Keir Starmer's time is up
- Thread starter agricola
- Start date
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Why? What's the point?
They don't use the scheme anyway and to "save" stuff all it would yield all of the well established regressive downsides of abandoning universality.
andysays
Love and solidarity
This is nonsense dressed up as radicalism.
Next you'll be arguing that Child Benefit isn't universal and should be means tested because only parents get it.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Only people with children have children. So there's a certain logic there.
Is it only old people who need to keep warm in winter?
BristolEcho
Well-Known Member
It's also shit because bus travel in Bristol is fucking shit and First Bus have been running a monopoly here for most of my life. There is no motivation for them to make things affordable, and the idea that a service as vital as public transport should be ran by private for profit companies is so bad for people who rely on them. That they won't run certain lines because they are not profitable, or lose money flies in the face of how a public service set up to meet the needs of people should be ran.
They are constantly cutting routes especially in rural locations and then having to put them back in because they were needed.
Locally they are doing a lot to encourage cycling and public transport by increasing safety and making driving for short distances less attractive. These sort of decisions then don't match up.
Tone deaf.
They are constantly cutting routes especially in rural locations and then having to put them back in because they were needed.
Locally they are doing a lot to encourage cycling and public transport by increasing safety and making driving for short distances less attractive. These sort of decisions then don't match up.
Tone deaf.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
So argue for an uplifting for all, not for attacks on a group you perceive as getting more than you.
This may be as stupid as the time you made up a load of shite about Pat Finucane.
Last edited:
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Whatever kind of society or government you have, decisions still have to be made over how resources are allocated. I believe this should be done according to need, not according to a particular group of people's usefulness as a voting bloc.
For which I apologised, well over a decade ago, and which isn't relevant in the slightest.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
If their hearts are so warm they won't be needing the extra fuel allowance will they?
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
Spot on. The model is broken.
The privatised bus providers want the profitable routes but are more than happy to hand back the less profitable routes. To prevent them doing it Government has to underwrite the contract to 'induce' them to run services at a loss. Once you come to the conclusion that public transport is not a need but merely another profit making exercise for the rich then there are no limit to perverse thinking or to what you allow the providers to get away with. A call for means testing - where rich people who don't need or use buses - would underwrite travel for those that do is essentially meaningless and merely further undermines the entire principle of public services being provided to meet the needs of citizens.
As others have said we should reject the false narrative of 'a black hole' or 'tough choices' or whatever other garbage Starmer, Reeves and co barf up and demand a nationally owned bus service, provided on the basis of need (and economic and social value). Until then we defend the cap.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
But their feet and hands may still be freezing
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Tbh I much prefer that honesty than the sheer tonnage of delusion we usually get from a government.
It's bollocks though. I imagine most people want higher public spending and quite a lot would be up for higher taxes to fund it.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This is total crap, though. You do know that the UK state pension is still very low compared to other rich European countries? The triple-lock provides some guarantees that pensioners will get a share if the economy grows. Why on earth would you not want that, particularly given that the UK pension is still really very low?
Yes, old people are expensive. Hopefully you'll be one of those expensive old people one day.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It is depressing to read these kinds of things. I heard the same arguments made against the striking train drivers. They earn more than me, why are they disrupting my ability to get to work, etc, etc.
You'd think...
tommers
It was... Rebekah Vardy's account
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Yeh no one wants roads maintained or the nhs
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
Once again, the stupidity offends me almost as much as the act itself.
The £2 bus cap was always time limited, being a COVID recovery program. If they'd said nothing at all and let it expire at the end of the year as it was always intended to do, there'd have been less of a furore than there is over raising it to £3. Even I can see that, and I've no interest in being a politician.
Edit to add: Doubly stupid in an economic sense. The thing about low income support is that any money they have tends to have a high velocity. They tend to spend it quickly and locally, where it can again be taxed, and often contributes to the income of other similar low-earning people, which allows for successive rounds of recapture. You need to cut 3 GBP of nominal outlay on low-income working class to obtain 1 GBP of real budget savings; the other two GBP are higher-order losses of taxation on high-velocity spending that now doesn't happen.
The £2 bus cap was always time limited, being a COVID recovery program. If they'd said nothing at all and let it expire at the end of the year as it was always intended to do, there'd have been less of a furore than there is over raising it to £3. Even I can see that, and I've no interest in being a politician.
Edit to add: Doubly stupid in an economic sense. The thing about low income support is that any money they have tends to have a high velocity. They tend to spend it quickly and locally, where it can again be taxed, and often contributes to the income of other similar low-earning people, which allows for successive rounds of recapture. You need to cut 3 GBP of nominal outlay on low-income working class to obtain 1 GBP of real budget savings; the other two GBP are higher-order losses of taxation on high-velocity spending that now doesn't happen.
Last edited:
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
That must be a misprint surely? Even he's not that fucking stupid..
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
PTK
Paul Kegan
"Nobody wants higher taxes, just like nobody wants public spending cuts" said Starmer, according to the BBC. ""But we have to be realistic about where we are as a country."
Starmer is not, after all, advocating that money be abolished.
Starmer is not, after all, advocating that money be abolished.
Tax rises needed to prevent austerity, says Keir Starmer
The prime minister says the UK is facing unprecedented challenges, but promises better days lie ahead.
www.bbc.co.uk
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
By the time I'm old all this will be in ruins one way or another.
tommers
It was... Rebekah Vardy's account
Well. Suddenly that makes more sense.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
What does that mean? Fucking stupid thing to say in the context of you attacking universalism.
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
This is the same line that Silas, Starmer, Clegg and even fucking Cameron follow - that it is unfair not to apply universal measures because of a lack of resources, indeed that they care more abut the poor because they are targeting measures. It is the same logic that argues because most people don't have good pensions workers should not band together to defend the very good defined benefit pension schemes of those in the public sector.
It's a terribly stupid and dishonest line attacking the basis of solidarity. Putting one section of the working class against another is a fools game that hurts all workers I would have thought that even you would understand that. Salami slicing and chipping away at benefits that one set of workers have does not improve things for other workers - on the contrary it harms them.
Moving from a universal measure to means testing is not just shite from an efficacy and efficiency point of view (as has been pointed out means testing leads means that not all will apply and is hugely costly) it builds on the move towards more and more means testing, harming more and more workers.
If there is any problem with 'rich pensioners' getting the WFA, then the solution is simply - take more back from them via taxes.
Similar threads
