Tuesday 19th March 2019
Posted: Tue 19 Mar, 2019 7:04 am
Morning all.
Universal income fundamentally fails to address inequality. Almost obviously so. The problem with doling out cash is maintaining its worth. It's my observation that if you give poor people money, rich people will find a way to take it away from them. High rents, embezzled pensions. It would probably start out ok, but as we found with tax credits, unless you tackle the basic imbalance of power behind our inequality, it is unlikely to keep working. And if it replaces society's basic responsibility to ensure everyone is fed, housed and clothed, it could be downright disastrous.HindleA wrote:http://www.compassonline.org.uk/publica ... asibility/
I autofilled, then remembered to correct.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Was going to start the thread myself today but couldn't resist the chance of another choose-a-day.
Sadly didn't happen
Only questioned by people who confuse Parliament with Government.Tim Stanley
Verified account
@timothy_stanley
Follow Follow @timothy_stanley
More Tim Stanley Retweeted Tim Stanley
I said last week that John Bercow would stop May bringing back her deal unaltered - cos he can & constitutionally is obliged to.
If any other Speaker did this it would be uncontroversial. But because Bercow spent the last 10 years being biased, his motives will be questioned.
No, that's not a disagreement at all, it's exactly what I mean. Specific money to specific people to address specific things seeks to reduce inequality. The effects might not always be straightforward, as we saw with tax credits, but I still think the fundamental principle is right. Universal basic income is attractive because it's simple, but money isn't simple, it's complex. It's value can vary, it's vulnerable to inflation. Different people can end up paying different amounts for the same thing, depending on age or where they live. This is what I mean by saying doling out money to everyone may not solve as many problems as people expect.HindleA wrote:@Willow,where I slightly disagree with.you,but it is specific,so perhaps not.By far the best way to attend to the extra costs of sickness/disability is to "dish out money" in the form of a budget.Actually a very Tory idea ie people are the best as to how to use rather than the State eg.Of course ,as ever the DWP and actual Tory enaction in social security terms evidences the complete opposite.
Interesting discussion and very relevant to Corbyn's stewardship of Labour.Willow904 wrote:No, that's not a disagreement at all, it's exactly what I mean. Specific money to specific people to address specific things seeks to reduce inequality. The effects might not always be straightforward, as we saw with tax credits, but I still think the fundamental principle is right. Universal basic income is attractive because it's simple, but money isn't simple, it's complex. It's value can vary, it's vulnerable to inflation. Different people can end up paying different amounts for the same thing, depending on age or where they live. This is what I mean by saying doling out money to everyone may not solve as many problems as people expect.HindleA wrote:@Willow,where I slightly disagree with.you,but it is specific,so perhaps not.By far the best way to attend to the extra costs of sickness/disability is to "dish out money" in the form of a budget.Actually a very Tory idea ie people are the best as to how to use rather than the State eg.Of course ,as ever the DWP and actual Tory enaction in social security terms evidences the complete opposite.
I agree.HindleA wrote:For the love of Ada though,we have to be clear as exactly what principles and exactly what we mean by them.
Back in 2014, when he was campaigning for a promise for a referendum, in a speech entitled An Optimistic Vision of a Post-EU United Kingdom on his website, he said...having lost the referendum, remainers then redefined the choice as between 'hard' or 'soft' Brexit – in reality between real departure and leaving in name only.
"We should grasp the opportunity to leave the current political arrangements and negotiate a new settlement, while keeping our vital position in the single market. This will give us huge economic advantages and re-establish our position as a leading player, in our own right, on the world stage. {snip} So we can leave the political project and enter into a truly economic project with Europe via the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the EEA. We would still enjoy the trading benefits of the EU, without the huge cost of the political baggage {snip} ...our participation in the Single Market is fundamental to protecting the UK's economic position. This brings us to the only realistic option, which is to stay within the EEA agreement. The EEA is tailor made for this purpose and can be adopted by joining EFTA first. This becomes the "Norway option"
Yeah, the Speaker's intervention yesterday doesn't justify the brouhaha splattering headlines. There's no question the UK is having a constitutional crisis but that started in late June 2016.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:So much fuss about the fact that Bercow drew on a rule from 1604. When something is so patently common sense as this, of course the rule would stay there unchanged!
We can all get behind that.Michael Roth, Germany’s Europe minister, indicated that Berlin is getting fed up with British indecision. Asked about Brexit, he told reporters:
The clock is ticking and time is running out.
[We are] really exhausted by these negotiations. And I expect clear and precise proposals [from] the British government why such an extension is necessary.
It is not just a game. It is an extremely serious situation, not just for the people in the United Kingdom, but for the people in the European Union.
For my government, the key priority is to prevent a no-deal Brexit ...
I don’t have any appetite for substance-less, very abstract discussions and negotiations on the Brexit. Please deliver, dear friends in London, please deliver. The clock is ticking.
Chief among whom appear to be the BBC's political "journalists"RogerOThornhill wrote:I see the press have mostly fallen in line with No 10 trying to claim a "constitutional crisis" - one of which of course was of their own making. I was shocked.
I do like this comment from yesterday "Yeah he's right but I's still going to have a snide dig anyway".
Only questioned by people who confuse Parliament with Government.Tim Stanley
Verified account
@timothy_stanley
Follow Follow @timothy_stanley
More Tim Stanley Retweeted Tim Stanley
I said last week that John Bercow would stop May bringing back her deal unaltered - cos he can & constitutionally is obliged to.
If any other Speaker did this it would be uncontroversial. But because Bercow spent the last 10 years being biased, his motives will be questioned.
It started well before then, in truth.citizenJA wrote:Yeah, the Speaker's intervention yesterday doesn't justify the brouhaha splattering headlines. There's no question the UK is having a constitutional crisis but that started in late June 2016.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:So much fuss about the fact that Bercow drew on a rule from 1604. When something is so patently common sense as this, of course the rule would stay there unchanged!
You're right of course. I was zeroing in on an exceptional example of ongoing democratic representation failureAnatolyKasparov wrote:It started well before then, in truth.citizenJA wrote:Yeah, the Speaker's intervention yesterday doesn't justify the brouhaha splattering headlines. There's no question the UK is having a constitutional crisis but that started in late June 2016.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:So much fuss about the fact that Bercow drew on a rule from 1604. When something is so patently common sense as this, of course the rule would stay there unchanged!
An example of a horseshit private company good at nothing but procuring public service contractsHindleA wrote:https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... -be-learnt
I know you don't think like this, but there is a section of anti-Brexit opinion that genuinely seems to think everything was just fine and dandy until June 23 2016 - and that vote just arrived from nowhere and for absolutely no reason (ah yes, apart from "Russian bots" of course)citizenJA wrote:You're right of course. I was zeroing in on an exceptional example of ongoing democratic representation failureAnatolyKasparov wrote:It started well before then, in truth.citizenJA wrote:Yeah, the Speaker's intervention yesterday doesn't justify the brouhaha splattering headlines. There's no question the UK is having a constitutional crisis but that started in late June 2016.
I agree with much of this sentiment. Liberalising press controls was a tremendously bad idea.Willow904 wrote:The only problem the UK had with the EU before 2016 was our tabloid press and the drip, drip of anti-EU propaganda used first of all to attack the Labour government and then later to scapegoat blame for the consequences of Tory austerity.
We live in a world dominated by capitalism and three big spheres of economic influence - China, USA and the EU. This may not be the way many people would like things to be, but it's objective reality. Membership of the EU is membership of one of those spheres. And we had gilt-edged membership with huge influence and generous opt-outs. That our political leaders regularly used our influence for the benefit of their rich backers, vetoing financial transaction taxes and attempts to prevent Chinese steel dumping for instance, is not the EU's fault. And anyone concerned about the treatment of Greece should remember that it was Greek leaders who diddled their accounts on joining the Euro, along with turning a blind eye to tax dodging over many years, that got them into the mess in the first place. The EU is simply the sum of its parts. By removing the extremely right-wing, US arse-licking, billionaire pandering British element, it will probably improve enormously for everyone else - and yet, even so, there is a remarkably good chance they will do what they can to help us out of this hole we have dug ourselves, because they really aren't the bad guys, whatever the Mail says.
My point wasn't really about whether things could have been done better (or worse) but that, as one of three major political players withing the EU, any successes or failures of the EU were our successes and failures, as much as anyone else's.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I agree with much of this sentiment. Liberalising press controls was a tremendously bad idea.Willow904 wrote:The only problem the UK had with the EU before 2016 was our tabloid press and the drip, drip of anti-EU propaganda used first of all to attack the Labour government and then later to scapegoat blame for the consequences of Tory austerity.
We live in a world dominated by capitalism and three big spheres of economic influence - China, USA and the EU. This may not be the way many people would like things to be, but it's objective reality. Membership of the EU is membership of one of those spheres. And we had gilt-edged membership with huge influence and generous opt-outs. That our political leaders regularly used our influence for the benefit of their rich backers, vetoing financial transaction taxes and attempts to prevent Chinese steel dumping for instance, is not the EU's fault. And anyone concerned about the treatment of Greece should remember that it was Greek leaders who diddled their accounts on joining the Euro, along with turning a blind eye to tax dodging over many years, that got them into the mess in the first place. The EU is simply the sum of its parts. By removing the extremely right-wing, US arse-licking, billionaire pandering British element, it will probably improve enormously for everyone else - and yet, even so, there is a remarkably good chance they will do what they can to help us out of this hole we have dug ourselves, because they really aren't the bad guys, whatever the Mail says.
But I also agree with Corbyn that the EU rates about 7/10.
Surely there are many things that could have been done much better. You are right that the EU is the sum of its parts and arguably the most important part in the decade leading up to the Referendum was Merkel and those who voted for her. While I admire the pragmatism and common sense of that administration, it's always felt (and doesn't pretend to be anything but) rather conservative.
Yes completely agree. And as we all know we really did have influence and did shape the EU.Willow904 wrote:My point wasn't about whether things cold have been done better (or worse) but that, as one of three major political players withing the EU, any successes or failures of the EU were our successes and failures, as much as anyone else.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:I agree with much of this sentiment. Liberalising press controls was a tremendously bad idea.Willow904 wrote:The only problem the UK had with the EU before 2016 was our tabloid press and the drip, drip of anti-EU propaganda used first of all to attack the Labour government and then later to scapegoat blame for the consequences of Tory austerity.
We live in a world dominated by capitalism and three big spheres of economic influence - China, USA and the EU. This may not be the way many people would like things to be, but it's objective reality. Membership of the EU is membership of one of those spheres. And we had gilt-edged membership with huge influence and generous opt-outs. That our political leaders regularly used our influence for the benefit of their rich backers, vetoing financial transaction taxes and attempts to prevent Chinese steel dumping for instance, is not the EU's fault. And anyone concerned about the treatment of Greece should remember that it was Greek leaders who diddled their accounts on joining the Euro, along with turning a blind eye to tax dodging over many years, that got them into the mess in the first place. The EU is simply the sum of its parts. By removing the extremely right-wing, US arse-licking, billionaire pandering British element, it will probably improve enormously for everyone else - and yet, even so, there is a remarkably good chance they will do what they can to help us out of this hole we have dug ourselves, because they really aren't the bad guys, whatever the Mail says.
But I also agree with Corbyn that the EU rates about 7/10.
Surely there are many things that could have been done much better. You are right that the EU is the sum of its parts and arguably the most important part in the decade leading up to the Referendum was Merkel and those who voted for her. While I admire the pragmatism and common sense of that administration, it's always felt (and doesn't pretend to be anything but) rather conservative.
Wasn't it claimed no one accepted an invite?PaulfromYorkshire wrote:PhilWilsonMP
@MPphilwilson
I was asked to go on @BBCNewsnight then told at the last minute I wasn’t required. Not true to say there was no @UKLabour voice available
Yes exactly and people who watched clearly recalling Maitlis saying Labour were invited and failed to provide a spokespersonWillow904 wrote:Wasn't it claimed no one accepted an invite?PaulfromYorkshire wrote:PhilWilsonMP
@MPphilwilson
I was asked to go on @BBCNewsnight then told at the last minute I wasn’t required. Not true to say there was no @UKLabour voice available
Presumably poor Phil Wilson is the "wrong" kind of Labour MP.
Albeit probably a semi-humorous comment, it's typical of this Government that the only thing which can unite them is "hatred".Jason Groves @JasonGroves1
Cabinet source: 'The only thing agreed this morning was that everyone hates Bercow'
83
1:50 PM - Mar 19, 2019 (Politics Live, Guardian)
I'm out of ideas . . .Carl Dinnen
✔
@carldinnen
Boris Johnson has just left a meeting with the Prime Minister and walked back to Parliament saying nothing whatsoever to @ChrisMasonBBC @faisalislam and myself.
Somethings afoot...
1:03 PM - Mar 19, 2019 (Politics Live, Guardian)