The Labour Government

[bluenova]

I fully understand and to a very limited degree agree with you.

However, IMO it is a very weak and subjective, almost desperate argument. I very much doubt that the families of the 100,000 families will realise any material difference on account of their children getting free school meals, whereas the Government are playing it like a trump (note the lower case t) card. Is this eally the best they can claim?

Why wouldn't people feel better off if they have £500 less in expenses (and remember lots of families have two kids close together, so potentially £1000)? It's not long since the £200 Fuel Allowance was the difference between life and death for millions of pensioners. Now £500 is no material difference?

If you want to argue it's subjective, then so is any measure of poverty. What would you suggest? That they just make something up instead? Or tell you that poverty doesn't exist, and it's all in your head?

As for it being the best they can claim. Would you prefer that they didn't bother, because it only helped 500,000 kids?

If you'll forgive the dated reference, you sound like the Linda Evangelista of politics. She "wouldn't get out of bed for $10,000", and you won't approve of a policy unless it helps, what? 1 million? 2 million? Every kid in the whole country?

 

[Vic]

Why wouldn't people feel better off if they have £500 less in expenses (and remember lots of families have two kids close together, so potentially £1000)? It's not long since the £200 Fuel Allowance was the difference between life and death for millions of pensioners. Now £500 is no material difference?

If you want to argue it's subjective, then so is any measure of poverty. What would you suggest? That they just make something up instead? Or tell you that poverty doesn't exist, and it's all in your head?

As for it being the best they can claim. Would you prefer that they didn't bother, because it only helped 500,000 kids?

If you'll forgive the dated reference, you sound like the Linda Evangelista of politics. She "wouldn't get out of bed for $10,000", and you won't approve of a policy unless it helps, what? 1 million? 2 million? Every kid in the whole country?

You've made the mistake of trying to make sense of it.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I can't say I agree. I think it's an unfortunate reality that rewarding under performance cannot ultimately lead to overall prosperity, and as a result you have have to put up with significant disparity between rich and poor, or alternatively, mediocrity or worse for all.

To some extent. Obviously our prosperity is created by a system that rewards hard work, productivity and risk-taking, but it also creates a self-fulfilling loop where people are rewarded not because they're productive or talented, but because they're already rich, or their parents (or grandparents, or their entire family back to William the Conqueror) are rich. Which is why any functioning society needs a balance between rewarding wealth creation and a redistribution of that wealth to make sure that the next generation succeed or fail on merit, rather than because of who their parents are. It's never going to be a perfect system, but that should at least be the goal, and in the last 40 years, we've gone way too far in the opposite direction.

 

[hampshireblue]

Sorry mate, can't be arsed. Do your own Googling if you're genuinely interested, which I doubt.

So we're all mind readers now to understand what Chippy is on about and the basis of his "facts".

 

[hampshireblue]

But Vic, you completely neglect to take any account of events.

First of all, the Tories inhereted a country that was broke after Brown spent at the money bailing out the banks. We had a £150bn deficit, i.e. going further and futher into the red at the rate of £150bn per year, so SOMETHING had to be done. Cuts to public services were (sadly) essential. And since then we've had huge disruption caused by Brexit, and then COVID and later the war in Ukraine.

It's completely unreasonable to disregard all of this and say that the state of the country today is entirely the Tories' fault. Of course they have been a bit of a shambles politcally and the Liz Truss budget was delivered very badly etc etc, but the above HUGE economic backdrop cannot be ignored.

And finally, OBVIOUSLY, spend more on public services, they get better. Spend less on them, they get worse. No shit Sherlock. There is NOTHING to be proud of, taking more and more money of people to spend on public services and then bragging about how much you are spending on public services. If Starmer et al were making personal sacrifices then fair enough, but no. It's like you nicking £50 quid out of my wallet and then making a big show about you making a £50 charity donation.

Anyways, I am clearly never going to convince you or anyone else on this thread, likely. So over and out, but I hope you may reflect upon the above for just 10 seconds. Cheers!

So reading between the lines, Chippy would have let the banks go under, together with most of the built up wealth and savings of the general public.

I've reflected on it and he's still talking bollocks.

 

[Kompany Car]

To some extent. Obviously our prosperity is created by a system that rewards hard work, productivity and risk-taking, but it also creates a self-fulfilling loop where people are rewarded not because they're productive or talented, but because they're already rich, or their parents (or grandparents, or their entire family back to William the Conqueror) are rich. Which is why any functioning society needs a balance between rewarding wealth creation and a redistribution of that wealth to make sure that the next generation succeed or fail on merit, rather than because of who their parents are. It's never going to be a perfect system, but that should at least be the goal, and in the last 40 years, we've gone way too far in the opposite direction.

The problem is its a global issue rather than a UK specific one. One way to make it more balanced would be to limit the amount anyone can inherit to say £10m anything above that is taxed at 100%. For most thats enough to live a very good life off the interest alone. But it would never work as the money would be shifted abroad, with the wealthy paying to change citizenship (via golden visas).

It will never be fully equitable, it never has been, even going a thousand years back, it still came down to owning and controlling land, except then it was purely about being well connected with the aristocracy and carrying a big stick.

 

[Chippy_boy]

So reading between the lines, Chippy would have let the banks go under, together with most of the built up wealth and savings of the general public.

I've reflected on it and he's still talking bollocks.

No..Of course I wouldn't have let the banks go under. I even said so. Doesn't change fact though does it, that in 2010 the economy was in a mess after the banks had to be bailed out.

 

[Chippy_boy]

To some extent. Obviously our prosperity is created by a system that rewards hard work, productivity and risk-taking, but it also creates a self-fulfilling loop where people are rewarded not because they're productive or talented, but because they're already rich, or their parents (or grandparents, or their entire family back to William the Conqueror) are rich. Which is why any functioning society needs a balance between rewarding wealth creation and a redistribution of that wealth to make sure that the next generation succeed or fail on merit, rather than because of who their parents are. It's never going to be a perfect system, but that should at least be the goal, and in the last 40 years, we've gone way too far in the opposite direction.

I agree with some of what you say, but not the implication that parents should not be able to pass on wealth, however gained - working hard, winning the lottery, or whatever - to their kids. It's the most natural thing in the world to want to do everything you can to give your kids the best possible start in life. And we do have penal inheritance tax laws already, as evidenced by the hundreds of National Trust and English Heritage estates around the country, once family owned but no longer affordable by said families due to the enormous inheritance tax bills due every time the estate is handed down.

The idea that every child born should all start on a level playing field sounds like some Marxist ideal, but in reality is just fantasy. It sucks I know but the reality is some kids are born with a silver spoon in their mouths and others have it all stacked against them.

If you want to stop that, then where does it end? How about transfering vast - and I mean vast - western wealth to Africa because hundreds of millions of those kids have no chance in life compare to a kid in the west.

 

[hampshireblue]

No..Of course I wouldn't have let the banks go under. I even said so. Doesn't change fact though does it, that in 2010 the economy was in a mess after the banks had to be bailed out.

But you said:

"First of all, the Tories inhereted a country that was broke after Brown spent at the money bailing out the banks. We had a £150bn deficit, i.e. going further and futher into the red at the rate of £150bn per year, so SOMETHING had to be done."

So actually you support the actions of Brown and Darling? Also, we had a coalition for 4 years before Cameron and Osborne got stuck into austerity and, crucially, Brexit. Yes, there was a mess to clear up but it was not of Labour's making. And when interest rates and therefore government borrowing were at all-time lows, that was just the time to "borrow to invest" rather than austerity.

 

[philfodenswristsock]

But you said:

"First of all, the Tories inhereted a country that was broke after Brown spent at the money bailing out the banks. We had a £150bn deficit, i.e. going further and futher into the red at the rate of £150bn per year, so SOMETHING had to be done."

So actually you support the actions of Brown and Darling? Also, we had a coalition for 4 years before Cameron and Osborne got stuck into austerity and, crucially, Brexit. Yes, there was a mess to clear up but it was not of Labour's making. And when interest rates and therefore government borrowing were at all-time lows, that was just the time to "borrow to invest" rather than austerity.

The country is never broke. We own a Bank. And produce our own currency.

 

[M18CTID]

But you said:

"First of all, the Tories inhereted a country that was broke after Brown spent at the money bailing out the banks. We had a £150bn deficit, i.e. going further and futher into the red at the rate of £150bn per year, so SOMETHING had to be done."

So actually you support the actions of Brown and Darling? Also, we had a coalition for 4 years before Cameron and Osborne got stuck into austerity and, crucially, Brexit. Yes, there was a mess to clear up but it was not of Labour's making. And when interest rates and therefore government borrowing were at all-time lows, that was just the time to "borrow to invest" rather than austerity.

I'm not sure how anyone can blame Labour for the global financial crash but FWIW, I voted Conservative in 2010 as I thought spending our way out of it was the wrong course of action. We'll never know what would've happened if Labour had got in but by 2015 I'd had my fill of austerity so didn't vote Tory again.

 

[hampshireblue]

The country is never broke. We own a Bank. And produce our own currency.

You're right. There's an excellent book called "The Deficit Myth" that is well worth a read.

 

[hampshireblue]

I'm not sure how anyone can blame Labour for the global financial crash but FWIW, I voted Conservative in 2010 as I thought spending our way out of it was the wrong course of action. We'll never know what would've happened if Labour had got in but by 2015 I'd had my fill of austerity so didn't vote Tory again.

Yep-the banks fuck up so anytown loses its' library or weekly bin collection.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I agree with some of what you say, but not the implication that parents should not be able to pass on wealth, however gained - working hard, winning the lottery, or whatever - to their kids. It's the most natural thing in the world to want to do everything you can to give your kids the best possible start in life. And we do have penal inheritance tax laws already, as evidenced by the hundreds of National Trust and English Heritage estates around the country, once family owned but no longer affordable by said families due to the enormous inheritance tax bills due every time the estate is handed down.

The idea that every child born should all start on a level playing field sounds like some Marxist ideal, but in reality is just fantasy. It sucks I know but the reality is some kids are born with a silver spoon in their mouths and others have it all stacked against them.

If you want to stop that, then where does it end? How about transfering vast - and I mean vast - western wealth to Africa because hundreds of millions of those kids have no chance in life compare to a kid in the west.

But here we go. I specifically give a nuanced position and you default to it being a full on communist, 'no-one can ever own anything' philosophy where no-one will be able to pass anything on to their children.

It might be 'natural' to want to do everything you can to give your kids the best possible start in life, but that doesn't mean that it's not harmful to society and specifically harmful to the ideals of capitalism (reward based on productivity) to have kids who will never have to work and will nevertheless live a life of luxury, buy up half the town and charge people who actually do productive work ever-increasing rents for the privilege of living or opening a company there. That sort of thing is toxic for vaguely merit-based capitalism. Or at the wider level, have companies that can use their pre-existing market position to crush more innovative upstarts. There's a reason why anti-monopoly legislation is an important part of a functioning capitalist system, and frankly, I think that's a bit more important that a few toffs not being able to pay the upkeep on their multi-million dollar homes and having to sell it to some hotel chain and live the rest of their lives as mere millionaires.

 

[roypaulknewmyfather]

But you said:

"First of all, the Tories inhereted a country that was broke after Brown spent at the money bailing out the banks. We had a £150bn deficit, i.e. going further and futher into the red at the rate of £150bn per year, so SOMETHING had to be done."

So actually you support the actions of Brown and Darling? Also, we had a coalition for 4 years before Cameron and Osborne got stuck into austerity and, crucially, Brexit. Yes, there was a mess to clear up but it was not of Labour's making. And when interest rates and therefore government borrowing were at all-time lows, that was just the time to "borrow to invest" rather than austerity.

Quite right. The actions of Brown and Darling in October 2010 saved the global situation by recapitalising banks across the western world. They went to meetings in the States and Europe and persuaded them that this was the only option. It didn't suit the Tufton Street think tanks though who fed Cameron and the right wing press with the ammunition of lies that swayed a majority of people to believe the country was broke (the Tories inherited a growth rate of 1.9% which wasn't bettered for nearly 5 years) and that it was Government spending on the Public Sector that caused it, a myth they continued to use for over a decade and other extremist right wing groups continue to use. A failure of the capitalist system is therefore turned into a left wing mess. Sadly people still fall for it

 

[philfodenswristsock]

But here we go. I specifically give a nuanced position and you default to it being a full on communist, 'no-one can ever own anything' philosophy where no-one will be able to pass anything on to their children.

It might be 'natural' to want to do everything you can to give your kids the best possible start in life, but that doesn't mean that it's not harmful to society and specifically harmful to the ideals of capitalism (reward based on productivity) to have kids who will never have to work and will nevertheless live a life of luxury, buy up half the town and charge people who actually do productive work ever-increasing rents for the privilege of living or opening a company there. That sort of thing is toxic for vaguely merit-based capitalism. Or at the wider level, have companies that can use their pre-existing market position to crush more innovative upstarts. There's a reason why anti-monopoly legislation is an important part of a functioning capitalist system, and frankly, I think that's a bit more important that a few toff not being able to pay the upkeep on their multi-million dollar homes and having to sell it to some hotel chain and live the rest of their lives as mere millionaires.

Well said. Perhaps you, like me have noticed that the people who blabber on about work ethic, meritocracy and the merits of capitalism the most, tend to be the people who have conveniently been handed a major leg up in life, ranging from a 100k payout upon their parents death, to an interest free loan to start a business to the disgusting sight of the 'nepobaby' where children of the rich, weirdly, end up in great jobs or big stars in the entertainment world.

The system has quietly reverted to its origins, the new aristocracy, where, if you're lucky enough to get the leg up or be born into the right family, go to the right schools, mingle in the right circles, take unpaid internships while Dad covers your rent, work as a 'special adviser' to politicians then life is good. I've never found it 'nice' that the Dimblebys, Zoe Ball, Sophie Ellie Bextor, Dan Snow, Claudia Winkleman, Freya Ridings, Kate Beckensale, and on and on and on and on.... follow in their parents footsteps, it's corruption!

The system is screwed. There's them and us. They are winning. They are even educated to real standards. Can you imagine a situation where the nations biggest pop/rock acts are privately educated. ROCK!!!! The music of the people. Athletes, Rugby players (obviously) Cricketers (obviously) even Footballers increasingly, why? Sports and arts in posh schools are valued and funded correctly.. We have a major issue in our country, a tiny % go to posh school, but all the big jobs are staffed by them. End game capitalism will, as always, be known for the rich eating cake while the poor take note of their addresses!

 

[philfodenswristsock]

Akala.... Absolute power

"But people's memory short so much that i'm seeing
Black and Asian kids cus eastern-European
No pot to piss in, makes competition
I fail to see how this is a effective system
When cats and dogs in America and Britain
Eat better food than most of humanity
And we spend our technology only on killing
How is this more than sophisticated savagery
It was once said the world is a stage
Each persons is just a actor with a part to play
Like the middle class kids and the kids of the rich
That have everything but yet still pissed and on coke and ketamine strong hat on
I ain't generalizing look at the evidence
So go to Glastonbury any year
You will see but unlike carnival it won't be crowing with police
This is London the kids on the very next street
Had a very different life experience from me
And in my experience the can't help but be smug
After lifetime of what they think is just good luck"

 

[Brewster's millions]

Quite right. The actions of Brown and Darling in October 2010 saved the global situation by recapitalising banks across the western world. They went to meetings in the States and Europe and persuaded them that this was the only option. It didn't suit the Tufton Street think tanks though who fed Cameron and the right wing press with the ammunition of lies that swayed a majority of people to believe the country was broke (the Tories inherited a growth rate of 1.9% which wasn't bettered for nearly 5 years) and that it was Government spending on the Public Sector that caused it, a myth they continued to use for over a decade and other extremist right wing groups continue to use. A failure of the capitalist system is therefore turned into a left wing mess. Sadly people still fall for it

Brown and Darling saving the global financial system in October 2010, five months after being kicked out of office?

Sounds like quite the achievement!

 

[philfodenswristsock]

Akala.... Absolute power

"But people's memory short so much that i'm seeing
Black and Asian kids cus eastern-European
No pot to piss in, makes competition
I fail to see how this is a effective system
When cats and dogs in America and Britain
Eat better food than most of humanity
And we spend our technology only on killing
How is this more than sophisticated savagery
It was once said the world is a stage
Each persons is just a actor with a part to play
Like the middle class kids and the kids of the rich
That have everything but yet still pissed and on coke and ketamine strong hat on
I ain't generalizing look at the evidence
So go to Glastonbury any year
You will see but unlike carnival it won't be crowing with police
This is London the kids on the very next street
Had a very different life experience from me
And in my experience the can't help but be smug
After lifetime of what they think is just good luck"

 

[hampshireblue]

I fully understand and to a very limited degree agree with you.

However, IMO it is a very weak and subjective, almost desperate argument. I very much doubt that the families of the 100,000 families will realise any material difference on account of their children getting free school meals, whereas the Government are playing it like a trump (note the lower case t) card. Is this eally the best they can claim?

No, it's not the best they can claim. But apparently according to you, £500 means little material difference to these families but £200-£300 of losing WFA to wealthy pensioners was a matter of life and death.