😆

The modern welfare state was founded in nothing more that a subsistence (ie v low) level of support which is/was below the levels that we talk about today in terms of living wage etc.

Have you ever tried to claim benefits?

It’s still intended to be that. It’s pretty brutal, generally. The only thing is that the system has some flaws that allow some people to claim a lot of money. It’s not *intended* to be that.

Yes lifer – as i said you just have to use your eyes and ears (google helps too). But too early to laud or condemn as still at v early discussion stage, hence my use of the term “fear”. To move to a full UBI would be a radical step for any party let alone a Socialist one.

It may be mol, but that is a different point. The original welfare system (that seems to be universally praised) was set at a very low level – well below the idea of a living wage. It was barely a subsistence amount. Welfare has morphed a great deal since its foundation without solving the root causes – odd that..

Indeed Molls. Benefits is another one of those areas where the difference between the reality, and Daily Mail fantasy-la-la-land is absolutely immense.

Anyone who’s managed to play the system and claim a shitload of money is front page news, the millions living in abject poverty, and reliant on food banks, rarely warrant a mention

The original welfare system (that seems to be universally praised) was set at a very low level – well below the idea of a living wage. It was barely a subsistence amount.

Thats where we’re at now Hurty, and have been for some time. No matter what the Tory press would have you believe

The original welfare system (that seems to be universally praised) was set at a very low leve

As I said – it still is.

That’s right, they won’t. Meaning an end to wage stagnation, that shit job will have to offer attractive remuneration, less profit for the shareholders, granted, but more in the pocket of those with the highest propensity to consume.

But the opposite of wage stagnation is the resultant wage inflation, which would, by necessity, lead to price inflation. These not only cancel out any benefit of UBI/NIT but history tells us that these price increases disproportionately effect the poorest in society,

I would also suggest that it’s utopian, in the fact that while the theory may be that giving everyone a tranche of money will alleviate poverty, in reality we would still witness kids going hungry and vulnerable members of society destitute after spending/losing/gambling/wasting/drinking/smoking/injecting all their money and thereby still requiring intervention from the state or charity to clean up the mess and support them.

0.7% of fraudulent benefit claims, Molegrips, hardly an earth shattering problem?

But the opposite of wage stagnation is the resultant wage inflation, which would, by necessity, lead to price inflation. These not only cancel out any benefit of UBI/NIT but history tells us that these price increases disproportionately effect the poorest in society,

As we have been saying – it’s not an easy challenge, but worth working on imo.

I would also suggest that it’s utopian

Since when is utopia a bad thing btw?

in reality we would still witness kids going hungry and vulnerable

No-one’s suggesting a magic bullet to fix everything. It’s a principle, the basis of a system that would improve society overall. What you’re doing is equivalent to claiming your new bike is crap because the trail was muddy and you had a shit ride.

0.7%, but Dirty(Richard) Desmond goes all out to parade the worst excesses of that 0.7% on TV

Benefit may be more important than fox hunting but eyes and ears tell us that its not the key issue when it comes to government spending. Put it in the immigration drawer.

Molegrips, hardly an earth shattering problem?

What do you mean? I’m not saying benefit fraud is a big problem – just that the system isn’t generous in principle, just that there are some loopholes. But my point was not complaining about the loopholes, I was responding to THM who said that the benefit system was generous and allowed a comfortable life. It’s not.

THM who said that the benefit system was generous and allowed a comfortable life. It’s not.

Did I? Wow, i missed that.

I’m not complaining either, 0.7% gaming the system is a worthwhile consequence for the protection of the other 99 odd per cent of genuine claims. Richard Desmond only finds the worst of those fraudsters to propagandise all over Ch 5, but if you look at the reality it’s not a big problem

Your style is a joy to watch what do you
When you said this then- FWIW i agree with you that you never said generous but i have no idea what you actually mean as for some reason, and its SO unlike you , you were vague to the point of obfuscation

The original welfare system (that seems to be universally praised) was set at a very low level – well below the idea of a living wage. It was barely a subsistence amount. Welfare has morphed a great deal since its foundation without solving the root causes –

by any standards you are saying it has morphed into something other than offering a subsistence so what are you saying it has morphed into then if not a more generous system?

As for not solving the problem it was never designed to remove the inequities inherent in a capitalist system so its not surprising they still exist.

Blimey the still cant sort this anti-semitism bit out can they.

So Walker (finally) gets (re)suspended for what the BBC describe/report as controversial comments at a training event. And the comments….?

But a leaked video emerged on Wednesday of her saying at an anti-Semitism training event: “I came here… with an open mind and I was seeking information and I still haven’t heard a definition of anti-Semitism that I can work with”.

Reality check or controversial comments?

Odd that they suspend Walker and Ken over non-comments and ignore the more blatant versions. Of course, it could be good old smoke and fire……

Some American woman on QT yesterday, not sure who she was, going on about how socialism was a bad idea because it failed in the 70s.

Really annoys me when people say stuff like that. It’s ludicrous.

I’d you kill enough people socialism can work. Stalin or Mao should give you a rough estimate. 🙂

That’s communism. Not the same thing.

0.7%, but Dirty(Richard) Desmond goes all out to parade the worst excesses of that 0.7% on TV

Which would be correct if Richard Desmond actually owned Channel5. It’s actually owned by Viacom and has been since early 2014 – the current CEO is American and a lawyer by background – it’s unlikely this represents any improvement on toady Richard Desmond though.

Which is why UBI would have to be implemented in tandem with a raft of other legislation and policies like rent controls to prevent profiteering.

Daz this is most significant issue with the whole of the Old Labour (which btw is a slogan on a pro Corbyn T-shirt for sale at Conference). To try and make Markist / Socialist policies work you have to have a raft of other state controls and new laws. Rent, food, imports, etc all need controls and this means less freedom and more bureaucracy (probably seen as good as that’s more state jobs). In today’s world the Marxist model just can’t work (even if it ever did) as business will just relocate and then export into the UK. So then they have to try and “fix that” etc in the face of falling national and personal wealth and tax revenues

If it really is the case that continued automation etc reduces employment then perhaps the very harsh reality is that the population needs to shrink back down again ? 1900 40m, 1950 55m, 1960 60m, today 65m

molgrips – Member

Some American woman on QT yesterday, not sure who she was, going on about how socialism was a bad idea because it failed in the 70s.

Capitalism failed in the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s and the 10s soooooo

To try and make Markist / Socialist policies work you have to have a raft of other state controls and new laws. Rent, food, imports, etc all need controls and this means less freedom

It does, yes. And yes, less freedom – but better outcomes for more people. Freedom to let people **** each other over does not make for a happy country.

The real solution is not true socialism or true capitalism of course, it’s a halfway house – which is what we have now.

I’d rather have a society with *more* socialism in it and less capitalism. But still some.

In today’s world the Marxist model just can’t work

I agree. When he was writing society and the economy was completely different.

Capitalism failed in the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s and the 10s soooooo

Well, that’s arguable if it was a failure, because living standards etc improved. If you really want to see how capitalism failed, look at the 19th century. Much of the UK living in horrendous poverty when rich people lived in opulence off the backs of the poor they exploited. It only started to get better when, guess what, more social policies were introduced. More laws, less freedom.

Capitalism failed in the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s and the 10s soooooo

Wot no smiley?

Much of the UK living in horrendous poverty when rich people lived in opulence off the backs of the poor they exploited. It only started to get better when, guess what, more social policies were introduced.

Actually that is not true at all – its very easy to correlate social policies and standards of living and it does not support this, although the causation may take some work. Arguably the most “equitable” period of the past 150 years co-incided with very limited social policies. The subsequent increase in “social policies” did not sustain this. Inequality worsened back to levels of the last century. So the notion is easy to falsify.

I thought you were you just telling us all off for playing the man a minute ago

Are you able to articulate your point without doing that passive dismissive thing you do which is the epitome of respect?

That’s communism. Not the same thing.

Not if you read your Lenin, Marx and Engels is isn’t (Socialism is simply the transitory first phase of Communism)

teamhurtmore – Member

Wot no smiley?

There’s nothing very funny about it tbh. Hang on, I’ll give it a go.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/financial-crisis-caused-500000-extra-cancer-death-according-to-l/

Smiley face!

In which case, we need to understand the causes of the financial crisis properly…

No smiley needed

[but you have a good macro prof among your staff who would be able to help. I can personally recommend him)

Just5minutes
I was under the impression, maybe mistakenly, that during the poverty porn era programming at Ch5 that it was still under Desmond’s stewardship

In my defence, i haven’t watched TV at home for about 7 years, i wasnt aware Ch5 was finally sold even though i heard it had been floated on the market

Reality check or controversial comments?

It doesn’t matter any more, does it? Now in post-truth land the facts are irrelevant. A Jew is vilified for seeking clarity over a definition of anti-semitism and that is claimed to make sense 🙁

It does matter if you are going to suspend someone – or are you too weak to stand up for truth?

Doesn’t make sense to ignore the blatant and punish the non-existent either. Good job these boys have no hope of power at the moment. Then it would matter even more.

teamhurtmore – Member

In which case, we need to understand the causes of the financial crisis properly…

Which of the causes do you imagine aren’t a failure of capitalism?

Most of them…..it would be a shorter list to suggest which were

hahahahahaha

Your right capitalism is not boom and bust and the crash was not an inevitable consequences of capitalism… i mean its not like we have seen a bust before and its not like we ever will again 🙄

Crashes within capitalism are inevitable- get a **** graph if you disagree or we can discuss this again within the next 20 years – assuming we go that long.

It does matter if you are going to suspend someone – or are you too weak to stand up for truth?

Hmm. I’m wondering what you imagine you’re replying to? When I said that the truth doesn’t matter, do you read that as meaning that the truth doesn’t matter to me? At what point does what I wrote have anything that do with my own weakness or otherwise?

I’d rather boom and bust, than permanaent bust.

But anyway boom and bust will happen in every system its human nature and also the UK doesn’t exist in the world alone. For instance plenty of oil producing countries with of all types of political systems are suffering right now.

No dr – my English was sloppy but couldn’t be bothered to edit. I was referring to the Labour party.

teamhurtmore – Member

Most of them…..it would be a shorter list to suggest which were

OK so so far you’ve said “Speak to someone else, they’ll explain what I mean” and when asked to identify one, you said “most of them” but couldn’t give any examples. We’re not really getting any further forward are we?

Ok – state distortion of the housing market and how it is/was funded – a root source

Central Banks flooding economies with liquidity at exactly the wrong time to cover up THEIR past mistakes

Inability to regulate markets and understand leverage

And that is just to start. Sweet FA to do with capitalism.

Interesting question. Seems planned Econimies are immune to some economic cycles:

https://www.quora.com/Did-Russia-under-Communist-rule-and-centrally-planned-economy-suffer-from-boom-bust-cycles-which-are-characteristic-of-richer-capitalistic-countries-If-not-or-much-lesser-why