Bolitics The New Condem Government

[mockingbird_franklin]

talking about politicians who have lost it, here is one that lost it years ago yet still manages to increase the "what the ****" factor whenever he spouts his latest crap

 

Iain Duncan Smith: welfare reform is like struggle against slavery The Work and Pensions Secretary likens "historic mission" of welfare reform to Wilberforce's campaign against the slave trade

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10591755/Iain-Duncan-Smith-welfare-reform-is-like-struggle-against-slavery.html

 

same story here

 

Iain Duncan Smith compares being on benefits to slavery and suggests he is acting in tradition of abolitionist

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iain-duncan-smith-compares-being-on-benefits-to-slavery-and-suggests-he-is-acting-in-tradition-of-abolitionist-9080982.html

Edited January 25, 2014 by mockingbird_franklin

[Kingfisher]

You gotta watch out for suicide Smith, if you get sick or become disabled or lose your job he'll have you working in Poundland for free. The shop where everything is worth a pound... except you.

[MakemineVanilla]

talking about politicians who have lost it, here is one that lost it years ago yet still manages to increase the "what the ****" factor whenever he spouts his latest crap

 

Iain Duncan Smith: welfare reform is like struggle against slavery The Work and Pensions Secretary likens "historic mission" of welfare reform to Wilberforce's campaign against the slave trade

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10591755/Iain-Duncan-Smith-welfare-reform-is-like-struggle-against-slavery.html

 

same story here

 

Iain Duncan Smith compares being on benefits to slavery and suggests he is acting in tradition of abolitionist

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iain-duncan-smith-compares-being-on-benefits-to-slavery-and-suggests-he-is-acting-in-tradition-of-abolitionist-9080982.html

 

He makes entirely the wrong analogy.

 

The better analogy would be with the European traders turning up in North America with a sack full of western tools and trinkets and findind the natives didn't want the stuff the trader was offering, as they belonged to a culture which was not based upon endless accumulation.

 

IDS is trying to induce people on long-term benefits to believe the dubious promises of capitalism and put themselves on the treadmill of low-paid work for the reward of a few extra consumerist jujus which are supposed to give meaning to their lives.

 

This is another example of a politician saying the exact opposite to the truth.

 

It is the same trick as the European trader was trying to play on the natives. The trader wants to swap his cheap Brummagem wear, which cost him pennies, for a beaver skin he'll sell for shillings. He interprets the natives refusal as moral failure for his own advantage and IDS is doing the same.

 

IDS wants people who are secure on benefits to work for minimum wage while they creating substantially more surplus value for the capitalist who demands at least a 20% return on their capital.

 

Those on benefits ask the simple question - will I be better off joining the precariat and once I've lost my benefits how easy will it be to get them back, when Mr Business man gets rid of me?

 

Am I better off keeping what I have got?

 

They might only have the sort of skills which make their exploitation marginal but they are not entirely stupid.

[meregreen]

The Tories use the term "benefits trap", and completely miss the causes of this so called trap.Low pay and shortage of decent jobs.Instead of offering real help to the unemployed, the vast majority of whom desperately want to work, they seek to demonize them. That we put them in the tender care of an incompetent twit like IDS simply beggars belief.

[Awol]

IDS is trying to induce people on long-term benefits to believe the dubious promises of capitalism and put themselves on the treadmill of low-paid work for the reward of a few extra consumerist jujus which are supposed to give meaning to their lives.

Interesting. So those on long term benefits shouldn't be conned into taking low paid jobs like some other suckers, eschewing the world of work and sticking it to the man. Meanwhile someone who has a bit more self respect can subsidise their lifestyle choice. Seems perfectly fair to me....

 

Those who deserve benefits like the disabled and the genuinely needy should get them, in full, no messing around. Those who simply can't be arsed to work because, well, why bother?  Screw them.

[markavfc40]

 

IDS is trying to induce people on long-term benefits to believe the dubious promises of capitalism and put themselves on the treadmill of low-paid work for the reward of a few extra consumerist jujus which are supposed to give meaning to their lives.

Interesting. So those on long term benefits shouldn't be conned into taking low paid jobs like some other suckers, eschewing the world of work and sticking it to the man. Meanwhile someone who has a bit more self respect can subsidise their lifestyle choice. Seems perfectly fair to me....

 

Those who deserve benefits like the disabled and the genuinely needy should get them, in full, no messing around. Those who simply can't be arsed to work because, well, why bother?  Screw them.

 

 

I think the vast majority of people would agree with that sentiment. However the one thing I would add is that pay everyone a fair and decent wage for working. Therefore the minimum wage needs increasing. It is currently £6.31 and much less for someone under 21. That needs increasing by £1.50 an hour. This mob talk about making work pay and the way to do that is not reduce benefit payments it is by upping the minimum wage. The way the Tories have gone about things it has been very much about a race to the bottom and it is wrong.

Edited January 25, 2014 by markavfc40

[mockingbird_franklin]

For me the 'bat crazy' bit is that he claims and seems to believe that giving someone an income which just about supports, in the short term,  a subsistence lifestyle without fear of sanction or forced labour is equivalent to slavery, yet forcing them to work for nothing via workfare through the use of fear intimidation and threat of sanction and destitution to secure that subsistence level income is no where near slavery. I guess what do you expect from a Walter Mitty level fantasist.

Edited January 25, 2014 by mockingbird_franklin

[mockingbird_franklin]

Oh and on the reduction of the unemployment figures, sanctioned claimants don't appear as unemployed, might explain some of the reason for the explosion in sanctions through the imposition of those non existent targets that don't exist, well not officially anyhow

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-25885078

 

quote

 

"More than 400,000 in England, Scotland and Wales had Jobseeker's Allowance stopped in the first nine months of the new system"

[Awol]

IDS is trying to induce people on long-term benefits to believe the dubious promises of capitalism and put themselves on the treadmill of low-paid work for the reward of a few extra consumerist jujus which are supposed to give meaning to their lives.

Interesting. So those on long term benefits shouldn't be conned into taking low paid jobs like some other suckers, eschewing the world of work and sticking it to the man. Meanwhile someone who has a bit more self respect can subsidise their lifestyle choice. Seems perfectly fair to me....

Those who deserve benefits like the disabled and the genuinely needy should get them, in full, no messing around. Those who simply can't be arsed to work because, well, why bother? Screw them.

I think the vast majority of people would agree with that sentiment. However the one thing I would add is that pay everyone a fair and decent wage for working. Therefore the minimum wage needs increasing. It is currently £6.31 and much less for someone under 21. That needs increasing by £1.50 an hour. This mob talk about making work pay and the way to do that is not reduce benefit payments it is by upping the minimum wage. The way the Tories have gone about things it has been very much about a race to the bottom and it is wrong.

If you are talking about big and very profitable company's paying an extra £1.50 an hour then maybe they can afford it. For smaller businesses that employ staff on minimum wage it simply isn't an option, as a publican interviewed on Radio 4 the other day lucidly explained. Once he'd paid all his overheads his take home was actually below minimum wage. Being forced to pay his staff £1 per hour more would to lead to either fewer staff or the business going under completely.

Obviously you can't have a situation where minimum wage is varied by occupation, so when the margins in a business are that tight then what to do? Reduce corporation tax so the employer can pay their employees more?

Don't get me wrong I agree with the principle of what you are saying, I just think that sometimes these debates about 'fairness' are carried out in a vacuum that ignores economic reality for many businesses.

[bickster]

IDS is trying to induce people on long-term benefits to believe the dubious promises of capitalism and put themselves on the treadmill of low-paid work for the reward of a few extra consumerist jujus which are supposed to give meaning to their lives.

Interesting. So those on long term benefits shouldn't be conned into taking low paid jobs like some other suckers, eschewing the world of work and sticking it to the man. Meanwhile someone who has a bit more self respect can subsidise their lifestyle choice. Seems perfectly fair to me....

Those who deserve benefits like the disabled and the genuinely needy should get them, in full, no messing around. Those who simply can't be arsed to work because, well, why bother? Screw them.

I think the vast majority of people would agree with that sentiment. However the one thing I would add is that pay everyone a fair and decent wage for working. Therefore the minimum wage needs increasing. It is currently £6.31 and much less for someone under 21. That needs increasing by £1.50 an hour. This mob talk about making work pay and the way to do that is not reduce benefit payments it is by upping the minimum wage. The way the Tories have gone about things it has been very much about a race to the bottom and it is wrong.

If you are talking about big and very profitable company's paying an extra £1.50 an hour then maybe they can afford it. For smaller businesses that employ staff on minimum wage it simply isn't an option, as a publican interviewed on Radio 4 the other day lucidly explained. Once he'd paid all his overheads his take home was actually below minimum wage. Being forced to pay his staff £1 per hour more would to lead to either fewer staff or the business going under completely.

Obviously you can't have a situation where minimum wage is varied by occupation, so when the margins in a business are that tight then what to do? Reduce corporation tax so the employer can pay their employees more?

Don't get me wrong I agree with the principle of what you are saying, I just think that sometimes these debates about 'fairness' are carried out in a vacuum that ignores economic reality for many businesses.

So his business isn't that viable in the first place either that or he needs to put about 10p on a pint

[Kingfisher]

I think the minimum wage debate has been one sided for years, all I ever hear is small business can't afford it - soon after which it gets kicked into the long grass. That's why people are starving and freezing in their rented accommodation.

Part of the answer has already been mooted by Awol, with the lowering of tax on small and new businesses.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Kingfisher

[Awol]

 

 

 

 

IDS is trying to induce people on long-term benefits to believe the dubious promises of capitalism and put themselves on the treadmill of low-paid work for the reward of a few extra consumerist jujus which are supposed to give meaning to their lives.

Interesting. So those on long term benefits shouldn't be conned into taking low paid jobs like some other suckers, eschewing the world of work and sticking it to the man. Meanwhile someone who has a bit more self respect can subsidise their lifestyle choice. Seems perfectly fair to me....

Those who deserve benefits like the disabled and the genuinely needy should get them, in full, no messing around. Those who simply can't be arsed to work because, well, why bother? Screw them.

 

I think the vast majority of people would agree with that sentiment. However the one thing I would add is that pay everyone a fair and decent wage for working. Therefore the minimum wage needs increasing. It is currently £6.31 and much less for someone under 21. That needs increasing by £1.50 an hour. This mob talk about making work pay and the way to do that is not reduce benefit payments it is by upping the minimum wage. The way the Tories have gone about things it has been very much about a race to the bottom and it is wrong.

 

If you are talking about big and very profitable company's paying an extra £1.50 an hour then maybe they can afford it. For smaller businesses that employ staff on minimum wage it simply isn't an option, as a publican interviewed on Radio 4 the other day lucidly explained. Once he'd paid all his overheads his take home was actually below minimum wage. Being forced to pay his staff £1 per hour more would to lead to either fewer staff or the business going under completely.

Obviously you can't have a situation where minimum wage is varied by occupation, so when the margins in a business are that tight then what to do? Reduce corporation tax so the employer can pay their employees more?

Don't get me wrong I agree with the principle of what you are saying, I just think that sometimes these debates about 'fairness' are carried out in a vacuum that ignores economic reality for many businesses.

 

So his business isn't that viable in the first place either that or he needs to put about 10p on a pint

 

Many pubs are similarly on a knife edge regarding profitability, would it be better to put up the minimum wage, put them out of business and have everyone involved lose their jobs?  That's the alternative if simply increasing your prices isn't an option that would be accepted by your customer base.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Awol

[bickster]

Pubs don't go out of business because they put 10p on a pint, pubs go out of business because they don't attract enough people through the door. Putting the minimum wage up, gives people more money, they might actually be able to afford to go to the pub

Many pubs are similarly on a knife edge regarding profitability

Only the crap ones mainly. There are whole swathes of publicans out there whose idea of running a pub is to open the doors in the morning, watch telly upstairs all day and ring time at the end of the day and count the money

[Awol]

I think the minimum wage debate has been one sided for years, all I ever hear is small business can't afford it - soon after which it gets kicked into the long grass. That's why people are starving and freezing in their rented accommodation.

Part of the answer has already been mooted by Awol, with the lowering of tax on small and new businesses.

 That's exactly the point though, isn't it?  How many of those who would reflexively call for an increase in minimum wage  would be as vociferous about taxes on SME's being lowered?  Not many I'd wager, because it seems to me that many view employers/business in general as the 'enemy' exploiting the poor workers. Great for one's Marxist cred's but not so smart for running an economy.

[Kingfisher]

I think the minimum wage debate has been one sided for years, all I ever hear is small business can't afford it - soon after which it gets kicked into the long grass. That's why people are starving and freezing in their rented accommodation.

Part of the answer has already been mooted by Awol, with the lowering of tax on small and new businesses.

That's exactly the point though, isn't it? How many of those who would reflexively call for an increase in minimum wage would be as vociferous about taxes on SME's being lowered? Not many I'd wager, because it seems to me that many view employers/business in general as the 'enemy' exploiting the poor workers. Great for one's Marxist cred's but not so smart for running an economy.

I'd wager it would be more than you think. The biggest enemy of small business at the moment is the current free market model that only looks after the big corporations. Us lefty's want a nation of small businesses.

[MakemineVanilla]

I tend to take IDS's claim to be the modern Wilberforce as seriously as Thatcher's claim to be St Francis: it is a measure of their pathological vanity and self-delusion but otherwise it is meaningless.

 

I just think that when governments deliberately and knowingly create huge levels of unemployment as a matter of policy, they really can't start blaming the victims, when three or four generations down the line, the relatives of the original victims have inherited a family tradition of surviving on benefits.

 

Add in the contributory factor of government-created ghettos of housing estates where the unemployed are crowded together and where there are no role-models, then the situation which IDS is preaching about seems inevitable and predictable.

 

Right up to the 1980s when the Tories implemented their Friedman austerity package in an effort to control inflation, unemployment was a hot issue with all parties and the one million unemployment mark was considered a political disaster, which all parties did their absolute best to tackle; the Tory's inflationary budgets of the 1960s were all meant to help alleviate the problem of growing unemployment.

 

The Tories gave up on trying to do anything about unemployment and it became the 'price worth paying' as they set about trying to cure the inflation caused by the 'oil shock' of 1973. 

 

Since then no government has really tried to tackle unemployment and recently the head of the BOE declared that over two million (7%) is an acceptable figure, which was a level at which he said he would start deflating the economy by increasing interest rates. No government ever talks of 'full employment' any more.

 

Now we have 2.3m unemployed and that is acceptable, which shows how high unemployment is now and an accepted feature of the economy.

 

This would have been unthinkable and political suicide in the 1960s and 70s.

 

So if high unemployment is accepted as an necessary feature of a modern post-industrial economy, how has IDS the brass balls to pretend that that isn't the case and claim that the predicament of the long-term unemployed is only caused by their lack of moral fibre.

 

It seems dishonest, hypocritical and cowardly to tell such a whopper. 

Edited January 26, 2014 by MakemineVanilla

[chrisp65]

 

I think the minimum wage debate has been one sided for years, all I ever hear is small business can't afford it - soon after which it gets kicked into the long grass. That's why people are starving and freezing in their rented accommodation.

Part of the answer has already been mooted by Awol, with the lowering of tax on small and new businesses.

 That's exactly the point though, isn't it?  How many of those who would reflexively call for an increase in minimum wage  would be as vociferous about taxes on SME's being lowered?  Not many I'd wager, because it seems to me that many view employers/business in general as the 'enemy' exploiting the poor workers. Great for one's Marxist cred's but not so smart for running an economy.

 

 

I think that's quite a wrong assumption. I don't belive I've ever heard any of my marxist cred friends describe the local butcher or novelty shop owner as the enemy. I know a good few people with red cred currently trying to support quite a few start ups.

 

I have heard people query why, locally, Amazon have been given massive state aid to site their mega warehouse in Swansea. Once installed in their free accommodation they've employed a skeleton workforce on pedometers to monitor their minimum wage performance. From there, they are able to undermine the High Streets.

 

Then they pay no tax.

 

But hey, we've got to be competitive in the modern world, right?

[Kingfisher]

Horrible, anti-business lefty Caroline Lucas called for more tax relief for small businesses last November.

http://www.economicvoice.com/caroline-lucas-calls-for-more-tax-relief-for-small-businesses/

[peterms]

Many pubs are similarly on a knife edge regarding profitability, would it be better to put up the minimum wage, put them out of business and have everyone involved lose their jobs?  That's the alternative if simply increasing your prices isn't an option that would be accepted by your customer base.

Pubs are a bit of a special case. Like most small businesses, they are being exploited by parasitic rentiers screwing money out of them. On top of that, they have the restrictive practices and one-sided contracts that are imposed on them by the pubcos. In most cases, these two parasitic practices are carried out by the same entity, like Enterprise Inns and the rest of them, but it's useful to view the two sets of exploitative practices separately to understand what makes their position a little different from small businesses in general.

If you ask a struggling licensee what would make the pub profitable, I doubt that cutting wage costs would be the first answer.

An approach which takes away the power of pubcos would raise incomes for both publicans and staff, create more freedom of operation for licensees, make it far easier to run a pub profitably, and safeguard what (in smaller communities especially) may be a useful community resource. But the current situation, like so much else in our society, is aimed at protecting the interests of the wealthy who do literally nothing to make these pubs work, just sit back and cream off the profits from work done by others.

[peterms]

 

 

I think the minimum wage debate has been one sided for years, all I ever hear is small business can't afford it - soon after which it gets kicked into the long grass. That's why people are starving and freezing in their rented accommodation.

Part of the answer has already been mooted by Awol, with the lowering of tax on small and new businesses.

 That's exactly the point though, isn't it?  How many of those who would reflexively call for an increase in minimum wage  would be as vociferous about taxes on SME's being lowered?  Not many I'd wager, because it seems to me that many view employers/business in general as the 'enemy' exploiting the poor workers. Great for one's Marxist cred's but not so smart for running an economy.

 

 

I think that's quite a wrong assumption. I don't belive I've ever heard any of my marxist cred friends describe the local butcher or novelty shop owner as the enemy. I know a good few people with red cred currently trying to support quite a few start ups.

 

I have heard people query why, locally, Amazon have been given massive state aid to site their mega warehouse in Swansea. Once installed in their free accommodation they've employed a skeleton workforce on pedometers to monitor their minimum wage performance. From there, they are able to undermine the High Streets.

 

Then they pay no tax.

 

But hey, we've got to be competitive in the modern world, right?

 

 

That's exactly right.  Most people of a vaguely left inclination are far more likely to support the idea of small business.  The right tend to speak approvingly of small business, but the policies enacted by tory governments down the years have favoured the big corporations, not small business.  In most cases, whether it's rents, terms of trade, undercutting or whatever, big corporations are the enemy of small businesses.

 

Where people on the left would be wary of simply cutting tax on small business without doing anything else is where the benefit would just be taken by the rentiers.  In that situation, the small business would just be the conduit for passing more money to rentiers, like a form of money-laundering.  The point is to find a package of measures which actually assist small business, which is a little more complicated than just saying "cut the business rates".