Corbyn did win, what's next?

[MikeG]

........The planned withdrawal of tax credits is criminal without a corresponding increase to the minimum wage levels........

Except that's exactly what they are doing.

The stupid thing is that aren't doing them at exactly the same time, and I hope that gets sorted by parliament during the course of this bill.

 

[Lothian]

Except that's exactly what they are doing.

The stupid thing is that aren't doing them at exactly the same time, and I hope that gets sorted by parliament during the course of this bill.

Tax credit cut 2016. Living wage by 2020. Although I suspect that there will still be living wage get out and 'hard working' employers will still be able to take on cheap labour apprentices on a fraction of the living wage for 12 months before releasing them and taking a new lot on.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Well, the treasury has to make savings somewhere, it's easier to hit the low paid than it is to get their pals in business to pay their tax.

 

[GlennB]

Well, the treasury has to make savings somewhere, it's easier to hit the low paid than it is to get their pals in business to pay their tax.

He's been promising to tackle multinational corporation tax avoidance for a few years now, but every 'initiative' so far has been a stalling manoeuvre. Let's see how Osborne's "Google tax" works out though. Can't say I'm full of confidence.

 

[asydhouse]

I can tell you that unemployed life is pretty dire. At least compared to having a reasonably decent job. That, to me, is suffering, perhaps not compared to being unemployed in some other parts of the world, but compared to people in work.

Now, I understand the requirement for an incentive to work, at least in the world we live in at the moment, so I have no idea what the solution is, but the problem I'm having is that some people are required to be unemployed, and being unemployed is, for most people, very unpleasant. Not just because of one's circumstances, but because when unemployed, one always knows that society views the unemployed as layabouts who just need to go out and get a job.

And looking for a job is a full-time job in itself, but with absolutely no perks. It rapidly becomes depressing.

Being an artistic sort, and not all that interested in being a consumer, I used to be quite happy subsisting on the dole in the 80s, while I was studying distance learning courses with the Open University, tuition paid by Local Education Authority. I figured I was one of the necessary unemployed, so by living hand-to-mouth and writing poems which were well-received as artistically inspirational contributions to society, I was enabling someone else to have the riches available through employment, at the same time boosting the general levels of well-being in our society.

But the modern narrative is that I am somehow a criminal sort of person offending the morality of the capitalist majority because I am not persuaded of the morality of full-time slaving for a wage.

I hope Switzerland demonstrates that a living allowance for every citizen, as a basic amount required for all physical needs, is a viable and civilised way of enabling the blossoming of artistic and other citizens who are not interested or cut out for the savagely opportunistic economy-driven focus of life in modern society. The feel of our society could be so much more positive and healthy if our citizens were not treated as grist to a monotone mill of capitalist triumphalism.

After ten years on the dole, I managed to get a job in a Waterstone's bookshop newly opened in town, but 13 years later the lying bosses of that company made me redundant along with around 400 other people. I got Unemployment Benefit for 6 months, but after that nothing, because my wife is a nurse. The fact that we keep our finances separate is irrelevant to the government, about which I am not complaining, but the myth that benefits are easy to get in this country is just propaganda which has been repeated for so many years that the current counterproductive hysteria over immigration has taken hold like a cancer in the minds of the public. I blame Labour as much as anyone for chasing tabloid readers and Tory voters instead of standing up with reasoned arguments for principles and vision.

That's why I'm glad Corbyn won, and electability is an issue yet to be determined but may be far more possible than admitted by the whole coalition of Tories and Blairite turncoat Labour MPs, since he has stated right at the start that the first thing is to discuss ideas and work out policies based on the egalitarian principles he has espoused, which resonate with me in a way that has been missing from mainstream politics in this country for far too long.

I was in despair immediately after the election, and was mocked on these boards for expressing my state of mind at the time, which felt very alienating on top of my already alienated state of mind.

I have to say that Corbyn's election has helped my mind to refresh and rise out of the impending mental illness I was feeling. It has reassured me that I'm not alone in my alienation from the ruling elites and the self-interested English middle class minority that re-elected the Tories.

 

[asydhouse]

You really don't need to. I know.



I'm not sure why you have made this point a couple of times. I don't think there is any such requirement, given the proviso that even in full-employment situations there will be a small cohort who are between jobs.

This conversation is all rather disconnected from subject of tax credits, which is where we started, and what the politicians are dealing with at the moment.

Capitalism specifically does require unemployment so that employers can threaten to fire their employees if they don't accept the less than optimal levels of wages. Trade Unionism helped to alleviate that particular stress. Without the Unions, life would be the way the Tories are currently actively trying to make it: stratified, and tight to the bone for all workers, with an underclass of absolute misery to keep the fortunate wage-slaves quiet.

 

[asydhouse]

Tax credit cut 2016. Living wage by 2020. Although I suspect that there will still be living wage get out and 'hard working' employers will still be able to take on cheap labour apprentices on a fraction of the living wage for 12 months before releasing them and taking a new lot on.

By which time the so-called "living wage" won't be much more than the minimum wage would have been anyway. Pure Tory BS.

 

[The Atheist]

Tax credit cut 2016. Living wage by 2020. Although I suspect that there will still be living wage get out and 'hard working' employers will still be able to take on cheap labour apprentices on a fraction of the living wage for 12 months before releasing them and taking a new lot on.

Man, I get sick and tired of you Poms stealing our ideas!

We've been doing that for a couple of years now, and it works out really well. [for the employers]

 

[Ziggurat]

Being an artistic sort, and not all that interested in being a consumer, I used to be quite happy subsisting on the dole in the 80s, while I was studying distance learning courses with the Open University, tuition paid by Local Education Authority. I figured I was one of the necessary unemployed, so by living hand-to-mouth and writing poems which were well-received as artistically inspirational contributions to society, I was enabling someone else to have the riches available through employment, at the same time boosting the general levels of well-being in our society.

Wait... you were consuming resources, and producing basically nothing of value. What on earth made you think that you were boosting the general well-being of society? How does that even work? How could you even think that might work?

That makes no sense. Not one damn lick of sense.

I have to say that Corbyn's election has helped my mind to refresh and rise out of the impending mental illness I was feeling.

You are seeking a political solution to a personal problem. You will never find one.

 

[asydhouse]

Wait... you were consuming resources, and producing basically nothing of value. What on earth made you think that you were boosting the general well-being of society? How does that even work? How could you even think that might work?

That makes no sense. Not one damn lick of sense.

Not to you, obviously. All you can think of is money. Poems and a sense of well-being are intangibles that permeate your society, of which you are ignorant and arrogantly assuming that only material production (and the unsustainable magic dust of "growth", disregarding the soulless cancer you are asking for with your smug dismissal of art and culture) can be the arbiters of health in your one horse society.

I guess we are in mutual contempt.

You are seeking a political solution to a personal problem. You will never find one.

Cos those things are completely divorced, huh?

 

[Antony]

I never said that they fell back to pre-Falklands level, I said they fell back to a level that would not have been wishful thinking back in March '82.

I said they fell back to a level that would have been expected during a period of economic recovery. An improvement in fortunes already reflected by the leap from the figures in last quarter of '81 to the figures in the first quarter of '82.



The surge (</David Steel>) is clear, as is the removal of that surge in the space of a couple of months (dropping 13 points).

This is surreal. That "13 points" is merely the maximum swing in Thatcher's popularity between June 1982 (the height of Falklands euphoria immediately following the conclusion of the conflict) and September/October. This is about as selective an interpretation of data as is possible to imagine.

Even excluding June 1982, Thatcher's popularity post-Falklands averaged 48.5% approval, compared with 30.5% in the 12 months pre-Falklands. This is an 18-point difference - more than your 13 point wobble - over a sustained period of time. Your interpretation really doesn't hold water.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not to you, obviously. All you can think of is money.

Not at all. Quite the reverse, in fact: it is you who are obsessed with how money is distributed, not me. But I do care about work.

Poems and a sense of well-being are intangibles that permeate your society

Your poems have failed to give you a sense of well-being. Why should I believe they do the same for anyone else.

of which you are ignorant and arrogantly assuming that only material production (and the unsustainable magic dust of "growth", disregarding the soulless cancer you are asking for with your smug dismissal of art and culture) can be the arbiters of health in your one horse society.

Not in the least. I'm a big fan of artistic creation. But I'm not a fan of taking money from other people against their will to pay artists to produce art that nobody actually cares about. You can't feed the hungry, house the poor, or heal the sick with poems. Your rationalizations for your action are entirely selfish and self-serving.

Cos those things are completely divorced, huh?

I didn't say they were completely divorced. I said that you will not find a solution to your personal problems in politics. And you won't. Politics will never, can never, deliver the ideal world you desire. Feel free to try to improve politics, but if you actually want to solve your own mental illness (and those are your words, not mine), you'll need to fix yourself, not blame others for your condition. Voting is no substitute for therapy.

 

[Giz]

And looking for a job is a full-time job in itself, but with absolutely no perks. It rapidly becomes depressing.

Being an artistic sort, and not all that interested in being a consumer, I used to be quite happy subsisting on the dole in the 80s, while I was studying distance learning courses with the Open University, tuition paid by Local Education Authority. I figured I was one of the necessary unemployed, so by living hand-to-mouth and writing poems which were well-received as artistically inspirational contributions to society, I was enabling someone else to have the riches available through employment, at the same time boosting the general levels of well-being in our society.

But the modern narrative is that I am somehow a criminal sort of person offending the morality of the capitalist majority because I am not persuaded of the morality of full-time slaving for a wage.

I hope Switzerland demonstrates that a living allowance for every citizen, as a basic amount required for all physical needs, is a viable and civilised way of enabling the blossoming of artistic and other citizens who are not interested or cut out for the savagely opportunistic economy-driven focus of life in modern society. The feel of our society could be so much more positive and healthy if our citizens were not treated as grist to a monotone mill of capitalist triumphalism.

After ten years on the dole, I managed to get a job in a Waterstone's bookshop newly opened in town, but 13 years later the lying bosses of that company made me redundant along with around 400 other people. I got Unemployment Benefit for 6 months, but after that nothing, because my wife is a nurse. The fact that we keep our finances separate is irrelevant to the government, about which I am not complaining, but the myth that benefits are easy to get in this country is just propaganda which has been repeated for so many years that the current counterproductive hysteria over immigration has taken hold like a cancer in the minds of the public. I blame Labour as much as anyone for chasing tabloid readers and Tory voters instead of standing up with reasoned arguments for principles and vision.

That's why I'm glad Corbyn won, and electability is an issue yet to be determined but may be far more possible than admitted by the whole coalition of Tories and Blairite turncoat Labour MPs, since he has stated right at the start that the first thing is to discuss ideas and work out policies based on the egalitarian principles he has espoused, which resonate with me in a way that has been missing from mainstream politics in this country for far too long.

I was in despair immediately after the election, and was mocked on these boards for expressing my state of mind at the time, which felt very alienating on top of my already alienated state of mind.

I have to say that Corbyn's election has helped my mind to refresh and rise out of the impending mental illness I was feeling. It has reassured me that I'm not alone in my alienation from the ruling elites and the self-interested English middle class minority that re-elected the Tories.

Putting the Poe in poet.

 

[asydhouse]

Putting the Poe in poet.

It's that sort of mockery and refusal to engage with my thoughts that has made me feel mentally ill (depression) from trying to communicate with certain people on this board.

<SNIP>

Edited by jsfisher: 

Edited for compliance with Rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.

Ziggurat, I have been living as an artist without money for all my adult life. I sold a handmade book of my poems on the streets and in coffee shops while I was living in Germany for 6 years in the 80s, and I have seen the pleasure and positive response to my poetry in over 3000 people who bought copies.

Your assumption that living on the dole is necessarily "taking" without giving is why I say you are obsessed with material goods (money, possessions, "product") without recognising the intangible societal aspects of interrelations between people on the street: societal well-being. Your conflation of "employment" with "work" is typical of the sort of people who dismiss artistic work as self-indulgence.

And people in Britain used to be glad of social security, not resenting paying their national insurance contributions, until people propagandised exactly your message for so long that now many people are jumping on the bandwagon to decry the unemployed and the safety net, failing to recognise that they themselves are a heartbeat away from needing it.

But what's the point of talking to you? You are right, your politics is a waste of my time.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat, I have been living as an artist without money for all my adult life.

No you haven't. You've been living as an artist off of other people's money.

I sold a handmade book of my poems on the streets and in coffee shops while I was living in Germany for 6 years in the 80s, and I have seen the pleasure and positive response to my poetry in over 3000 people who bought copies.

And how much were they willing to pay for each copy?

Your assumption that living on the dole is necessarily "taking" without giving is why I say you are obsessed with material goods (money, possessions, "product") without recognising the intangible societal aspects of interrelations between people on the street: societal well-being.

Again, this is simply self-serving rationalization. Intangible social capital matters, but you have no way of actually determining if the amount of benefit you provided is commensurate with the costs you incurred. Furthermore, you certainly are not giving back to the people who are paying you.

Your conflation of "employment" with "work" is typical of the sort of people who dismiss artistic work as self-indulgence.

Again, not at all. But there's an important difference between art that people care about enough to pay for and art that people don't care enough to pay for. If you can't support yourself as an artist, why should society support you? Maybe you simply aren't a good enough artist.

And people in Britain used to be glad of social security, not resenting paying their national insurance contributions, until people propagandised exactly your message for so long that now many people are jumping on the bandwagon to decry the unemployed and the safety net, failing to recognise that they themselves are a heartbeat away from needing it.

I'm not arguing against a safety net. But by your own admission, you didn't use it as a safety net. You used it as a deliberate lifestyle choice. Why would you expect anyone to be happy about that arrangement?

But what's the point of talking to you? You are right, your politics is a waste of my time.

Hey, I'm not the mentally ill one here. Again, your words, not mine.

But you are correct, this is a waste of time. You'll keep blaming me, or anyone else who doesn't flatter you, for your own personal shortcomings. Meanwhile, the gods of the copybook heading are on the march.

 

[MikeG]

.........there's an important difference between art that people care about enough to pay for and art that people don't care enough to pay for.......

I'm basically on your side in this discussion, but we part company here. van Gogh sold only one painting (for money) in his lifetime. Just because people don't care to pay for something now doesn't mean that it isn't of enormous potential societal and economic value.

In almost all other respects, however, I agree with you. I have a number of friends who are artists, writers and performers, and they all have the balls to be self-employed, and do what they can to earn a living. This means sometimes giving private tutorials, running evening classes, or loading bags onto planes at Stansted to make ends meet, in addition to their primary skill. It doesn't involve requiring tax payers to subsidise their art. Not that I have a problem with tax payers subsidising art, but I do have a problem with the notion that artists get to choose whether or not tax-payers subsidise their art/ lifestyle. If this choice is earned (say by an Art's Council grant), rather than just taken (by choosing a life on social security), then fine. But don't just foist your choice on others and expect them to gratefully pick up the bill.

 

[Giz]

I'm basically on your side in this discussion, but we part company here. van Gogh sold only one painting (for money) in his lifetime. Just because people don't care to pay for something now doesn't mean that it isn't of enormous potential societal and economic value.

In almost all other respects, however, I agree with you. I have a number of friends who are artists, writers and performers, and they all have the balls to be self-employed, and do what they can to earn a living. This means sometimes giving private tutorials, running evening classes, or loading bags onto planes at Stansted to make ends meet, in addition to their primary skill. It doesn't involve requiring tax payers to subsidise their art. Not that I have a problem with tax payers subsidising art, but I do have a problem with the notion that artists get to choose whether or not tax-payers subsidise their art/ lifestyle. If this choice is earned (say by an Art's Council grant), rather than just taken (by choosing a life on social security), then fine. But don't just foist your choice on others and expect them to gratefully pick up the bill.

Exactly. We all have hobbies and interests that we wish we had more time for. But most of us realize that it would be immoral to expect others to involuntarily fund our life of leisure activities while we are able to support ourselves.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm basically on your side in this discussion, but we part company here. van Gogh sold only one painting (for money) in his lifetime. Just because people don't care to pay for something now doesn't mean that it isn't of enormous potential societal and economic value.

I think we're actually not that far apart. Note that I didn't say art that people are willing to pay for is good and art that people aren't willing to pay for is bad, but merely that they are different. The former has already proven its worth (according to whatever metric the people paying for it hold - I may not like Thomas Kinkade but some people really do), and requires no forced subsidy from society in order to fund. The latter might in time prove its worth, but society doesn't have an obligation to fund it on the off chance that it might turn out to be a van Gogh.

 

[MikeG]

...... society doesn't have an obligation to fund it on the off chance that it might turn out to be a van Gogh.

Indeed. As, of course, they didn't fund van Gogh.

..........But the modern narrative is that I am somehow a criminal sort of person offending the morality of the capitalist majority because I am not persuaded of the morality of full-time slaving for a wage........

This false dichotomy requires a response. Disregarding the silly perjorative about earning a wage, living on the dole is not the only alternative to being an employee, despite the implication here. There are millions of people in this country who do neither, by running their own business, or being self employed. The latter category is where most artists and writers exist.

 

[Christian Klippel]

van Gogh sold only one painting (for money) in his lifetime

Wasnt's that an ear instead?

Greetings,

Chris