elections.

Me, you're still ignoring my questions as to how the Tory party are the party that cares for most for the less well off?

Dawn hope they do get it sorted today.