State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[ahinton]

You may not believe this but many people are actually concerned about injustice.

I know! Terrible, isn't it?! How dare these people feel like that when they should know that their proper rôle in life is to do and think what they're told to do and think?

[ahinton]

Yes, quite often the envious ones. Knocking down IDS or his rich dad, does nothing positive.

I do neither. I merely mention that his proposals are almost guaranteed to exacerbate divisiveness of the kind that I described. I don't care how rich he or his father-in-law might be; I am concerned in this context only with what he's proposing to introduce from the standpoint that he is privileged to be able to occupy.

[ahinton]

On the contrary, I have a higher opinion of humanity than you, it seems to me. I have belief in people to make something of themselves, rather than chopping down successful people and "making us all equal".

So would you say that a substantial proportion of poor people have failed to do this and that they accordingly have only themselves to blame for their consequent plight?

[ahinton]

That's the point. People like Sugar and IDS don't bother me. I'm not the envious type. What does it matter what others have got? Good luck to them. If there are people who don't have enough, we must empower them

Fine - so how would you propose to do this? Presumably not by introducing the measures proposed by IDS...

[Beef Oven!]

Fine - so how would you propose to do this? Presumably not by introducing the measures proposed by IDS...

Well you don't empower people by giving them handouts.

[ahinton]

Well you don't empower people by giving them handouts.

But in the absence of sufficient work that pays enough to life people out of benefit entitlement, benefits (not "handouts", please) continue to be necessary and you surely are not suggesting that third and subsequent children need to be "empowered" in some way, are you?

[MrGongGong]

Well you don't empower people by giving them handouts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family

Seems to be ok for these 'benefit scroungers'?

[P. G. Tipps]

But in the absence of sufficient work that pays enough to life people out of benefit entitlement, benefits (not "handouts", please) continue to be necessary and you surely are not suggesting that third and subsequent children need to be "emopowered" in some way, are you?

Well according to my trusty dictionary the word 'benefit' suggests a gain from being in a particular situation, in this case from not working or from not earning enough on which to reasonably exist and bring up kids.

Are you seriously suggesting that people should 'benefit' from being in these situations compared to others?

'Handouts' may be an inaccurate word but much less so than the absurd 'benefits'.

'State Assistance' might be a better term, I most humbly suggest.

[Richard Barrett]

Seems to be ok for these 'benefit scroungers'?

The word "handouts" immediately reminded me of them but I see you beat me to it.

The current propaganda seems to be that poor people are poor because of some failing - to "make something of themselves" - whereas plenty of evidence shows that, at least in the UK, the most accurate predictor of future success (academic, economic, you name it) is parental wealth. No, we don't empower people by giving them handouts, we empower people by managing the national economy so that living-wage employment opportunities are expanded, something the current government has shown a complete lack of interest in doing. "Handouts" on the other hand are often a matter of surviving or not. Cutting benefits like this government has done, is doing and intends to continue doing is punishing people for being poor. Bringing about equality is not about "chopping down successful people", it's about creating a situation where people don't fall into poverty and where they receive assistance if perchance they do. If that were the case there would be a good deal less fuss made about fat cats. One thing that's striking about the "democracy rankings" mentioned earlier by Lord Oven is that the top three, all Scandinavian countries, are significantly more equal societies than the UK as far as wealth distribution is concerned, and this they achieve by relatively high progressive taxation and an extensive social security system.

Anyway, returning to the state of the parties, Osborne's autumn statement seems to have prodiced a negative effect for the Tories in terms of opinion polls. I would stick my neck out at this stage and say that despite all the fevered speculation in news media the most likely outcome next May is a majority Labour government. I don't say that because it's my favoured outcome although of course there are far worse possibilities.

[Flosshilde]

Because even though the minimum wage is being offered, there will still be plenty of takers. It's, ahem, supply and demand.

That's what I thought you'd say. But what would happen to the people who decided that they didn't want to work for pay that isn't enough to live on (or didn't want the uncertainty of zero-hours contracts, or a part time job)? They would be refused benefits. So they take the job, are eligible for benefits and are demonised as 'scroungers'. They have no power in 'the market', which is managed - manipulated - by employers (who get subsidised for paying low wages through tax credits)

[MrGongGong]

One thing that's striking about the "democracy rankings" mentioned earlier by Lord Oven is that the top three, all Scandinavian countries, are significantly more equal societies than the UK as far as wealth distribution is concerned, and this they achieve by relatively high progressive taxation and an extensive social security system.
.

Indeed

(I've not had time to read this today but it might have something interesting to say?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/upshot/nordic-nations-show-that-big-safety-net-can-allow-for-leap-in-employment-rate-.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

[Beef Oven!]

Indeed

(I've not had time to read this today but it might have something interesting to say?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/up...=fb-share&_r=0

Now you ahinton and Lord Barrett might begin to understand a little about empowering people instead of giving them hand-outs. Facilitation through subsidised care for children, cheap subsidised transport, free education, generous leave (employment) policies.

The article you link us to headlines as 'safety net' then goes on to list the drivers behind better employment as 'facilitation/empowerment' enablers. And there's the difference.

I think the politics of envy that so many people in this forum go in for, leads them to want to cut down the big trees instead of growing the smaller ones that the Scandinavians seem to be doing so successfully.

[Beef Oven!]

Indeed

(I've not had time to read this today but it might have something interesting to say?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/up...=fb-share&_r=0

I think you should find the time to read it - it explains what I've been banging on about concerning empowerment and enablement as opposed to redistributing the wealth as handouts.

[ahinton]

Well according to my trusty dictionary the word 'benefit' suggests a gain from being in a particular situation, in this case from not working or from not earning enough on which to reasonably exist and bring up kids.

Are you seriously suggesting that people should 'benefit' from being in these situations compared to others?

'Handouts' may be an inaccurate word but much less so than the absurd 'benefits'.

'State Assistance' might be a better term, I most humbly suggest.

"Handouts" carries the wrong kinds of connotation, as I said. Whether "benefits" is the most suitable word may indeed be open to question, but that is what they are officially called, so if you want to have an argument about the suitability of the official term used for funds paid out by the state to the needy as well as to those above state retirement age, please go ahead but, at the same time, please accept that this is a different issue to that of working people whose earnings are low enough to qualify them for what you'd prefer to call "State Assistance", which seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable term for it except that it's two wrodsw instead of one and you'd then have to invent a new one for state retirement benefit.

Of course people do not "benefit" from having to receive such assistance other than in the sense that they'd be in an even more parlous state without them.

[ahinton]

Now you ahinton and Lord Barrett might begin to understand a little about empowering people instead of giving them hand-outs. Facilitation through subsidised care for children, cheap subsidised transport, free education, generous leave (employment) policies.

The article you link us to headlines as 'safety net' then goes on to list the drivers behind better employment as 'facilitation/empowerment' enablers. And there's the difference.

I think the politics of envy that so many people in this forum go in for, leads them to want to cut down the big trees instead of growing the smaller ones that the Scandinavians seem to be doing so successfully.

Well I for one don't go in for the "politics of envy" and never have; I just don't care how much rich people have except to the extent that their riches has been dependent upon screwing the poor and making them poorer. Unlike some here, I am more exercised by poverty than by inequality, although that's not to say that I uphold inequality - I don't - but where, for that matter, do Richard Barrett's statements that "bringing about equality is not about "chopping down successful people", it's about creating a situation where people don't fall into poverty and where they receive assistance if perchance they do" and "if that were the case there would be a good deal less fuss made about fat cats" suggest "the politics of envy" and the desire "to cut down the big trees instead of growing the smaller ones"?

I cannot speak for Richard Barrett but I daresay that he would - as indeed I would - answer the question once posed to Hugh MacDiarmid - "what do you want to do about the poor?" with "get rid of them!" - by which, of course, he was not seeking to advocate mass genocide. If we could indeed get to the point at which those entitled to claim state benefits (or "State Assistance", if you will) are restricted to a very small number of mostly disabled people because no one else any longer needed them, we would have achieved something of immense importance for the well-being of the nation as a whole and, if only they'd realise it, rich people would benefit from this, too. Present government policy, however, is for the most part going in the opposite direction to that.