Bob Crow

nathancom

florerider wrote:

so had the right recognised the risk to banks from all and sundry taking on loans they could not afford and then defaulting on them (which was the root cause of the crash) and put a stop to it, that would have been alright? Or would it have been the right and the wealthy preventing the poor having their share of prosperity again?

it was all neo-liberal ideology - "markets are self correcting", "we only need to unfetter big businesses to unlock never ending economic growth", "state interference is wrong". Yet because a right wing government wasn't in power ( I guess that is debatable) in the UK, British Tories seem to think their right wing ideology hasn't failed.

Banks were stuffing the credit down people's throats. Ultimately it is their fault along with government and right wing ideology. Anyway, I think in time that period will be seen as capitalist excess following the fall of socialism around the world, worth a more balanced outlook following in its wake. Certainly neo liberalism is as defunct as communism now

florerider

no it was not ideology, it was bad management by the government of the day, who thought they had the answer to making everyone feel better off and would not listen to anyone with a different view.

The banks simply did what the government and people asked, produced a massive amount of cheap credit. THe bonus system encouraged it - but it also resulted in massive tax take so was never questioned by a government keen to take and spend.

However you are right in that the markets have now corrected it - no matter how much the government wants credit to flow, the regulations on reserves prevent it from happening.

The way the markets would sort this is to raise interest rates, thus bringing revenue into the banks to give them money to lend, but to avoid the shock of that free market reaction to the masses who over borrowed and will end up in negative equity and financially strapped, the politicians have decided to rig interest rates at a very low level.

Unfettered markets would let interest rates rise, thus letting savers have due returns on their money and increasing bank reserves, house prices fall, thus creating affordable housing and reducing the cost of housing to enable wages to be more competitive with other economies, and increase the exchange rate to reduce the cost of energy and raw materials.

Higher interest rates would increase grey pound spending and reduce future pension liabilities, benefiting both short and long term economics.

However the house price loving electorate would never stand for it, so we have a non market solution imposed that doesn't work either.

nathancom

florerider wrote:

However you are right in that the markets have now corrected it

florerider wrote:

The way the markets would sort this is to raise interest rates

Seems to be a contradiction here, we have had historically low interest rates since the crash. I will just say that the economic ideas behind your post are a little jumbled. The banks have not been particularly effective in solving the crisis, instead they relied on massive injections of capital from governments via increased borrowing and quantitative easing. The crisis in Europe was only solved once the ECB stepped up its bond purchasing and support for debt laden banks.

It is parochial to blame a single government in a small island off the coast of Europe when the entire western world went through an economic shock that really did nearly bring down our financial system. Gordon Brown was at fault in those countries as well somehow? Clearly there was a neo-liberal ideology at play that New Labour bought into as well. Thankfully the stupidity of free-market radicalism has been shown up and Governments have been once more increasing regulation of our financial institutions.

Paulie W

florerider wrote:

no it was not ideology, it was bad management by the government of the day, who thought they had the answer to making everyone feel better off and would not listen to anyone with a different view.

The banks simply did what the government and people asked, produced a massive amount of cheap credit. THe bonus system encouraged it - but it also resulted in massive tax take so was never questioned by a government keen to take and spend.

However you are right in that the markets have now corrected it - no matter how much the government wants credit to flow, the regulations on reserves prevent it from happening.

The way the markets would sort this is to raise interest rates, thus bringing revenue into the banks to give them money to lend, but to avoid the shock of that free market reaction to the masses who over borrowed and will end up in negative equity and financially strapped, the politicians have decided to rig interest rates at a very low level.

Unfettered markets would let interest rates rise, thus letting savers have due returns on their money and increasing bank reserves, house prices fall, thus creating affordable housing and reducing the cost of housing to enable wages to be more competitive with other economies, and increase the exchange rate to reduce the cost of energy and raw materials.

Higher interest rates would increase grey pound spending and reduce future pension liabilities, benefiting both short and long term economics.

However the house price loving electorate would never stand for it, so we have a non market solution imposed that doesn't work either.

Hilarious!

MattC59

Guys, you seem to be getting away from the point of this thread, which is that Bob Crow was a self serving, weapons grade prick........ wasnt it ?

Paulie W

MattC59 wrote:

Guys, you seem to be getting away from the point of this thread, which is that Bob Crow was a self serving, weapons grade prick........ wasnt it ?

Based on what exactly? I'd be interested to here what it was that made him self serving (any more than the vast majority of other people on the planet).

florerider

nathancom wrote:

florerider wrote:

However you are right in that the markets have now corrected it

florerider wrote:

The way the markets would sort this is to raise interest rates

Seems to be a contradiction here, we have had historically low interest rates since the crash. I will just say that the economic ideas behind your post are a little jumbled. The banks have not been particularly effective in solving the crisis, instead they relied on massive injections of capital from governments via increased borrowing and quantitative easing. The crisis in Europe was only solved once the ECB stepped up its bond purchasing and support for debt laden banks.

It is parochial to blame a single government in a small island off the coast of Europe when the entire western world went through an economic shock that really did nearly bring down our financial system. Gordon Brown was at fault in those countries as well somehow? Clearly there was a neo-liberal ideology at play that New Labour bought into as well. Thankfully the stupidity of free-market radicalism has been shown up and Governments have been once more increasing regulation of our financial institutions.

You do realise the injection of capital is paying the banks all the money out in bad debt held by consumers and governments don't you? It went into the economy and was frittered away on cheap imports and higher house prices.

and you're right - the contradiction is that low interest rates have not fixed it -but they were not the market solution

nathancom

florerider wrote:

nathancom wrote:

florerider wrote:

However you are right in that the markets have now corrected it

florerider wrote:

The way the markets would sort this is to raise interest rates

Seems to be a contradiction here, we have had historically low interest rates since the crash. I will just say that the economic ideas behind your post are a little jumbled. The banks have not been particularly effective in solving the crisis, instead they relied on massive injections of capital from governments via increased borrowing and quantitative easing. The crisis in Europe was only solved once the ECB stepped up its bond purchasing and support for debt laden banks.

It is parochial to blame a single government in a small island off the coast of Europe when the entire western world went through an economic shock that really did nearly bring down our financial system. Gordon Brown was at fault in those countries as well somehow? Clearly there was a neo-liberal ideology at play that New Labour bought into as well. Thankfully the stupidity of free-market radicalism has been shown up and Governments have been once more increasing regulation of our financial institutions.

You do realise the injection of capital is paying the banks all the money out in bad debt held by consumers and governments don't you? It went into the economy and was frittered away on cheap imports and higher house prices.

and you're right - the contradiction is that low interest rates have not fixed it -but they were not the market solution

You are talking as though banks were victims of being forced to give out bad loans. Sir Fred Goodwin, Sir James Crosby and their ilk proved themselves utterly unfit to run financial institutions as they chased unrealistic profits, creating what was in effect a ponzi scheme of assets with no value (ie CDS based on American sub-prime mortgage debt). The tax payer bailed them out. Talk about trying to rewrite history...

Low interest rates have helped prevent millions from losing their homes as they did in the late 80s and early 90s, mitigating the effects of the squeeze on wages and jobs. Clearly that is of no concern to you.

florerider

Paulie W wrote:

florerider wrote:

no it was not ideology, it was bad management by the government of the day, who thought they had the answer to making everyone feel better off and would not listen to anyone with a different view.

The banks simply did what the government and people asked, produced a massive amount of cheap credit. THe bonus system encouraged it - but it also resulted in massive tax take so was never questioned by a government keen to take and spend.

However you are right in that the markets have now corrected it - no matter how much the government wants credit to flow, the regulations on reserves prevent it from happening.

The way the markets would sort this is to raise interest rates, thus bringing revenue into the banks to give them money to lend, but to avoid the shock of that free market reaction to the masses who over borrowed and will end up in negative equity and financially strapped, the politicians have decided to rig interest rates at a very low level.

Unfettered markets would let interest rates rise, thus letting savers have due returns on their money and increasing bank reserves, house prices fall, thus creating affordable housing and reducing the cost of housing to enable wages to be more competitive with other economies, and increase the exchange rate to reduce the cost of energy and raw materials.

Higher interest rates would increase grey pound spending and reduce future pension liabilities, benefiting both short and long term economics.

However the house price loving electorate would never stand for it, so we have a non market solution imposed that doesn't work either.

Hilarious!

you find it hilarious that savers should be rewarded and pensioners living off their savings have a fair deal?

you find it hilarious that low interest rates create housing bubbles that price people out of the market to buy and increase rents?

you find it hilarious that higher interest rates, the one lever to clamp down on the inflation that robs low paid of purchasing power, are not being used?

you find it hilarious that low interest rates stop banks attracting money to be able to lend?

Hilarious indeed.

nathancom

florerider wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

florerider wrote:

no it was not ideology, it was bad management by the government of the day, who thought they had the answer to making everyone feel better off and would not listen to anyone with a different view.

The banks simply did what the government and people asked, produced a massive amount of cheap credit. THe bonus system encouraged it - but it also resulted in massive tax take so was never questioned by a government keen to take and spend.

However you are right in that the markets have now corrected it - no matter how much the government wants credit to flow, the regulations on reserves prevent it from happening.

The way the markets would sort this is to raise interest rates, thus bringing revenue into the banks to give them money to lend, but to avoid the shock of that free market reaction to the masses who over borrowed and will end up in negative equity and financially strapped, the politicians have decided to rig interest rates at a very low level.

Unfettered markets would let interest rates rise, thus letting savers have due returns on their money and increasing bank reserves, house prices fall, thus creating affordable housing and reducing the cost of housing to enable wages to be more competitive with other economies, and increase the exchange rate to reduce the cost of energy and raw materials.

Higher interest rates would increase grey pound spending and reduce future pension liabilities, benefiting both short and long term economics.

However the house price loving electorate would never stand for it, so we have a non market solution imposed that doesn't work either.

Hilarious!

you find it hilarious that savers should be rewarded and pensioners living off their savings have a fair deal?

you find it hilarious that low interest rates create housing bubbles that price people out of the market to buy and increase rents?

you find it hilarious that higher interest rates, the one lever to clamp down on the inflation that robs low paid of purchasing power, are not being used?

you find it hilarious that low interest rates stop banks attracting money to be able to lend?

Hilarious indeed.

You clearly feel aggrieved that you have earnt a little less interest in order to save millions of hard working families being left homeless. Out of touch...

Paulie W

florerider wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

florerider wrote:

no it was not ideology, it was bad management by the government of the day, who thought they had the answer to making everyone feel better off and would not listen to anyone with a different view.

The banks simply did what the government and people asked, produced a massive amount of cheap credit. THe bonus system encouraged it - but it also resulted in massive tax take so was never questioned by a government keen to take and spend.

However you are right in that the markets have now corrected it - no matter how much the government wants credit to flow, the regulations on reserves prevent it from happening.

The way the markets would sort this is to raise interest rates, thus bringing revenue into the banks to give them money to lend, but to avoid the shock of that free market reaction to the masses who over borrowed and will end up in negative equity and financially strapped, the politicians have decided to rig interest rates at a very low level.

Unfettered markets would let interest rates rise, thus letting savers have due returns on their money and increasing bank reserves, house prices fall, thus creating affordable housing and reducing the cost of housing to enable wages to be more competitive with other economies, and increase the exchange rate to reduce the cost of energy and raw materials.

Higher interest rates would increase grey pound spending and reduce future pension liabilities, benefiting both short and long term economics.

However the house price loving electorate would never stand for it, so we have a non market solution imposed that doesn't work either.

Hilarious!

you find it hilarious that savers should be rewarded and pensioners living off their savings have a fair deal?

you find it hilarious that low interest rates create housing bubbles that price people out of the market to buy and increase rents?

you find it hilarious that higher interest rates, the one lever to clamp down on the inflation that robs low paid of purchasing power, are not being used?

you find it hilarious that low interest rates stop banks attracting money to be able to lend?

Hilarious indeed.

What is hilarious is your primary school level understanding of economics.

florerider

Nathanconn

That's not even an assumption, it is pure speculation without any basis. Mine would be that you have overborrowed and cannot live up to the consequence of it and expect everyone else to bail you out.

Maybe I feel aggrieved for the elderly who were hard working all their lives and now have seen their incomes slashed due to low interest rates and inflation.

Maybe I feel aggrieved for young people saving for a deposit seeing the real value of their deposit decrease as they save and the price of their first house escallating out of their reach as they pay massive rents due to over priced property.

Maybe I don't feel that people with mortgages should have it all their own way at the expense of the less well off.

Frank the tank

MattC59 wrote:

Guys, you seem to be getting away from the point of this thread, which is that Bob Crow was a self serving, weapons grade prick........ wasnt it ?

Bob Crow was elected by a group of people to represent THEIR INTERESTS which he did very capably, so much so the numbers of that union increased.

florerider

Paulie W wrote:

florerider wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

florerider wrote:

no it was not ideology, it was bad management by the government of the day, who thought they had the answer to making everyone feel better off and would not listen to anyone with a different view.

The banks simply did what the government and people asked, produced a massive amount of cheap credit. THe bonus system encouraged it - but it also resulted in massive tax take so was never questioned by a government keen to take and spend.

However you are right in that the markets have now corrected it - no matter how much the government wants credit to flow, the regulations on reserves prevent it from happening.

The way the markets would sort this is to raise interest rates, thus bringing revenue into the banks to give them money to lend, but to avoid the shock of that free market reaction to the masses who over borrowed and will end up in negative equity and financially strapped, the politicians have decided to rig interest rates at a very low level.

Unfettered markets would let interest rates rise, thus letting savers have due returns on their money and increasing bank reserves, house prices fall, thus creating affordable housing and reducing the cost of housing to enable wages to be more competitive with other economies, and increase the exchange rate to reduce the cost of energy and raw materials.

Higher interest rates would increase grey pound spending and reduce future pension liabilities, benefiting both short and long term economics.

However the house price loving electorate would never stand for it, so we have a non market solution imposed that doesn't work either.

Hilarious!

you find it hilarious that savers should be rewarded and pensioners living off their savings have a fair deal?

you find it hilarious that low interest rates create housing bubbles that price people out of the market to buy and increase rents?

you find it hilarious that higher interest rates, the one lever to clamp down on the inflation that robs low paid of purchasing power, are not being used?

you find it hilarious that low interest rates stop banks attracting money to be able to lend?

Hilarious indeed.

What is hilarious is your primary school level understanding of economics.

Oh dear, is that the best response you can find?

arran77

Frank the tank wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Guys, you seem to be getting away from the point of this thread, which is that Bob Crow was a self serving, weapons grade prick........ wasnt it ?

Bob Crow was elected by a group of people to represent THEIR INTERESTS which he did very capably, so much so the numbers of that union increased.

I guess Matt just has slightly different interests than the average TUC member

Paulie W

florerider wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

florerider wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

florerider wrote:

no it was not ideology, it was bad management by the government of the day, who thought they had the answer to making everyone feel better off and would not listen to anyone with a different view.

The banks simply did what the government and people asked, produced a massive amount of cheap credit. THe bonus system encouraged it - but it also resulted in massive tax take so was never questioned by a government keen to take and spend.

However you are right in that the markets have now corrected it - no matter how much the government wants credit to flow, the regulations on reserves prevent it from happening.

The way the markets would sort this is to raise interest rates, thus bringing revenue into the banks to give them money to lend, but to avoid the shock of that free market reaction to the masses who over borrowed and will end up in negative equity and financially strapped, the politicians have decided to rig interest rates at a very low level.

Unfettered markets would let interest rates rise, thus letting savers have due returns on their money and increasing bank reserves, house prices fall, thus creating affordable housing and reducing the cost of housing to enable wages to be more competitive with other economies, and increase the exchange rate to reduce the cost of energy and raw materials.

Higher interest rates would increase grey pound spending and reduce future pension liabilities, benefiting both short and long term economics.

However the house price loving electorate would never stand for it, so we have a non market solution imposed that doesn't work either.

Hilarious!

you find it hilarious that savers should be rewarded and pensioners living off their savings have a fair deal?

you find it hilarious that low interest rates create housing bubbles that price people out of the market to buy and increase rents?

you find it hilarious that higher interest rates, the one lever to clamp down on the inflation that robs low paid of purchasing power, are not being used?

you find it hilarious that low interest rates stop banks attracting money to be able to lend?

Hilarious indeed.

What is hilarious is your primary school level understanding of economics.

Oh dear, is that the best response you can find?

You dont seem to have made up your mind whether the market works or not. You present the banks as simply responding to demand (and government initiative - which is it?) in offering credit but that misses the key point that they provided credit to millions of people who could not afford it.

You appear to be presenting an increase in interest rates as some kind of economic panacea, even implying that it will stimulate spending! Rates will go up over the next few years, they have to but there are all kinds of reasons why this will need to be carefully managed.

florerider

Paulie W wrote:

florerider wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

florerider wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

florerider wrote:

no it was not ideology, it was bad management by the government of the day, who thought they had the answer to making everyone feel better off and would not listen to anyone with a different view.

The banks simply did what the government and people asked, produced a massive amount of cheap credit. THe bonus system encouraged it - but it also resulted in massive tax take so was never questioned by a government keen to take and spend.

However you are right in that the markets have now corrected it - no matter how much the government wants credit to flow, the regulations on reserves prevent it from happening.

The way the markets would sort this is to raise interest rates, thus bringing revenue into the banks to give them money to lend, but to avoid the shock of that free market reaction to the masses who over borrowed and will end up in negative equity and financially strapped, the politicians have decided to rig interest rates at a very low level.

Unfettered markets would let interest rates rise, thus letting savers have due returns on their money and increasing bank reserves, house prices fall, thus creating affordable housing and reducing the cost of housing to enable wages to be more competitive with other economies, and increase the exchange rate to reduce the cost of energy and raw materials.

Higher interest rates would increase grey pound spending and reduce future pension liabilities, benefiting both short and long term economics.

However the house price loving electorate would never stand for it, so we have a non market solution imposed that doesn't work either.

Hilarious!

you find it hilarious that savers should be rewarded and pensioners living off their savings have a fair deal?

you find it hilarious that low interest rates create housing bubbles that price people out of the market to buy and increase rents?

you find it hilarious that higher interest rates, the one lever to clamp down on the inflation that robs low paid of purchasing power, are not being used?

you find it hilarious that low interest rates stop banks attracting money to be able to lend?

Hilarious indeed.

What is hilarious is your primary school level understanding of economics.

Oh dear, is that the best response you can find?

You dont seem to have made up your mind whether the market works or not. You present the banks as simply responding to demand (and goevrnment inititiative - which is it?) in offering credit but that misses the key point that they provided credit to millions of people who could not afford it.

You appear to be presenting an increase in interest rates as some kind of economic panacea, even implying that it will stimulate spending! Rates will go up over the next few years, they have to but there are all kinds of reasons why this will need to be carefully managed.

Fair enough - the banks clearly responded to market demand for loans, and provided millions in credit to those who could not afford it, and not being able to pay it back is the key problem. Yes it was a bank problem, but they were responding to market demand for loans, both at government and private level.

The lending suited governments, as it enabled an all round feel good factor, but it was also governments job to act as regulator, something they did not do properly.

The market response for a bank needing money would be to increase interest rates - it attracts more deposits that way and gets more back on its loans, and so, to some extent, re-finances itself. That market response that was not allowed to happen. So yes, the argument does have both market and not market facets.

The bad side of the non market response is that it sucked money out of the taxpayer to refinance the banks, resulting in nothing left for the "Keynsian" response (ie increased government spending at times of recession to stimulate the economy)

Yes, I do imply that higher interest rates will stimulate spending - because of the impact on pensions and retired people living on saving,s and moderation of inflation. Also, had we refinanced the banks through using higher interest rates as described, the Government could have kept its reserves,or at least some of them, and responded in the traditional Keynsian manner to the recession. For many the ability to spend is well down because of the need to save to retire. Low interest rates and low returns means more has to be saved, and so is not available to spend. No, I don't underestimate the difficulty or the effect it will have on mortgage payments, but stimulating high house prices is not good for the long term economy, or anyone trying to buy or rent, which covers a lot of us, and as I have said, I don't think people with mortgages should take priority over less well off sectors of the population.

Low interest rates did not get us into this mess and they are not proving a panacea either. High interest rates are not a panacea but we can agree they will go up sooner or later. The "positive", but moderate, interest rates run by GB in his first term seemed to work very well in controlling inflation and balancing borrowing and savings. Same could be said for Major's government before him.

Frank the tank

arran77 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Guys, you seem to be getting away from the point of this thread, which is that Bob Crow was a self serving, weapons grade prick........ wasnt it ?

Bob Crow was elected by a group of people to represent THEIR INTERESTS which he did very capably, so much so the numbers of that union increased.

I guess Matt just has slightly different interests than the average TUC member

So what, who gives a toss. He was elected to do a job, he did it very capably.

If only others that get elected/appointed into posts were as successful at representing those that voted for them.

arran77

Frank the tank wrote:

arran77 wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Guys, you seem to be getting away from the point of this thread, which is that Bob Crow was a self serving, weapons grade prick........ wasnt it ?

Bob Crow was elected by a group of people to represent THEIR INTERESTS which he did very capably, so much so the numbers of that union increased.

I guess Matt just has slightly different interests than the average TUC member

So what, who gives a toss. He was elected to do a job, he did it very capably.

If only others that get elected/appointed into posts were as successful at representing those that voted for them.

Definitely, whatever you think about his methods he did was he was elected to do by those he represented.

crumbschief

Oh what a carrion

florerider

Excellent

Bozman

I can't be ar5ed to read through every comment, I was a member of the RMT for 15 years but Bob Crow drove me away from the union, the guy loved the limelight and would happily take on any case that would give him national publicity, we generally got sick of his attitude and a lot of us ditched the union.......but the guy knew how far he could push a cause, I've got a couple of mates at Network Rail and they've had a 15% pay rise over the last 4 years, that's austerity for you.

Stevo_666

Bozman wrote:

I can't be ar5ed to read through every comment, I was a member of the RMT for 15 years but Bob Crow drove me away from the union, the guy loved the limelight and would happily take on any case that would give him national publicity, we generally got sick of his attitude and a lot of us ditched the union

Backs up what a lot of us London commuters thought - that he was a self-serving tw@t. Interesting that even a lot of RMT members thought that.

ballysmate

Got people walking. He would have been satisfied.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... flags.html

slowmart

Hopefully Arthur Scargill next.

Bob, a self serving worker who was paid 6 times the average salary. Nothing but a money grabbing lowlife who defended his actions of "protecting" his union members. Amazing how the captive audience of the paying public paid for his union members jobs most of whom don't earn close to the renumeration of a tube driver.

slowmart

mamba80 wrote:

lack of R&d? collapse in apprentices, collapse of industries once world leaders, thatchers reliance on the financial services sector...huge success there! we have systematically failed to support industry, so where is our once proud bike industry? even Raleigh is an American company, where are our Mavics or Colnagos, GIANT, Specialized bike manufactures? or component suppliers? we had soooo many, the management of these companies screwed up and sold out.
minimum wage...that's a joke...multi billion profit companies paying sectors of their workforce MW, those same workers then claim tax credits so they can eat and housing benefit so they have somewhere to live....all paid for by I/c tax net payers, their rents going into the pockets of private investors.
I think you ll find the world collapse in banking you refer too was caused by the very right wing free market you want, Tony blair was more right wing then any previous tory government.
The right have answers and that is let the market decide but the market is v. short sighted and only ever looks at the balance sheet, interestingly with the recent floods, everyone looked to the state to help them, as would the most ardent free marketeer involved in a car crash, he would want an excellent emergency & AE before being txfered to his private clinic.

Are you Bob Crow from beyond the grave? Facts seem short and elusive so lets recap.


Argentina, ruled by a military Junta who were quite happy "disappearing" their own citizens if their views were divergent invaded a sovereign state. Plenty of armchair generals who haven't served yet exposé copious amounts of crap about military tactics. Best take the view of Argentine Rear Admiral Allara who was in command of operations in the South Atlantic who stated after the British statement of the exclusion zone meant that he considered the entire South Atlantic the theatre of operations.


And you'll find most of the companies you have alluded to, while brands, manufacture the majority of their products in the far east. Incidentally where factory conditions and employment law are nowhere near western standards.

Its easy and too simplistic to blame face management for failure of business, unions played a significant part in their own downfall and this was happening while the economy moved away from coal, companies offshored and the swath of cheap consumer products wa lapped up by us. The great British public. Most of which were walking around in clothes made in part using child labour. Make you proud doesn't it.

The minimum wage, like the social security net sets a safety net for societies most vulnerable. However some choose to use this as a lifestyle choice. And the reliance this builds where everyone seems to have their hand out for money or services rather than persevering and Bevan would be spinning in his grave.

nathancom

It is also easier to blame and disparage individual poor people rather than the processes that cause these people to be poor. They are the visible phenomenon, not the cause.

I suspect Bevan would be more concerned at how we have allowed such an unequal society to come into being in the 60 years since the end of WW2, why we have allowed corporations to foster such an acquisitive attitude via the uncontrolled spread of marketing.

slowmart

Bevan would have many reasons to weep if he was around today.

Unfortunately the poor have always had the shitty end of the stick and the disparity is growing and being amplified as we keep on making the same mistakes.