hence also QE. boost the economy by investing in infrastructure, get banks lending to small business again, generally boost the economy and growth will take place. many economists argue a recession is the time to spend, not vice versa.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
hence also QE. boost the economy by investing in infrastructure, get banks lending to small business again, generally boost the economy and growth will take place. many economists argue a recession is the time to spend, not vice versa.
For perhaps the first time in months the audience wasn't confined to Labour Party circles or political watchers, yet instead of raisin g immediate policy issues he took a more self-serving path. "Look at me, i'm listening to you."
He purports to care, but will neither bring up their plight nor draw up a coherent policy alternative.
That's the problem, we're not in a recession any longer and printing money in order to pay for services does not look sound economics. How are you going to sell it to the public? "Money isn't real, we can just print what we want and have everything!" They'll quite reasonably suspect that something which sounds too good to be true, probably is. Labour lost the last election primarily because they were not trusted with the public finances - this has been shown in more or less every analysis since May. This cannot be solved by pledging to spend even more. McDonnell has even conceded the first part of the argument - that we shouldn't be running a deficit. It's then left to the public to decide whether your plan for balancing the books is realistic, which, in this case, I fear they very much will not.
Like I said, Cameron was already pressed on the issue last week. I'm sure if he brought it up you'd have a go at him for that, seeing as you're balls deep in "point scoring" mode right now.
I do completely agree with this. But it is a bit strange when you read the FT or some other financial publication and article after article is talking about persistent low inflation, the risk of deflation, weak commodity prices looking set to continue for some time to come (meaning negative inflationary pressure), how deflation is so much worse than inflation, how we might even need a bit more QE to get us some of that much needed inflation...
But then Corbyn mentions PQE and all of a sudden its "HELL NO! WE MIGHT GET INFLATION!"
Not at all, Corbyn has been elected to lead on policy and i don't believe that he did that today.
I think cynic would be a better description than ill-informed, however if i need to go back an ready my Corbyn Bible i shall certainly endeavour to find the time.
Contrary to what you might believe i do have a passable knowledge of his pledges on policy. I believer it to be a pity that some of the more valid arguments will be overshadowed by waste and false promises. Until such time as he explains the practical implications of renationalisation, as well as the future cost to the taxpayer, id' question if it can be even taker seriously.,
The rhetoric around welfare is interesting because I have no doubt that the number of available jobs is going to plummet quite significantly over the next 25 years due to ever improving automation/robotics/AI etc. If we do not radically reform welfare (I'm in favour of a universal basic income) we will spiral into a situation with ever more widespread poverty and even greater inequality.
Politics is incredibly short sighted in this regard (shock).
They want everyone arguing over how many crumbs they have rather than focusing on who has the rest of the cake.
Politics is incredibly short sighted in this regard (shock).
They want everyone arguing over how many crumbs they have rather than focusing on who has the rest of the cake.
The amount of people with massive families who are perfectly fit enough to work and are scamming the system are utterly insignificant. You are paying almost nothing to them, it's such a small problem the government shouldn't really be bothering with it to the extent they are.
Got any facts to back up that?
Yep, classic scapegoat tactics banging on about them all the time when they are such an insignificant part of the problem. There was an interesting pie chart a while back that showed where welfare payments go and by far the largest slice of it goes on pensioners. And yet the welfare debate always comes back to benefit scroungers, rather than, for example, the sustainability of paying out generous pensions to people who are actually wealthy enough to live quite comfortably without them.
I dont think this is actually the one I saw before but it makes the point. Notice the tiny fraction of welfare going to unemployed "scroungers".
Last edited:
Difference being those pensioners have earned it by paying into it over the years.
this is a decent article https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare_budget_public_spending-29886
Adebesi beat me to it, but the graphs are basically saying the same thing.
Bingo. Also, I wouldn't class the state pension as being 'generous' in any way............
still doesn't justify the 'scrounger' rhetoric, though. they're deliberately trying to peddle this crap to justify their frankly inhumane cuts.
also, even with the % being so small in comparison to the rest of welfare, you can take it even further down because it's not like every single person claiming unemployment is taking the piss.
this is a decent article https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare_budget_public_spending-29886
Adebesi beat me to it, but the graphs are basically saying the same thing.
Cheers, I was just reading that and was about to post it too.
It's clear to see why the government are keen to reign in the benefit spending! To think Corbyn wants to remove the cap is mindless stupidty.
That's not how welfare works. You don't get it because you've 'earned it' you get it because you need it. Some rich old guy/woman can pay for his/herself.
They have, and of course the money should be there for them if they need it. But in a time of austerity, in the spirit of all being in it together, you could make the case that those old people that are wealthy enough to get by without it, should. After all, this is a generation that enjoyed the free education and healthcare for most of their lives that is now being taken away from the younger generation. I dont think there is much reason to feel sorry for the elderly at this stage, they have had a very sweet deal compared to what younger people are facing. And, again, this is not about taking pensions away from the vulnerable elderly, its about means testing the state pension.
There is no doubt whatsoever that there are people and a lot of them getting benefits when they are quite able to work. It is purely those people I have a problem with. Get to work you lazy sods.
Anyone who rightly has a case for benefit then I've no problem with them at all.
not to mention being able to take advantage of the property boom.
You asked for proof that people aren't taking advantage, do you have any proof of how many are?
the point is, and highlighted by the figures, is that this is such a small minority it's barely worth discussing, in context of the overall picture. of course they should be working if they can, but it's clearly not anywhere near the main problem.
I have sympathy for the pensioner who worked all their life, funded their kids growing up and no doubt helped financially, saved for a rainy day and now find themselves earning feck all in interest on their hard earned savings whilst all the time preparing to sell their homes to fund their care home costs.
Meanwhile, others leave school and have no intention of working but have far too many kids than they can afford but carry on regardless because they no I and other tax payers will pay for their homes, kids and lifestyle.
They certainly aren't 'in it together' in this time of austerity as you put it!
No. But I thought using phrases like 'utterly insignificant', 'You are paying almost nothing to them', it's 'such a small problem the government shouldn't really be bothering with it' needed some backing up.
Its a distraction, like a "magician" distracting you with one hand so you dont see what he is doing with the other one. That is the only reason it is worth discussing. It is quite stunning the success they and the right wing press have had in framing the entire welfare debate around such an insignificant factor.
And what about the £4.2bn the treasury estimates the country loses every month due to corporate tax avoidance, surely you're more angry about that than the millions of pounds (and it is millions) of wrongfully claimed benefits?
Step away from the copy of The Daily Mail.
If it's not significant enough for you to be able to get stats on then I would suggest that they aren't too far off.
I don't think there are many who would say that people erroneously claiming benefits is morally right. The fact is that the numbers of people doing it so low that it's not really a significant drain on public finances and, frankly, the government's justification of their attacks on welfare on the basis that a tiny minority are abusing the system goes beyond spin into fully-fledged propaganda.
It makes up the main picture and needs addressing as does every other benefit that helps make up such a massive drain on our resources.
That stupid line does get tedious. ABSOLUTELY agree!! That and all loopholes need closing.
The same could be said for the person or you to provide the figures to show how small a problem it is.
Generally if you want to take action to stop something that you view as a problem then the responsibility should lie on you to prove that it is a problem rather than the other way round.
Like I said if it's such a big issue then there should be plenty of studies supporting your case. Maybe there are! I honestly don't know.
As does people constantly banging on about these hoardes of people leaving school with no intention of doing any work and having massive families which are paid for by taxpayers. Sure, there are people who do that. But as people are repeatedly saying, this is not actually the problem. As in, if every single one of them was cut off and didnt receive a penny from now on, it would not eliminate the deficit, it would not sort out the country's finances. And yet every discussion about welfare is completely dominated by this. Why? Because the Tories and the Tory press wont stop going on about it.
That might seem to be how it works, but it's not. Currently working people pay for the pensions of those currently retired. As those currently retired paid for the pensions of those who have died. It's like a conveyor belt.
I'm not advocating an attack on the state pension, but suggesting they have "earned" it any more than a younger or working person who requires welfare is at best misleading.
Just a point, not that I agree scroungers are such a huge drain, that second chart shows housing benefit as quite a fair chunk.
That's by far and away how they 'benefit' most.
That's by far and away how they 'benefit' most.
Not dissimilar to the way migrants are said to simultaneously "take all of our jobs" whilst "living their lives on benefits they haven't earned". Easy targets.
The trouble with welfare is that it's so complex and takes into account so many different individual circumstances that you can spin the topline figures how you like. People won't look solely at the unemployment benefit figure, for example, they'll look at the disability benefit and say plenty are exaggerating and could work, they'll look at the tax credits and say people are working less hours than they need to and will get topped up by the state, or pop out extra kids for a bit extra. If people find it easy to believe that this is the case, there's no really easy way of us demonstrating that it isn't without doing some fairly hefty research. Then you've also got the fact that the government's landed on a line that many people will instinctively agree with - people on benefits shouldn't on average earn more than someone in work. Hence you get the benefit cap. The challenge for Labour is how they can convince a public that is hostile to welfare spending to spend more on it. Focusing on empathy alone isn't going to cut it, not because people are all harsh bastards but because they can be convinced that some people are cheating the system, which shatters confidence in it.
Conveyor belt is kind of failing at the moment though since the idea of a pension does not really take into account how long people live these days. But feck knows how you solve that issue.
Soylent Green. 2 birds, 1 stone.
Raise the retirement age. It's unfortunate, nobody wants to be told they have to work well into their 70s. But that's what has to happen in the end.
I've not mentioned hoardes and where did I say the deficit would be wiped out by sorting out the scroungers?
Its quite clear to see that problem by looking at the massive amount spent on benefits whether that be unemployment, housing, tax credit, disability etc ....it all needs looking at to make sure only those who deserve it gets it.
We're not going to agree about what's the best way forward so let's just agree not to eh?