UK - Election 2015

[Craig B]

I mentioned universal benefits and all those I listed are payments. I stated removing this universality was incompatible with "a move right". You disagreed.



So please explain why it serves left of centre political ideals to make such government payments to rich people.

You mean, for example, a standard rate of state pension?

 

[3point14]

You load caveats onto one comprehensive measure (the size of the state), but are perfectly happy to conclude that a falling headline business tax rate is a rightward shift of the centre ground.

Right . . .

Maybe the country hasn't moved but you've moved left?

Maybe.

Tax rates are lower, services are farmed out to private companies so profit can be made from utilities, the prices of the privatised services (gas, other power, rail and others) rises as a result of privatisation, tution fees are no longer paid and benefits are being attacked and reduced due to the false impression given that nearly all money spent by the government is on work-shy spongers. The age of retirement is rising, pensions are being devalued and p[ublic sector workers are having contracts upon which they've based their lifestyle pulled from under them because they are no longer affordable.

But maybe it's just my perception.

 

[Craig B]

I mentioned universal benefits and all those I listed are payments. I stated removing this universality was incompatible with "a move right". You disagreed.



So please explain why it serves left of centre political ideals to make such government payments to rich people.

Again, your view of universal benefits in relation to left and right ideologies is exceptional. This is a more conventional left wing analysis of the issue.

 

[Francesca R]

But maybe it's just my perception.

Yes maybe. The tax rate one I have dealt with but you have different standards for accepting your data/inference than you have for rejecting mine.

Greater privatisation has to be set against a greater share of government activity in the economy. It is simply not the case that the private provision of stuff has grown as a share of the total.

As I have argued elsewhere many times (and won't re-hash here) state-paid university tuition is not egalitarian. Of course it does swell the size of the state. Except that it rations university places so it doesn't. It is incompatible with left of centre politics even if lefties deny it until they are blue in the face.

Raising the retirement age is neither left nor right but consistent with rising longevity and falling fertility and failure to do this is grossly unfair from the perspective of older generations fleecing younger ones.

A similar logic applies to cutting the defined but unfunded benefits of public and private sector workers (private sector workers have seen bigger cuts in such pension benefits). The promises made were unfair to the unborn.

So maybe its your perception.

Or maybe the popular idea of what is left or right is wrong headed and muddled in many ways. I certainly think that is plausible when I am called both liberal (by an American, meaning "left wing") and Thatcherite (by someone in this thread) in the same day.

 

[3point14]

Yes maybe. The tax rate one I have dealt with but you have different standards for accepting your data/inference than you have for rejecting mine.

Greater privatisation has to be set against a greater share of government activity in the economy. It is simply not the case that the private provision of stuff has grown as a share of the total.

Can you show the numbers for this?

As I have argued elsewhere many times (and won't re-hash here) state-paid university tuition is not egalitarian. Of course it does swell the size of the state. Except that it rations university places so it doesn't. It is incompatible with left of centre politics even if lefties deny it until they are blue in the face.

Ah, well, this may be where I differ from those who decide their position before they've seen the evidence (those who vehemently identify as 'left' or right' so we all now what they'll say on any given issue.


State paid university education is beneficial for those smart or dedicated enough to benefit from it. I advocate a return to competetive examination, those in the top30% (or whatever seems suitable) can go to university for free with a grant for living. Someone not in the top 30% can pay their own way, but good luck getting a loan if one's educational background doesn't indicate it's a worthwhile effort, but I digress...

Raising the retirement age is neither left nor right but consistent with rising longevity and falling fertility and failure to do this is grossly unfair from the perspective of older generations fleecing younger ones.

A similar logic applies to cutting the defined but unfunded benefits of public and private sector workers (private sector workers have seen bigger cuts in such pension benefits). The promises made were unfair to the unborn.

Given that the size of the size of the economy is expanding and corporate profits are at an all time high, I question your assertion that the country cannot afford the above.

So maybe its your perception.

Maybe. I still remain unconvinced.

Or maybe the popular idea of what is left or right is wrong headed and muddled in many ways. I certainly think that is plausible when I am called both liberal (by an American, meaning "left wing") and Thatcherite (by someone in this thread) in the same day.

Again, this reflects on the 'left/right' labelling of politics. It's not fit for purpose. It's fairly easy for someone not slavishly aligned to party politics to appear to be a raving left wing loon about some things and a raving right wing loon about others.

 

[Craig B]

A similar logic applies to cutting the defined but unfunded benefits of public and private sector workers (private sector workers have seen bigger cuts in such pension benefits). The promises made were unfair to the unborn.

So maybe its your perception.

Or maybe the popular idea of what is left or right is wrong headed and muddled in many ways. I certainly think that is plausible when I am called both liberal (by an American, meaning "left wing") and Thatcherite (by someone in this thread) in the same day.

I think it's more correct than yours, and that this accounts for the fact that you are in a small minority. Your views are common, perhaps even politically dominant, but most of the people who entertain them would self define as on the Right, I'm sure.

One certainly "Left" opinion you have is your enthusiasm for immigration. I would be grateful if you could explain your reasoning on this issue, as I asked before. My question is not hostile: I myself have no problems about immigration.

 

[MikeG]

........Anyway we can't talk about asset strippers, because they're predators; but we can talk about naughty banks because they're not predators. Is that it?.........

Yeah that's right Craig, of course it's it, if you are utterly incapable of comprehending a very simple sentence about a very simple concept. Obviously, you'll be able to point out where anyone has tried to stop conversation about asset strippers.

 

[MikeG]

.....pensions are being devalued.......

But maybe it's just my perception.

Yes, that is certainly just your perception. Perhaps you'll tell us what this perception is based on, as it is in conflict with the facts.

 

[3point14]

Yes, that is certainly just your perception. Perhaps you'll tell us what this perception is based on, as it is in conflict with the facts.

Maybe there are...

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/may/17/public-sector-pensions-reduced-third

 

[MikeG]

You didn't say "some public sectors workers pensions are being devalued". If you had, there would be no argument. You said "pensions are being devalued". That's an argument for the general case. The general case for pensioners doesn't reflect your claim.

 

[GlennB]

You didn't say "some public sectors workers pensions are being devalued". If you had, there would be no argument. You said "pensions are being devalued". That's an argument for the general case. The general case for pensioners doesn't reflect your claim.

I think he made a valid point. "People are living rough on the streets in London" doesn't become an untrue statement just because not all Londoners are living rough. Meanwhile 4M people affected is a pretty tidy number.

 

[Craig B]

Yeah that's right Craig, of course it's it, if you are utterly incapable of comprehending a very simple sentence about a very simple concept. Obviously, you'll be able to point out where anyone has tried to stop conversation about asset strippers.

Don't think I'm impressed, let alone abashed, by your accusations of imbecility. The fined banks were predators. They were diverting money from the hands of the public to their own coffers by manipulating published data. The banks who exploited borrowers during the credit bubble were rightly accused of predatory lending, so the use of this term to describe abuse by banks of those members of the public who use their services is well established, and it is an appropriate subject for political comment.

Which is far from saying that all, or even most, private companies or corporations are predators in this or any other sense.

 

[MikeG]

......The banks who exploited borrowers during the credit bubble were rightly accused of predatory lending, so the use of this term to describe abuse by banks of those members of the public who use their services is well established.....

So, an unproven accusation by someone somewhere against some bank entitles you to describe all banks as predatory. Right. By the same logic, you are a murderer and I am a cannibal. Or vice versa. When you can show that multiple UK-based banks have been found guilty in court or by the relevant authorities of predatory lending in the UK, then, and only then, can you even begin to justify calling them predators. I'll still argue you are wrong, because unlike asset strippers, the true predators, this isn't their raison d'etre.

This is fluff, though. It is irrelevant. I am simply pointing out that heinous as the banks behaviour was they can't be accused of anything and everything you fancy. They did specific things wrong, none of which puts them in the category of "predatory". Words have meanings, and you are misusing this one. Your ability to get hung up on the minutiae and miss the broader point is apparently boundless.

 

[Francesca R]

Can you show the numbers for this?

Annex tables 25 and 26 of this. That only goes back to 1997 though. Here is a longer history, the source is official and designated on the accompanying site.

Given that the size of the size of the economy is expanding and corporate profits are at an all time high, I question your assertion that the country cannot afford the above.

The economy is not expanding fast enough. Again this is not much history but it's the dependency ratio for the UK

 

[Francesca R]

This is a more conventional left wing analysis of the issue.

I have seen it before and my view is that it is a collection of weak-logic arguments with great paucity of evidence from the perspective of pseudo-left apologism for unreasonably excessive and relatively regressive spending. You may call it conventional left as you wish. But if "conventional left wing" means coming up with any justification one can find to ramp up state size and control ever higher no matter what then I would not think it has much merit.

 

[Craig B]

So, an unproven accusation by someone somewhere against some bank entitles you to describe all banks as predatory. Right.

Or as I in fact stated.

Which is far from saying that all, or even most, private companies or corporations are predators in this or any other sense.

More to come in response to your last contribution.

 

[Craig B]

... if "conventional left wing" means coming up with any justification one can find to ramp up state size and control ever higher no matter what then I would not think it has much merit.

It doesn't mean anything of that kind, so its merits are much greater than you believe.

 

[Craig B]

So, an unproven accusation by someone somewhere against some bank entitles you to describe all banks as predatory.

Did you sleep through the world financial crisis of 2008? The "someone somewhere" said this.

The U.S. Senate's Levin–Coburn Report concluded that the crisis was the result of "high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street." The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded that the financial crisis was avoidable and was caused by "widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision," "dramatic failures of corporate governance and risk management at many systemically important financial institutions," "a combination of excessive borrowing, risky investments, and lack of transparency" by financial institutions, ill preparation and inconsistent action by government that "added to the uncertainty and panic," a "systemic breakdown in accountability and ethics," "collapsing mortgage-lending standards and the mortgage securitization pipeline," deregulation of over-the-counter derivatives, especially credit default swaps, and "the failures of credit rating agencies" to correctly price risk. The 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act effectively removed the separation between investment banks and depository banks in the United States. Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets.

The mad Commies who write for the Guardian gloated

It was the year the neo-liberal economic orthodoxy that ran the world for 30 years suffered a heart attack of epic proportions. Not since 1929 has the financial community witnessed 12 months like it. Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. Merrill Lynch, AIG, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, HBOS, Royal Bank of Scotland, Bradford & Bingley, Fortis, Hypo and Alliance & Leicester all came within a whisker of doing so and had to be rescued.

And there was a panic run on Northern Rock bank. That's the first time such a thing has happened in the UK since the nineteenth century. 1866 in England, and 1878 in Scotland. That's my unproven accusation against some bank. The rescue cost a lot of dosh, and some of the banks were put under government supervision. In my own case I was compensated by my bank for mis-selling me deposit insurance, that I can't even remember buying from them. Untold numbers of other people were similarly compensated.

Your strange post indicates that you've never heard about any of this.

 

[MikeG]

Keep digging, Craig. You reveal far more about yourself than you do about me with this nonsense. Perhaps you could highlight in your US Senate quote where anyone says anything about "predator"?

Just to help you out this one time, in a bid to save you from further embarrassment, let me summarise.

Francesca mentioned Labour dividing the corporate world into producers and predators.

You misunderstood this as Francesca saying there was no such thing as predator corporations, and linked to an article about a bank which had been found guilty of fixing the Libor rate.

I pointed out that you were misunderstanding the definition of predator, and that the actual definition were asset-strippers. Banks were guilty of all sorts of heinous crimes, but not of asset stripping, and thus couldn't be called predators. Labour were wrong to use the term in the context they did.

3.14 also didn't get this, and asked for clarification.

I responded with:

No. It's bad, but it isn't predatory. Predation involves consuming your victim. Asset strippers do/ did that all the time: buying up companies to get their land banks, or their patents, or whatever, and selling the rest of the assets off after sacking the workforce. That's a predator, and heinous as some of the bank behaviour has been, they don't behave like that.

3.14 accepted this and thanked me for the clarification.

However, you blundered on, and are still blundering on. You keep telling me how bad the banks are (without seeing that I said the same thing myself), and that a financial crash happened in 2008 (as though this helps with whatever point you are trying to make). Keep going. It amuses me to watch you make a fool of yourself again.

All you need to do to stop everyone laughing at you is to understand that "predator" doesn't mean whatever you want it to. It has a very specific meaning, which is not "everything bad that the banks have ever done".

 

[Francesca R]

It doesn't mean anything of that kind, so its merits are much greater than you believe.

Your link emphasises "to each according to need". Which is indeed a central plank of fairness about which progressivism and the political left is anchored, and which has merit. But universalism contradicts that. Universalism is simply "to each always no matter what". Isn't it? Yes. So the article contradicts itself. Universalism is not about to each according to need. It is not about progressiveness. It is illegitimate to try to use progressiveness as a justification for universalism.

The other catchphrase it trumps is "from cradle to grave". That's more like it. Let the state take care of everyone no matter what. The bigger the cuddly state, the better. If that is your "conventional left" then it is without merit and unethical.

If you are concerned with stigmatisation of selectivity I look forward to your activism against the stigma of higher tax rates on rich people.

If you are concerned about the prohibitive expense of means testing I look forward to your calls to stop means testing people's incomes altogether and implement a flat tax.

If on the other hand these are tired old excuses and cover for something else then, as before, you are being disingenuous.

What is the income-egalitarian justification for making government payments to rich people, again?