has Disco Dave Cameron put his foot in it?

[audiotech]

taking money off rich people is indeed to the right of Thatcher

you'll fall for any old crap

 

[trevhagl]

you'll fall for any old crap

that was sarcastic, in reply to the poster who said that taking child benefit away from rich people was somehow more right wing than Thatcher!

 

[audiotech]

that was sarcastic, in reply to the poster who said that taking child benefit away from rich people was somehow more right wing than Thatcher!

Cameron, Osborne 'one nation tories' trev?

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's the un-deserving/deserving poor dichotomy brought back to life first by NL...

Nope, by Thatchers' and then Majors' govts.

...wait for the workhouses to be introduced...

Won't happen. Workhouses would mean a minimum decent standard of provision being enforced that'd ramp up public expenditure way beyond current welfare costs.

...a logical extension of 19th C style neo-liberalism

No "neo" needed.

 

[ViolentPanda]

mind you they ARE better than New Labour were on civil liberties , where's my yellow rosette!

Under your foreskin, you weirdo.

 

[ViolentPanda]

i've never really been in solidarity with the middle class so i'm gonna be stuck in my ways and not start now

You're missing the point.
The reason that the CB needs to be defended against is not because of an expression of solidarity with the middle classes, it's about defending against any attack on universal benefits because this attack is the thin end of a deliberately-targeted wedge.
Do you think that the govt chose Child Benefit out of a hat to try this tactic on? They've deliberately attacked Child Benefit because they know there's enough people out there who can't see beyond the immediate class implications that the attack won't be defended against.
Know what happens then?
Neither do I, but I can speculate that another universal benefit will be attacked, relying on the same herd of muppets to not argue against it on class grounds. Which universal benefit? The state pension, and probably at a much lower threshold than £44,000, too.

 

[weltweit]

I can see that there is a point about universality.

But it is also wrong that ordinary people are paying taxes to give someone on £60,000 pa (or much more) child benefit.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Give over Louis, u impotent muppet. Universalism has been attacked so much already it doesn't matter, this 'universal benefit' stands out as the exception rather than the rule. We do not live in a welfare state, we live in a state with selective & variable welfare.

You've already given up. All that's left to you is sound and fury, signifying nothing.

You're already dead.

 

[elbows]

I can see that there is a point about universality.

But it is also wrong that ordinary people are paying taxes to give someone on £60,000 pa (or much more) child benefit.

Why look at it that way? Why not look at it as the person on 60k getting a bit of what they paid in tax back, why does it have to be thought of as the tax of someone poorer?

If you want to do something fairer, why not tax the richer people more instead of taking away universal benefits which has a clear downside in terms of how people think about their rights and universal entitlements.

 

[weltweit]

Why look at it that way? Why not look at it as the person on 60k getting a bit of what they paid in tax back, why does it have to be thought of as the tax of someone poorer?

Because it is giving with one hand and taking back with the other, each action costing something and eventually pretty pointless.

Rich people just don't need benefits! Any benefits!

If you want to do something fairer, why not tax the richer people more instead of taking away universal benefits which has a clear downside in terms of how people think about their rights and universal entitlements.

Well Brown put the top rate up to 50%, I think the tories are grateful to him because they would have hated to have done it themselves but they know it was the right thing to do.

I doubt we will see higher than 50% and I also doubt they will tweak the thresholds, income tax is an area none of them want to piss about with.

And why should they, if they can just remove a benefit which the rich don't need.

 

[elbows]

Because it is giving with one hand and taking back with the other, each action costing something and eventually pretty pointless.

Its not pointless, there are a multitude of reasons why there is danger to a non-universal approach. It divides people up and makes it easier to cut the benefits of those who really do need them later. Take things away from people and they lose their stake and interest in it. Deny the rich all things provided by taxation and they will start to wonder why they should pay any tax at all.

 

[elbows]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11467577

Who, What, Why: Why do the rich get child benefit?

According to Professor Stein Ringen of the University of Oxford, post-war policymakers were scarred by the indignities of the means test during the 1930s depression and believed making services and payments available to all would reinforce support for the system among rich and poor alike.

"The advantage of universal benefits is their simplicity - means testing was regarded as very complicated and inefficient," he adds.

"With universal benefits, you can be sure that those who need them most will get them."

The civil servant William Beveridge's 1942 blueprint for the welfare state envisaged a "cradle to the grave" system of shared citizenship.

Also of note later in the article

He traces the move away from universalism to the Labour Party's abandonment during the 1990s of high rates of taxation for those on the highest incomes.

"Because they accepted that, the flipside was that you targeted benefits away from high earners," he says - hence Child Tax credits, introduced in 2003 to address need within the tax system, rather than straightforward handouts.

"Because this thinking hit the better-off, the parties' positions switched - so you had a situation where the Conservatives were calling for the restoration of the link between pensions and earnings and Gordon Brown was resisting it."

 

[weltweit]

Its not pointless, there are a multitude of reasons why there is danger to a non-universal approach. It divides people up and makes it easier to cut the benefits of those who really do need them later. Take things away from people and they lose their stake and interest in it. Deny the rich all things provided by taxation and they will start to wonder why they should pay any tax at all.

I am not sure I agree with this.

We can leave the super rich out because they buy everything, well the most significant = education and healthcare privately - or in many cases they do.

Which leaves the middle, those on £44k to perhaps £60k - £70k .. they probably still use state education and the NHS, certainly the most significant and universal benefits. I think it is pretty clear to them that much of their taxes go on the military, the NHS and education. And in my limited experience of people on those sorts of incomes they are happy to pay their taxes for such things and feel a part of it.

Many (if not most) benefits are means tested, as I know to my cost because for many years when I needed help, none was avaliable for me as I had some savings.

 

[weltweit]

Correction to the above. I did not have savings, I had a redundancy payment and no job.

 

[The Black Hand]

Rah rah defend universalism. Brilliant. I really can't be bothered to pretend I care about what the TOries do, I'm far too busy building the actual opposition & having a life.

You're all sooo lame on here and in the real world.... My problem is not with the old left and a Keynesian welfare state, my problem is impotent lefties who haven't got a clue how to build a movement of resistance and spout bullshite endlessly on u75, pretending to have a coherent principled opposition but in reality stroking their own inflated egos and not having ANY capability of putting it into practice. Or ANY resistance come to that. That's the real issue for the real world, and on that Louis you are not so much silent but rather turning around and refusing to confront the issues and turning your back on practice.

So why do you bother posting?

Afterall trying to pretend that your ongoing spat with Pickmans (amongst others) is any sort of political really is lame.

Louis MacNeice

p.s. You silence on the GP charges question speaks volumes.

 

[The Black Hand]

Lol - brilliant trev

urban rules;

thou shalt be a member of an obscure left wing sect
that disagrees with all other left wing sects
and mocks anyone who has similar but not identical politics
thou shalt not do anything constrcutive
thou shalt pick faults in others
and earn 44k+
whilst doing fuck all but play on forums

amen

 

[discokermit]

I'm far too busy building the actual opposition

what? by arguing in favour of cuts?

 

[The Black Hand]

Everything's black and white to you, isn't it? No different shades etc. Labour is this and the tories are that, the left is this and the right is that. Absolute.

Anyone, like trev who has a different pov is pounced on & told what to think and who to vote for.

"The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind.” Camus

 

[The Black Hand]

what? by arguing in favour of cuts?

You lot really do have to stop projecting - just cos I say what my emotions tell me doesn't mean that its a political position, or bears on my political behaviour. You keyboard warriors need to get out from behind your pure ultra left ways of being on U75 and actually do something and meet people who tell you how they feel. There are a lot of them out there you know.

 

[The Black Hand]

Oh go away and have your breakdown elsewhere, it's embarrassing, ffs. I used to admire you.

I am sure Butchers is not alone, and that there are several ultra leftists with such stressful angst that they can't manage with the real world and take it out on the poor people on U75. After all its far easier, week after week month after month year after year to bleat on endlessly on U75 without affecting the real world whatsoever or doing anything at all meaningful in that real world. Their lack of movement is as irrelevant as the pure drivel and party lines they try to impose on the rest of us.

 

[The Black Hand]

Originally Posted by The Black Hand
Give over Louis, u impotent muppet. Universalism has been attacked so much already it doesn't matter, this 'universal benefit' stands out as the exception rather than the rule. We do not live in a welfare state, we live in a state with selective & variable welfare.

You've already given up. All that's left to you is sound and fury, signifying nothing.

You're already dead.

Ho ho ho you don't like accurate description of the real world do you VP? You lot never got as agitated when the new rules were forced on the unemployed and the disabled. Now you're trying to make this a signifier of 'we shall fight them on the beaches we will never surrender' proportions. Trouble is - I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ANY FIGHT IN YOU OR YOUR ILK Judging by past behaviour. You're all just impotent keyboard warriors without any means of resisting and trying to pretend its important to shake some fake shity stick on U75 is frankly embarrassing for anybody who follows in the footsteps of our martyred dead. I save my powder for when its really worth it, not when its a fake fight on U75.

 

[A. Spies]

He traces the move away from universalism to the Labour Party's abandonment during the 1990s of high rates of taxation for those on the highest incomes.

"Because they accepted that, the flipside was that you targeted benefits away from high earners," he says - hence Child Tax credits, introduced in 2003 to address need within the tax system, rather than straightforward handouts.

"Because this thinking hit the better-off, the parties' positions switched - so you had a situation where the Conservatives were calling for the restoration of the link between pensions and earnings and Gordon Brown was resisting it."

-Gah. Can anyone explain this? I've understood most of this thread but don't get this.
Does it suggest that if you want to support the NHS you should oppose higher taxes on the rich? Cos you have to supply services and benifits on the same grounds as taxation?
T

 

[discokermit]

You lot really do have to stop projecting - just cos I say what my emotions tell me doesn't mean that its a political position, or bears on my political behaviour. You keyboard warriors need to get out from behind your pure ultra left ways of being on U75 and actually do something and meet people who tell you how they feel. There are a lot of them out there you know.

fucking idiot.

 

[The Black Hand]

fucking idiot.

Fuk you fuk hed. Wanker.

 

[elbows]

my problem is impotent lefties who haven't got a clue how to build a movement of resistance and spout bullshite endlessly on u75, pretending to have a coherent principled opposition but in reality stroking their own inflated egos and not having ANY capabuility of putting it into practice.

And of course your attacks on people whilst simultaneously heaping praise on your own stance isnt about ego stroking at all is it?

Anyway Im not here claiming to be effective opposition or of any use to anything right now, Im here to learn with a view to maybe having a clue at some future moment where it matters. It doesnt look much to me like anybody is being effective at resisting this shit right now, plenty are trying, which is still worth doing, but I dont think anybody can crow about their worth unless they can actually demonstrate they have achieved some results. So what have you achieved in the 'real world' lately?

 

[ViolentPanda]

what? by arguing in favour of cuts?

By "I'm far too busy building the actual opposition", bear in mind that what he means is "I'm far too busy publishing (and trying desperately to flog or even give away) my limited-circulation journal and posturing on the internet".

 

[The Black Hand]

And of course your attacks on people whilst simultaneously heaping praise on your own stance isnt about ego stroking at all is it?

Anyway Im not here claiming to be effective opposition or of any use to anything right now, Im here to learn with a view to maybe having a clue at some future moment where it matters. It doesnt look much to me like anybody is being effective at resisting this shit right now, plenty are trying, which is still worth doing, but I dont think anybody can crow about their worth unless they can actually demonstrate they have achieved some results. So what have you achieved in the 'real world' lately?

"Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Just walk beside me and be my friend.”

 

[Proper Tidy]

"Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Just walk beside me and be my friend.”

You're a fucking joke

 

[The Black Hand]

By "I'm far too busy building the actual opposition", bear in mind that what he means is "I'm far too busy publishing (and trying desperately to flog or even give away) my limited-circulation journal and posturing on the internet".

You are just a LIAR VP. Why? You're blinded by the obsession with being right as Camus said.

As it goes I've been working with Tyne & Wear Left Unity as they will tell you if you ask (i've publicised this on U75), I've been leafletting with the PSA in Sunderland, and organising other events that have been publisized on U75 eg. http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...do-about-the-cuts-Tuesday-19th-Oct-Sunderland
WHY ARE YOU LYING? That's reactionary crap.

 

[The Black Hand]

You're a fucking joke

That was Camus too. Not me.