Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FT reporting food banks in areas with high universal credit usage have seen a 52% rise in usage after UC introduction.

So do you think we should try the Finnish 'universal income' idea that you mentioned not that long ago?

I see that pilot has come to an end, but it's not entirely clear what the conclusions are.

Yes, seems the Finns didn't think it was worth continuing the pilot scheme. Hence by implication, not a success.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43866700

The OECD comments were quite telling.

But there is a growing body of thought that with increased automation and less work to do there does need to be some different thought about how income is distributed.

From your article.
"Some powerful billionaire entrepreneurs are keen on the idea of universal basic income, recognising that job insecurity is inescapable in an age of increasing automation.

Among them are Tesla and Space X CEO Elon Musk, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Virgin Group boss Richard Branson.

US venture capitalist Sam Altman, who runs start-up funder Y Combinator, is organising a basic income experiment."

Whether basic income is the solution or not doesn't change the fact that it's not just idle feckers who increasingly need the state to support them and that some creative thought is needed.

Whereas a real life trial of universal income in Finland has failed. Also the OECD comments were:
"The study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said income tax would have to increase by nearly 30% to fund a basic income. It also argued that basic income would increase income inequality and raise Finland's poverty rate from 11.4% to 14.1%."

So not a great idea.

What ideas do you have?

rick_chasey

Stevo, what does this have to do with UC?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FT reporting food banks in areas with high universal credit usage have seen a 52% rise in usage after UC introduction.

So do you think we should try the Finnish 'universal income' idea that you mentioned not that long ago?

I see that pilot has come to an end, but it's not entirely clear what the conclusions are.

Yes, seems the Finns didn't think it was worth continuing the pilot scheme. Hence by implication, not a success.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43866700

The OECD comments were quite telling.

They seem a bit plucked at random having had a quick skim of the OECD report, and I'm not sure they say it's failed. It's much more wide ranging report than just a review of the universal basic income idea. I don't hold a strong view on UBI, and I'm unconvinced by the arguments around automation, but I think it's worth looking into as a way to reduce bureaucracy. As Rick and I have said the problems with UC are to do with the clumsy and inflexible implementation, rather than the basic premise.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

The most obvious problem was that recipients first UC payment was paid several weeks after benefits were stopped. Seeing as recipients of UC are almost by definition unlikely to have savings that they can live off for the intervening period, it seems blindingly obvious that this is going to lead to people falling into debt, resorting to food banks, etc. That would have been relatively straightforward to address.

People's ability to dismiss working capital as a trivial inconvenience never ceases to amaze me. "It's just a timing difference". Yes, like the gilt market.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo, what does this have to do with UC?

It's one of the alternatives that people were thinking about.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FT reporting food banks in areas with high universal credit usage have seen a 52% rise in usage after UC introduction.

So do you think we should try the Finnish 'universal income' idea that you mentioned not that long ago?

I see that pilot has come to an end, but it's not entirely clear what the conclusions are.

Yes, seems the Finns didn't think it was worth continuing the pilot scheme. Hence by implication, not a success.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43866700

The OECD comments were quite telling.

They seem a bit plucked at random having had a quick skim of the OECD report, and I'm not sure they say it's failed. It's much more wide ranging report than just a review of the universal basic income idea. I don't hold a strong view on UBI, and I'm unconvinced by the arguments around automation, but I think it's worth looking into as a way to reduce bureaucracy. As Rick and I have said the problems with UC are to do with the clumsy and inflexible implementation, rather than the basic premise.

If it had been successful then it would very likely have been extended or introduced...

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo, what does this have to do with UC?

It's one of the alternatives that people were thinking about.

In the context of the UC execution it's totally irrelevant.

It's about as likely as most people using flying cars in the next 5 years. Classic deflection.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo, what does this have to do with UC?

It's one of the alternatives that people were thinking about.

In the context of the UC execution it's totally irrelevant.

It's about as likely as most people using flying cars in the next 5 years. Classic deflection.

You're obsessed with deflection. Use your brain - there was no intent to do that here. If UC isn't working I wanted to know what people thought should be there in its place.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FT reporting food banks in areas with high universal credit usage have seen a 52% rise in usage after UC introduction.

So do you think we should try the Finnish 'universal income' idea that you mentioned not that long ago?

I see that pilot has come to an end, but it's not entirely clear what the conclusions are.

Yes, seems the Finns didn't think it was worth continuing the pilot scheme. Hence by implication, not a success.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43866700

The OECD comments were quite telling.

They seem a bit plucked at random having had a quick skim of the OECD report, and I'm not sure they say it's failed. It's much more wide ranging report than just a review of the universal basic income idea. I don't hold a strong view on UBI, and I'm unconvinced by the arguments around automation, but I think it's worth looking into as a way to reduce bureaucracy. As Rick and I have said the problems with UC are to do with the clumsy and inflexible implementation, rather than the basic premise.

If it had been successful then it would very likely have been extended or introduced...

Sure, it wasn't a roaring success. Maybe like our UC, it was just badly implemented. In answer to your other question, as a starting point a version of UC where the implementation learns from the mistakes of the pilot scheme.

morstar

Stevo 666 wrote:

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

FT reporting food banks in areas with high universal credit usage have seen a 52% rise in usage after UC introduction.

So do you think we should try the Finnish 'universal income' idea that you mentioned not that long ago?

I see that pilot has come to an end, but it's not entirely clear what the conclusions are.

Yes, seems the Finns didn't think it was worth continuing the pilot scheme. Hence by implication, not a success.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43866700

The OECD comments were quite telling.

But there is a growing body of thought that with increased automation and less work to do there does need to be some different thought about how income is distributed.

From your article.
"Some powerful billionaire entrepreneurs are keen on the idea of universal basic income, recognising that job insecurity is inescapable in an age of increasing automation.

Among them are Tesla and Space X CEO Elon Musk, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Virgin Group boss Richard Branson.

US venture capitalist Sam Altman, who runs start-up funder Y Combinator, is organising a basic income experiment."

Whether basic income is the solution or not doesn't change the fact that it's not just idle feckers who increasingly need the state to support them and that some creative thought is needed.

Whereas a real life trial of universal income in Finland has failed. Also the OECD comments were:
"The study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said income tax would have to increase by nearly 30% to fund a basic income. It also argued that basic income would increase income inequality and raise Finland's poverty rate from 11.4% to 14.1%."

So not a great idea.

What ideas do you have?

Ideally, the minimum wage has to increase significantly. Which I acknowledge can't happen in isolation. There should also be more state funded employment such as infrastructure. E.g. have you seen the roads?
Ultimately, yes, there is an increased tax burden or arguably, you push it directly to business via minimum wage rise and the working benefits reduction is re-directed. But the question is should society as a whole benefit from increased automation or just those who happen to be in a position of business ownership?
It's all about balance. I'm not some ardent left winger arguing everybody should get the same benefits from others efforts. Hard work and success should generate greater reward. However, where it is as simple as a cost benefit analysis that says machine X will cost £50k but save £100k in 5 years, there is a social cost.
You can't just have an enormous and growing underclass.

rick_chasey

If you’re interested in minimum wage stuff a lot of research has been published around the economic impact of raising it.

There’s a suggestion the evidence shows doesn’t increase unemployment much and in fact boosts growth; mainly higher paid workers tend to be more productive (though obviously there is cause and effect here).

TheGardenGnome

Rumour has it that the experiment proved that free money doesn't contribute to the wellbeing of the Finns involved, thus the overhaul of the socialist utopia is being seen as necessary to make the country competitive. No doubt Finns are known for their laziness and dullness in mind contributed to by the generous welfare system: free schools, universities and health care for all means that Finns do not appreciate hard work to pay for those things.

Communism died a long time ago people, it's a failing system.

pblakeney

Communism and socialism are not the same things.

TheGardenGnome

Communism is socialism on a slippery slope. Give an inch, they want a mile. Ipso facto communism = socialism.

!

pblakeney

That argument works both ways.
Neither conclusion is desirable.

Stevo_666

And after the distinctly lukewarm response from Jewish leaders to their meeting with Corbyn, Big Len wades in and makes thinly veiled threats about deselection of the MPs who were calling out anti-semitism in the party:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/26/keir-starmer-hits-back-at-mccluskey-labour-antisemitism-remarks

What a tw@t.

And perhaps a timely reminder of who wields a lot of the power in New Old Labour.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

And after the distinctly lukewarm response from Jewish leaders to their meeting with Corbyn, Big Len wades in and makes thinly veiled threats about deselection of the MPs who were calling out anti-semitism in the party:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/26/keir-starmer-hits-back-at-mccluskey-labour-antisemitism-remarks

What a tw@t.

And perhaps a timely reminder of who wields a lot of the power in New Old Labour.

Indeed. The funny thing is that if JC had actually dealt with the antisemitism properly Len might have a point, but instead it's the usual worthy but equivocal statements but no action.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

And after the distinctly lukewarm response from Jewish leaders to their meeting with Corbyn, Big Len wades in and makes thinly veiled threats about deselection of the MPs who were calling out anti-semitism in the party:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/26/keir-starmer-hits-back-at-mccluskey-labour-antisemitism-remarks

What a tw@t.

And perhaps a timely reminder of who wields a lot of the power in New Old Labour.

Indeed. The funny thing is that if JC had actually dealt with the antisemitism properly Len might have a point, but instead it's the usual worthy but equivocal statements but no action.

Rather like Tories going on about teenagers buying from LK Bennet you get the impression Corbyn et al don’t spend much time listening to people beyond momentum party members.

Stevo_666

It will be interesting to see what Corbyn actually does to tackle the issue. The feedback of the meeting with the various Jewish leaders was effectively 'Nice words, but meaningless without actions - what are you actually going to do about it?' I think I already know the answer will be naff that actually achieves anything.

This one is set to carry on.

rick_chasey

Like I've said, UK 2 party politics is mired in a debate for which party is more racist.

rick_chasey

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/1 ... ple-world/

Nowhere else to put it.

Man who's just had his third child feels there are too many people in the world.

tangled_metal

Yes but they're his children, they're more important just like everyone else's children overpopulation is someone else's problem. Why would a royal not think that too?

TheGardenGnome

Look at where the population is increasing the quickest relative to its population... Look at where its decreasing g so much they have to import people to prop up their numbers.

If you want to follow the atheistic agenda for having fewer children, go for it, just means you're ending yourselfs which is no surprise. There will be more believers, those with family values. The Royal Family will survive. Why hate?

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/02/prince-william-warns-many-people-world/

Nowhere else to put it.

Man who's just had his third child feels there are too many people in the world.

echoing the words of his Grandfather

His Father only bleats on about the environment from one of his many houses/cars/flights

these people have no idea of irony - typical Germans

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/02/prince-william-warns-many-people-world/

Nowhere else to put it.

Man who's just had his third child feels there are too many people in the world.

echoing the words of his Grandfather

His Father only bleats on about the environment from one of his many houses/cars/flights

these people have no idea of irony - typical Germans

How long does an immigrant family have to be here before you accept them as British? Poor buggers.

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/02/prince-william-warns-many-people-world/

Nowhere else to put it.

Man who's just had his third child feels there are too many people in the world.

echoing the words of his Grandfather

His Father only bleats on about the environment from one of his many houses/cars/flights

these people have no idea of irony - typical Germans

How long does an immigrant family have to be here before you accept them as British? Poor buggers.

depends upon how much they are scrounging off the state

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Like I've said, UK 2 party politics is mired in a debate for which party is more racist.

So your selling point is 'We've got f*** all to say that's new, but we're claiming to be a bit less racist than the rest?'

That's me sold...

TheGardenGnome

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43932073

Conservatives know how to play the game, that's why they're in control and why they deserve your vote against Labour. A party that knows the game can lead the country through difficult times as well.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Like I've said, UK 2 party politics is mired in a debate for which party is more racist.

So your selling point is 'We've got f*** all to say that's new, but we're claiming to be a bit less racist than the rest?'

That's me sold...

Not really what I said is it?

rjsterry

I think this is the kind of thing Rick was talking about.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... mitism-row

I don't think describing this as a nadir in British politics would be overstating it.