SKY NewsReplacing Universal Credit increase with one-off payment a 'terrible' idea, Labour says

[Thomas]

Unfettered capitalism is the road to ruin for millions. If those at the bottom get a substantial rise, those a little further up might get a smaller one, and those further up a smaller one still. Ie less inequality.

No one on this forum , certainly not me , is suggesting you change your political views or principles. You arent a stupid person , possibly naive at times , but what amazes me is that by now , you havent realised you will never have a socialist government or society under your beloved labour party.

Im not sure what age you are , i think you are older than me , but in my lifetime , you have to go back to my school years when i was first becoming politically aware to find the last truly socialist party and manifesto under labour which was michael foots offering in 1983.

After the uks rejection of it , and the subsequent tory landslide , kinnock and smith then went on to do the donkey work of purging the party of the left , making labour more "electable " to the middle english marginals of small c tories , which blair then took up the reins in 94 , and the rest as they say is history.

Labour began the transformation into the "red tories" in the aftermath of the landslide defeat in `83 , and the check on that transformation only halted in 2015 when milliband was comprhensively defeated and replaced by corbyn.

You know as well as i di , the five years of corbyns leadership was hampered  by the constant backstabbling and internal strife as the blairites time and again tried to take back control of your party. Corbyns election was barely minutes old when the likes of burnham cooper and kendall to name a few were talking out against him.

Culminating yet again in another massive defeat , this time as corbyn was pushed down an anti brexit lane by starmer and the pro european blairites against corbyns own old labour euroscepticism , and against the majority of anti european labour constituencies.

So here we are again steve , you shouting socialist ideals , while the party you blindly follow are led again by the blairites. Starmer is a clear champion of the very unfettered capitalism you rail against. He supports the very inequality you hate , while throwing a few crumbs to the plebs at the bottom .

Starmer is intent on showing the british establishment he is a safe pair of hands , and that does not involve in any way implementing a socialist society.

All you are left with is clutching at straws your party will somehow reform and members like you can change it from within.

Nearly forty years on from the last ruly socialist offering from labour , i cant believe you think doing the same thingover and over , supproting labour and working with in the tired worn out two party system is going to lead you to the socialist utopia you desire. Not under starmer it wont certainly , and by your continued silence on the man , it tells me everything i need to know on how you feel about him and the direction he is taking labour.

You can ignore me all you like steve , but that only tells me one thing. Its not that im insulting you........its the fact the truth im talking is hitting home and hitting the bullseye.

[Nick]

Unfettered capitalism is the road to ruin for millions. If those at the bottom get a substantial rise, those a little further up might get a smaller one, and those further up a smaller one still. Ie less inequality.

You're going to tell me taxing the rich makes the poor richer next.

[srb7677]

No. What about the guy who is just above the threshold for a pay increase?

The guy who didn't get a pay rise has seen prices rise because his neighbour got a pay rise. So the guy who got the 3% pay rise sees prices go up by 3%, status quo. Everyone else sees a price increase.

Time to admit that left wing socialist views don't work. Capitalism is the only answer, you work hard and progress up the greasy pole, out running price rises.

I refer you to my post on working hard some days ago.

Unfettered capitalism is the road to ruin for millions. If those at the bottom get a substantial rise, those a little further up might get a smaller one, and those further up a smaller one still. Ie less inequality.

[johnofgwent]

If a tory mp says any of these things  , we have people like steve screaming tory bad ...

Also worth pointing out, i think, that Ian Duncan Smith, routinely villified by a currently absent member of this forum for his demand that the unemployed get a work ethic, did NOT invent that idea, but nicked it from GORDON BROWN.

[Nick]

But any price increases are spread amongst everyone not just the low paid. So they gain the full force of any pay increase whilst shouldering only a fraction of the cost which is shared amongst everyone else. Seems fair enough to me.

No. What about the guy who is just above the threshold for a pay increase?

The guy who didn't get a pay rise has seen prices rise because his neighbour got a pay rise. So the guy who got the 3% pay rise sees prices go up by 3%, status quo. Everyone else sees a price increase.

Time to admit that left wing socialist views don't work. Capitalism is the only answer, you work hard and progress up the greasy pole, out running price rises.

I refer you to my post on working hard some days ago.

[Thomas]

Peter Shearer
@shearernorthern
Replying to
@Keir_Starmer
We socialists are busy listening to our real leader Keir! Get out of the way.

https://twitter.com/shearernorthern/status/1350847677261623297

[srb7677]

And if the Left was running a shop, the shelves would be packed with self pity and spite.

If the right were running a shop, it's shelves would be packed with ignorance, malice, selfishness, and bigotry.

You'd probably be the manager, .

[srb7677]

Jeez!!  Do you think shops ask you how much you earn before you buy something? The prices increase for everyone, not just the rich. This includes the ones with low paid jobs.

But any price increases are spread amongst everyone not just the low paid. So they gain the full force of any pay increase whilst shouldering only a fraction of the cost which is shared amongst everyone else. Seems fair enough to me.

[Borchester]

Jeez!!  Do you think shops ask you how much you earn before you buy something? The prices increase for everyone, not just the rich. This includes the ones with low paid jobs.

And if the Left was running a shop, the shelves would be packed with self pity and spite.

[Nick]

Better paid people paying a little more for something so the low paid can be paid properly is fine by me. One man's increased wealth at the cost of another man's poverty isn't right.

Jeez!!  Do you think shops ask you how much you earn before you buy something? The prices increase for everyone, not just the rich. This includes the ones with low paid jobs.

[Borchester]

Better paid people paying a little more for something so the low paid can be paid properly is fine by me.

But not by most of the better paid.

Badly paid folk can demand their rights but rarely get anywhere because they are mostly economically helpless. In fact, all they have to offer are guilt trips and the market is pretty well saturated with those. 

[Thomas]

In case anyone has any doubt about starmers labour partys view on benefits , here is what rachael reeve , current member of labours shadow cabinet under keir starmer said about benefits...



https://archive.vn/DmdTM

Echoing the words of glasgow labour mp and blairite tom harris a few years earlier when he said..

"We were set up as the party to represent the values of working people, working being the key word. We weren't set up as some sort of charity to help the poorest in society – the long-term unemployed, the benefit dependent, the drug addicted, the homeless."

If a tory mp says any of these things  , we have people like steve screaming tory bad , but when his very own party mps in the past and one currently serving in the shadow cabinet says this , he ignores it and glosses over it.

Usual labour party hypocrisy from both mps and supporters like SRB.

Labour to restrict benefits for under-21s

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2014/06/labour-restrict-benefits-under-21s

"The Labour leader will say 'people's faith in the system has been shaken' by the appearance that a minority of people are getting 'something for nothing and other people nothing for something.'

He will pledge to restore the 'contributory principle' to jobseeker's allowance, so that only people who have paid in 'for significantly longer' than the current minimum of two years will be eligible.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3722/exclusive_ed_miliband_s_speech_tomorrow_attempts_to_rebrand_labour_as_the_party_of_work


When labour were last promising to be tougher on welfare than the tories  , current shadow cabinet member and starmer ally reeve was a vocal supporter of that policy and remains a vocal supporter of being tougher than the tories on welfare.

[Thomas]

And Labour's failure to address this or that when in power last time was due to too great a fondness for Tory economics. I was not a supporter of New Labour. They were more interested in polishing the turd that was Thatcherism, rather than flushing it away. Cementing it in place by trying to make it a bit nicer. Something that was never going to survive a Tory government.

I believe you are being disingenuous here steve , as we have discussed before.

I genuinely believe you werent a fan of blairism , you i and cromwell have long discussed this in the past. Unlike cromwell and i though , what it boils down to for you is the lesser of two evils , voting blairites like starmer  and milliband , or voting tory.

By your own past admission , while you may have voted other parties during the blair years , between 2010 and 2015  for example, you supported  labour under milliband ,( i rememebr your tireless support of labour under milliband on our old forum) and your weak get out clause time and again was you sometimes engaged in tactical voting in your constituency to keep the tory out.(knowing full well in a two horse race , it meant blairites getting into power if the uk followed your example.)

So while you talk rightly of labours failure to address welfare issues when last in power , you gloss over labours record in oppositon , where between 2010 and 2015 as my examples show , labour spectacualrly failed to oppose the tories on welfare .

Further i notice how quiet you have been regarding starmer. Bury bad news and all that eh steve?

The fact of the matter is starmer is an out and out pro european blairite as you  i and everyone else well knows.

Across social media , twitter and various forums etc , the constant barrage of attacks aimed at this latest reincarnation of new labour under starmer arent coming from the tories or snp.......they are coming from the british left and labours very own left wing supporters.

I see it every day.

Starmer for the last year now he has been leader has managed to bumble through each day with the odd tory bad headline , while apologising for labours anti semitism , purging the party of left wing mps in positions of power , and generally keeping schtum on policy .

That wont last though , and eventually he is going to have to come out and display his wares. When that day comes , you and i both know he will largely sacrifice left wing ideals , including readopting the new labour mantra of being tougher on welfare than the tories , pissing off left wing voters to appease middle england tory marginals.

Labour are if anything predictable.

When starmer eventually does all i predict , you will stand at the side mouthing platitudes about starmers new labour while hoping they get into power to stop the tories. As you always do.

As i pointed out on here the other day , labour no longer get the tory bad vote  , as to get into power in england , they have to become the tories in all but name.

As for welfare , the uk is one of the most generous states in the world regarding welfare. Many european countires operate on a pay something in get something out safety net unlike the uk .

No matter how bad you think the uk is , the poor have a better quality of life i nthe uk on uk benefits than they would in most countries in the world.

Thats why so many of the worlds poor want to come here.

UK ranked 18th in 35 nation OECD , and among the tope 20 nations for welfare on the entire planet.

https://www.cashfloat.co.uk/blog/money-borrowing/best-welfare-country/

[johnofgwent]

It is a terrible idea precisely because £500 is a lot less than £20 per week per annum, and is not in the form of a steady income.

But this forum is something of a jerk circle for right wingers, so if any notice at all is taken, it will be negative I am sure.

Sorry to piss on your right wing bashing but in the eyes of the left they don't come much more right wing than me, and I think it's a fucking terrible idea for the same reason but then again, the MANIFESTO was rather left wing actually but none of Hain's Boot Boys bothered to read it, preferring to take orders from hom to engage in violence instead.

[srb7677]

You really don't get it do you...

A crap job as you call it is low paid because that is what the industry can afford. If the wage goes up disproportionately, the price of the product has to go up. Seeing that not everyone's wage will go up it is in affect a wage cut for the others as they face higher prices in the high street.

It's like the statement that nurses haven't had a decent pay rise in 5 years, maybe not but they will have had a couple of pay band increases. The lefties always exclude that fact.

BTW, minimum the minimum wage has increased more under the Tories than it did in the 10 years of Labour. All the things that Labour complain about could be addressed whilst in office but they never do.

Better paid people paying a little more for something so the low paid can be paid properly is fine by me. One man's increased wealth at the cost of another man's poverty isn't right.

But if you want poverty pay to be socially acceptable you need far more generous in work welfare top ups.

For example, UC takes away 63p for every £1 earned which is highly disincentivising and far higher a percentage of confiscation than - for example - the rich pay in spite of all their bleating. If for example only 30p were taken for every £1 earned, we could afford poverty pay without impoverishing or disincentivising people. Increasing pay would of course remain the best way of reducing welfare costs.

And Labour's failure to address this or that when in power last time was due to too great a fondness for Tory economics. I was not a supporter of New Labour. They were more interested in polishing the turd that was Thatcherism, rather than flushing it away. Cementing it in place by trying to make it a bit nicer. Something that was never going to survive a Tory government.