'Doing the right thing'

[Minimammoth]

If anyone else uses this catch phrase for this government, I am going to scream very loudly. I would like to know by whose measure is it the right thing? Eh eh.
Am off for a lie down in a dark room now.

flatpack-

This was positively encouraged, as it was a way for Capitalists to temporarily have their cake and eat it too: they could extract record profits from their workers by suppressing wages, while still keeping up demand for goods and services whilst workers took on personal debt.

It's quite a common fallacy for people to spot 'patterns' and assume that they are deliberate. These people are usually called conspiracy theorists.

That's nice, but no conspiracy is being posited here, as no conspiracy is necessary.

The Capitalist class have common interests, such as suppressing wages and workers rights, in the same way the the people who have to earn a wage for a living all have a common interest in protecting the right to strike, paid holidays, sick leave, anti-discrimination laws, etc.

The fact that wages have stagnated in real terms and wage share as a percentage of the economy have declined is neither a conspiracy nor particularly controversial:

Search for the graph with the following text:

In short ... while CEOs and shareholders have been cashing in, wages as a percent of the economy have dropped to an all-time low.

www.businessinsider.com/dear-america-you-should-be-mad-as-hell-about-this-charts-2012-6?op=1

And while you're at it, have a look at some of the other charts. Yes, they're based on the UK economy, but the situation in the UK is not so different. Some of the charts even have a breakdown by country.

flatpack-

Nonsense. GDP has shrunk by about 2.5% since 2007. It will shrink a bit more, but that's only because excessive government expenditure has inflated the appearance of GDP. Plenty of shops are still posting profits, plenty of people are still shopping.

You do know what a recession is, right? The fact that some corporations are raking in record profits, doesn't mean that consumers have spending power. Some companies are on the govt. largess. Others are using slave labour in the form of 'Workfare', where benefit claimants are forced to work for free, thereby reducing the number of jobs in the economy and further suppressing wages.

US consumer confidence falls to eight-month low

US consumer confidence has fallen to an eight-month low in May as fears about the global economy and a falling domestic stock market hit sentiment.

The Consumer Confidence Index, published by the Conference Board, fell to 64.9, down from 68.7 in April.

That was the index's biggest fall since October 2011, but above the all-time low of 25.3 reached in February 2009.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18255363

--

Queen's Jubilee fails to lift UK consumer mood: GFK

GfK NOP's headline consumer confidence index held steady at -29 in June, in line with forecasts in a Reuters economist poll.

"Any suggestions that consumer confidence would receive a 'Royal bounce' from the Jubilee, as it did from William and Kate's wedding last year, have been proven wrong," said Nick Moon, managing director of GfK NOP Social Research.

"The stagnant level of consumer confidence suggests that the public is stuck in a period of constant depression," he said.

Moon added that the index has not been above the -29 mark since June last year, the worst run in the survey's 40-year history.

The GfK survey lends further support to Bank of England governor Mervyn King's dire warning that Britain faced the danger of a downward spiral as companies and consumers held back spending because of fear over the economic outlook.

While the GfK survey showed that consumers were less reluctant to buy bigger items such as furniture or electrical goods, their assessment of the economic outlook worsened.

Britons have been cutting back consumer spending in the wake of the 2008/2009 slump because unemployment rose and high inflation ate away meagre wage increases.

uk.reuters.com/article/2012/06/28/uk-britain-consumer-gfk-idUKBRE85R1SC20120628

---

There are two ways of fixing the demand problem:

a) Pay people decent wages - this isn't going to happen without a fight.

b) Offer free and easy credit again and create another credit bubble, precipitation another crisis down the line - this is probably what's going to happen.

ttosca

Oh look! That's less than the previous Tory government.

Unless you can learn to format all of your comments in to one post I'm not going to reply to them.

I will reply to this one, though.

Government spending doubled under labour. The "as a % of GDP%" figure is the one wheeled out by leftists who want to pretend that the biggest waste of taxpayers' money since the 1945 Labour government didn't really happen. It did. And what's worse, 12% of spending was off the balance sheet in the form of PFI.

Your figures don't take that in to account, naturally.

"The vast, overwhelming majority of people who claim JSA or benefit are not committing fraud, and are not taking the piss"

ttossa... at what point have I mentioned JSA, 'taking the piss' or fraud? Hurl your shit by all means, but read what I write rather than just doing your usual lazy copy/paste job and then going off at a tangent

I mention tax credits because, despite being designed to alleviate poverty (the discussion is about politicians that claim to 'do the right thing'), they were allocated (legitimately) to households with incomes as high as £55,000. A household with that kind of income can have a good standard of living without borrowing excessively and the state-funded top-ups came to be relied upon and were problematic when they were withdrawn

flatpack-

The formatting of all my comments is absolutely fine. The only one which is screwed up is the one which contains the figures for spending as percentage of GDP. You are cowardly if you're trying to hide behind poor formatting.

Government spending doubled under labour. The "as a % of GDP%" figure is the one wheeled out by leftists who want to pretend that the biggest waste of taxpayers' money since the 1945 Labour government didn't really happen. It did. And what's worse, 12% of spending was off the balance sheet in the form of PFI.

The % of GDP figure is wheeled out by leftists because it is the figure which is relevant. If you don't use that figure and used absolute spending, then you're not comparing like with like. You might as well compare spending of the UK govt. in the 1920s with now, or between the UK govt. and the govt. of Angola.

Secondly, you didn't provide any figures or evidence to back up that govt. spending doubled - in absolute terms - under Labour. Please do so.

Thirdly, I will not apologise for public spending. Unlike you, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. Public spending is only bad when it's unaffordable. Before the financial crisis, New Labour did indeed overspend, but the amount was not unprecedented or historically anomalous. The deficit was at 3% before the crisis.

biggest waste of taxpayers' money since the 1945 Labour government didn't really happen

Haha! Wait - you mean the Atlee govt. and the creation of the welfare state? The creation of the NHS? These things are a waste of tax payers money?

Well, sorry if I don't take you very seriously here on in.

ttossa... at what point have I mentioned JSA, 'taking the piss' or fraud? Hurl your shit by all means, but read what I write rather than just doing your usual lazy copy/paste job and then going off at a tangent

Oh, I'm sorry. Aren't you one of the people constantly complaining about 'welfare dependency' and a 'culture of entitlement'? JSA is also relevant in that context.

I mention tax credits because, despite being designed to alleviate poverty (the discussion is about politicians that claim to 'do the right thing'), they were allocated (legitimately) to households with incomes as high as £55,000. A household with that kind of income can have a good standard of living without borrowing excessively and the state-funded top-ups came to be relied upon and were problematic when they were withdrawn

Tax credits were offered because work often doesn't pay. The fact is that employers don't pay their workers enough at the lower end of the pay scale, and people can't afford to live and bring up a family even when working full time. In effect, the state (i.e. the public) is subsidising corporate wages so people can survive on full time employment.

If you think this shouldn't happen or shouldn't be necessary, then I agree. Why don't you fight for a living wage, then?

Secondly, how about providing some figures for the number and percentage of people who claim tax credits who earn above the median income?

I agree that those who can afford to live without tax credits should do so. So how big is this problem? And what shall we do with the money saved if we were to stop tax credits to middle-class families? Raise the income tax threshold perhaps?

"Aren't you one of the people constantly complaining about 'welfare dependency' and a 'culture of entitlement'? "

I may have mentioned welfare dependency buecause I think nothing is more soul-destroying. I don't think the words 'culture of entitlement' have ever left my keyboard.

How about providing some figures?.... Being the copy/paste King/Queen I'm sure you can find them. :) But considering that the median household income is about £25k, tax credits were available up to £55k and only 10% of households have incomes above that level, I think it's safe to say that quite a lot of families fell into that bracket.

Cogito-

I may have mentioned welfare dependency buecause I think nothing is more soul-destroying.

Really? Nothing is more soul-destroying for whom, them or you?

I think attacking welfare and putting people's lives and safety at risk under the guise of eliminating an alleged 'culture of dependency' when clearly only a minority of welfare recipients abuse the system, is far worse.

How would you prefer your soul to be destroyed?

Furthermore, most likely the people on middle-incomes who are receiving top-ups are not likely to be 'dependent' on them in the same way that someone who works for the minimum wage (or less).

There is an argument to be made that people on middle incomes should receive state benefits, but then I don't hear you arguing that the money saved should go towards helping the poorest, either.

Perhaps you 'compassion' for the soul-destroying nature of welfare dependency is really just a facade that masks your contempt for the poor. If you your concern were really born out of compassion, you would not defend a solution to an alleged problem which is worse than the problem itself.

Here is a website called 'Calums List':

calumslist.org/

The principle object of this site is to provide as definitive a list as possible to evidence the appalling carnage that the past, and current fatally flawed welfare reform is causing for real families and the friends of the bereaved.

There is an argument to be made that people on middle incomes should receive state benefits

Sorry, that should be "Shouldn't receive state benefits"...

the WelfareState is much more than a safety net for the desperate, it's a vital part of social cohesion and solidarity. The NHS is used by everyone, not just the poor. Not all of us believe the State to be an agency of restriction of personal freedom. Actually, if you're poor, disabled, etc State intervention gives you the only freedom you'll ever have.

The concept of what is 'right', 'fair' and 'affordable' are all relative.

It all depends on your personal beliefs. It's entirely possible the government do honestly believe they are doing the right thing. It doesn't necessarily follow that everyone needs to agree.

My five year old things it is not right or fair that he is not allowed another breakfast this morning. I think it is fair because he's not finished the massive bowl of cereal he wanted. He's utterly convinced i'm horrible and uncaring. I'm sure his friends would both understand and agree. Whilst I would probably find many parents side with me.

C'est la vie.

"most likely the people on middle-incomes who are receiving top-ups are not likely to be 'dependent' on them in the same way that someone who works for the minimum wage (or less). "

Judging by the level of complaint when tax credits (and CB in future) were withdrawn from middle-income earners that it would seriously affect their lifestyles I don't think that's true. I've certainly seen '£50,000 doesn't go very far' or similar statement once on these boards on many occasions. Expenditure has expanded to fit the money available.

' I've certainly seen '£50,000 doesn't go very far' or similar statement once on these boards on many occasions.'

There are also bankers on Mumsnet.

I don't know about bankers, but that comment usually comes from someone aggreived that their family has what is, on the face of it, a very good income but that it's all spoken for and they don't have a lavish lifestyle. Losing £50/month in tax credits or £80/month in CB, they claim, is a disaster. The numbers may be bigger but they have become as dependent on their top-ups as someone on minimum wage. The irony of 'doing the right thing'

'nice'guy-

Oh yes, and Tony Blair, no doubt, told himself that he was 'doing the right thing' when he launched his illegal and immoral war against Iraq, resulting in the deaths of up to 100,000 men, women, and children.

Likewise, Tories and their apologists might make all sorts of excuses for their attack on their poor, but the reality is these policies are killing people and destroying lives.

Hi there,

We welcome debate and discussion, but could we ask you to do it in a courteous and respectful way?

Please check out our guidelines

Thanks.

Thank you Sandy

... and the award for the most amount of wandering off topic goes to...

This one!

This thread has wondered so far away from my original topic that I am leaving you all too it.

Is the phrase Toryscum allowed ot stand, Sandy?

Who cares?

Toryscum.

People like you make me even prouder to be a Tory, ttosca. And even more delighted that people who can call others scum because of how they vote are going to have just that little bit less tax off me!

I don't call other people scum because of how they vote. I call them scum when they're part of a political party or support a political party who are comprised of a bunch of privileged sociopaths with anachronistic ideas about their right to rule.