The Conservatives

[MammaBrussels]

I cannot believe someone, even someone in the Conservative Party, would say this.

How can anyone support them?

I'm up to my eye balls in exam papers - any thread I start would be phrased like an A level essay question.

Surprising that considering how much time you spend on mumsnet mammabrussels :)

Thanks for pointing me to Mamma's link Mini, that is a really interesting and informative report. Showing that growth in consumption mainly occured amongst the lowest paid due to ease of access to finance was something I hadn't really considered a contributing factor. But it does make sense, especially considering Osborne wants us, the consumer, to spend our way out of recession, despite the fall in income.

I wonder when Gideon is going to realise that we can't have proper growth without a much stronger manufacturing sector.

I know Novack, its almost like I'm trying to avoid it!

I still haven't read it all, half way through, back in college today, how's the marking going mamma?

Although the authors are not saying "its a fact" the argument that growth was illusory I think is correct. Anyone here heard of prof Richard D wolfe? He's an American economist and he has been saying the same thing.

rdwolff.com/

He does monthly lectures online which you can follow and if you google "capitalism hits the fan" you'll find a really interested lecture by him where he explains who is the winners/losers and who has paid for this illusory growth.

I'd not heard of Wolfe. Marxian economists are generally ignored in economic circles. I'll have a look at the video when the marking's done (or whenever I'm looking for a distraction). Thanks for the link Minnie.

Marking is so bloody boring but thanks for asking.

Marxian economists are generally ignored, are they? Hmm... because all those economists who do the ignoring have covered themselves in such glory over the past four years, not even noticing the entire world economy was going belly-up. Not!

Worse than that, actually making it happen. Maybe if they'd listened to critics and dissenting voices occasionally instead of pretending they could design out risk (doh!) or that models that assume that buyers have perfect knowledge (doh!) or that 'everything else is equal' (doh!) or that buyers and sellers have equal power (doh!) or that buyers and sellers act entirely rationally taking into account only those factors that economists say matter (doh!) or buyers and sellers are always human (doh!) etc. etc. etc. would actually work in the real world, things might have been tad different...

And yet the figures today prove that there are less poor today than four years ago, which goes to show how silly your 60% of median income is as a measure of poverty. Fact is poverty in UK is not really existant especially if you look at the whole situation in europe.

The whole "child poverty" thing seems unfair on childless couples and single people anyway. It basically encourages people to breed fecklessly as then the government is worried about them being poor.

Even George Soros debunks the standard economic theory of equilibrium and claims to have come up with the concept of reflexivity. Soros claims his idea is his own idea but it is just a rip off of Marx's theory dialectical materialism.

The markets are not perfect, there is no equilibrium, they are reflexive, the participants behave in certain ways according to what their expectations are and the outcome is seldom what is expected.

It has always been the social responsibility JosephineCD of the working classes to engage in reproductive labour of the next generation of workers, that is why we are afforded a small percentage of the profits we create for those who employ us.

George Soros is famous for one reason which was causing a run on the pound because he realised the ERM was flawed like many people did but he was rich enough to take advantage of the ripple that multiplied.

edam I know, I know!
Novack the figures today prove that there are fewer people living in relative poverty (poor and poverty being different things). Poverty does exist in the UK, among working and workless hosueholds.

Josephine there are measures of poverty for single and/ or childless households. Child poverty is reported because of the Child Poverty Act. I don't understand how that encourages people to 'breed fecklessly', or indeed, what breeding fecklessly is.

More children are out of poverty apparently because the midde classes are now poorer therefore in relative terms poor childre are not poor any more! Not surprising the wise Iain Duncan Smith wants to do something about that. If it's simply relative and everyone gets poorer then in a recession you can say - hey presto all these children are now out of poverty as they are as poor as the squeezed middle. That is why I think absolute poverty is a much better measure (although IDS is not going for that, just wanting to factor in some other factors too).

If everyone has bread can there be a "bread line" was one issue raised in the press yesterday when talking about what is poverty.

I agree that,"what is poverty" can be subjective in some countires.
But we should always remember that virtually all children,and a sizeable number of adults in every country are there through absolutely no fault of their own.

Xenia - sadly even in the UK there are people who cannot afford enough food to eat. We have people relying on food banks. And the Marmot review found that the state pension was not enough for people to have a healthy lifestyle, with enough food to stay well and social interaction (important to have the money for bus fares so you can get out about - genuinely vital for mental and physical health).

I don't get about and out much,. I think I could be happy with books or just walking in the local area.

It depends on the person what they get from the state but we all know the rates. let us take someone the age of my daughter single without children, 25. They get a right to a room in a shared house and then they get £71 a week and that is after all their rent is paid. They don't then pay council tax. So they need to find their share of the shared house utility bills and their food out of that. I am not saying it's a huge amount but it's enough to eat for most people.

So which people are you saying cannot affodr to eat? Give me an example of their circumstances - eg single mother with 2 children and no job and we can look at what they get and how they spend it.

Article about rise in food banks

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2131010/Staggering-rise-British-food-bank-One-opens-week-families-pay-packet-away-having-money.html

Also, people are dying because they can't afford these spiralling fuel bills

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050961/Thousands-dying-afford-heating-bills.html

I don't doubt that some people are bad at managing their money. It was so in Dicken's time too and who was that artist painting drunkson the street in the 1700s - Hogarth? It was ever thus. There iwll always be the feckless hapl,ess poor. It is just that I think if you do budget properly, don't buy unnecessary goods, only drink tap water (the only thing I drink) etc you could as a 25 year old live on your £71 a week and ditto a single mother with 2 children on whatever she gets.

How many areas in Britain don't have free buses for pensioners?

I know too many people who claim to be "poor" but who I then see wasting their money on fags/booze/scratchcards/Dominos pizzas. People that are poor in this country are poor because of bad life choices.

It's fine til the washing machine/oven breaks down or you get a parking ticket.

Can the real poor afford cars? Are we really saying UK state benefits are high enough to run a car on? You can only get a praking ticket if you have a car. Secondly I genuine do not get parking tickets because I make sure I never park illegally, ever as I don't want to have to pay that sum.

I agree that if things break down it can be difficult (even I have found that). I have found useful stuff on the internet (and most libraries have free internet access) on how to fix washers and we have certainly had a go ourselves at times to save the cost.

I would like to see a simpler system where people could go in and out of work, do a few hours one week and none the next without having to sign on and off benefits. I doubt the universal benefit will achieve that sadly.

Josephine, who the hell do you mix with? I don't see these things. What I do see here though, is one person making sweeping generalisations based on anecdotal evidence and another who makes sweeping statements from an ivory tower. Tap water?????? are you suggesting the poor should live on bread and water?

Hogarth painted two series of moralistic paintings, The Harlot's and Rake's Progresses in the 18th century. He had a great deal of empathy with the poor which is why he painted the Harlot's story. He didn't make a moral judgement, he used the paintings to challenge the view held about the poor not to reflect the common view of the middle classes.

I agree regards the universal benefit, I doubt it will allow or encourage seasonal work, agency work and temporary employment. Employers want/need to employ with some flexibility and if those who are unemployed/underemployed need work they need to be encouraged rather than punitively treated.

Xenia, cars are essential if you live in an area with shit public transport. You can life perfectly well without a car in London, or in a city centre. Not so well anywhere else - and it certainly limits your chances of finding employment if you can't actually reach an employer.

or live, even - I'm flipping tired and off for a nap!