The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )
- Thread starter rascal
- Start date
- Status
I think the official line is that the Tories hate the poor.
daylightrobber
Player Valuation: £15m
I know that there is sarcastic humour in there Bruce, but when you are poor and the people who are there to serve you as equals to your fellow man don't, then the perception is that you are hated. The way that this last government have turned working poor against those who don't work is absolutely despicable. That certainly isn't the behaviour of any one who cares.
I think there's a big gap however between what we know as a fact and what we think, with that gap often filled by our perception (which is often supported by our prejudices and biases). That doesn't make either a bad thing, but it doesn't make them accurate either.
We can possibly say with a degree of confidence that the welfare situation over the last few years has not really helped mitigate the incredibly challenging economy the world has faced. I'm not sure we can say with anywhere near the same confidence that this was driven by hatred. That's more a prejudice against the Tories coming through.
I don't know. The ironic thing is that IDS set up the Centre for Social Justice think tank back in 2004, whose aim is to put 'social justice at the heart of politics'. So by many definitions, he'd be something of a social justice warrior himself, although I suspect few would regard him as such.
Whilst you may argue about their approaches, a cursory glance of their website doesn't create the impression that they are contemptuous of the poor.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
They are mate, their whole ideology is to eat the poor, and this will be confirmed in 5,4,3,2.............
Bit on inequality here by Tim Harford (it was originally on the FT but that's gated so I've linked to his personal blog below)
http://timharford.com/2015/04/the-truth-about-inequality/
"
One final myth is that inequality in the UK has risen since the financial crisis. In fact, it has fallen quite sharply. “Inequality remains significantly lower than in 2007-08,” said the Institute for Fiscal Studies last summer. That conclusion is based on data through April 2013. The IFS did add, though, that “there is good reason to think that the falls in income inequality since 2007-08 are currently being reversed.”
Given all this, why the sudden anxiety about inequality? The answer is partly political: incomes fell and then stagnated after the financial crisis, and the crisis also made it seem risible to claim that the entrepreneurial activities of the rich would indirectly help the poor. None of this is directly connected to rising inequality but it certainly changes the conversation.
Yet there is more going on than a change in the political wind. By most reasonable measures, inequality of incomes has risen substantially over the past 40 years in both the US and the UK, with a particular surge in the 1980s. That should clarify the issue: the problem is most clearly seen within boundaries of nation states rather than globally; in income rather than wealth; and over the past few decades rather than the past few years. And it is stark enough to need no exaggeration.
I recently attended the launch of Inequality: What Can Be Done?, a book by Anthony Atkinson. Professor Atkinson is the economist who set the stage for younger stars such as Piketty and Emmanuel Saez; his first major paper on the subject of inequality was published in 1970, before either of them was born.
One thing that can be done, says Atkinson, is to use the same old redistributive tools with more vigour. The UK already redistributes income extensively. As Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics points out, the UK’s richest fifth had 15 times the pre-tax income of the poorest fifth, but after taxes and benefits they had just four times as much.
For some people that will seem more than enough redistribution. Others will disagree, and Atkinson is one of them. He would like to see the current 45 per cent top rate of tax levied at a much lower level (about £65,000), a new 65 per cent top rate for those earning more than £200,000, a substantially higher minimum wage, a “minimum inheritance” paid to every 18-year-old, guaranteed public employment, more comprehensive taxation of inheritance and property and an expansion of universal benefits.
Like it or loathe it, this is ambitious stuff. I don’t know if a 65 per cent top rate of tax is likely to be counterproductively high and neither does Tony Atkinson. I suspect that it is, and the available evidence provides some support for that suspicion. However, there is a wide margin of uncertainty so Atkinson is right to say that the evidence doesn’t conclusively rule it out.
Atkinson also wants to make market incomes themselves more egalitarian, leaving the welfare state with less to do. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, once talked of “pre-distribution”, which is an ugly word for the same idea. But neither Miliband nor Atkinson is entirely persuasive about how this might work. Atkinson suggests that competition policy, vetting mergers and breaking up or regulating monopolies, should be used to reduce inequality. Or possibly the state’s support for science and innovation — always important — could favour innovations that complement labour rather than replacing it? In theory all this is possible. But my imagination is not up to the task of figuring out what these labour-complementing innovations might be, nor how the government might help produce them.
The UK general election on May 7 might well produce a Labour-led government but it will be astonishing if that government embraces a redistributive agenda half as ambitious as Atkinson’s. The conversation about inequality has changed quickly — but what mainstream politicians are willing to countenance has not."
http://timharford.com/2015/04/the-truth-about-inequality/
"
One final myth is that inequality in the UK has risen since the financial crisis. In fact, it has fallen quite sharply. “Inequality remains significantly lower than in 2007-08,” said the Institute for Fiscal Studies last summer. That conclusion is based on data through April 2013. The IFS did add, though, that “there is good reason to think that the falls in income inequality since 2007-08 are currently being reversed.”
Given all this, why the sudden anxiety about inequality? The answer is partly political: incomes fell and then stagnated after the financial crisis, and the crisis also made it seem risible to claim that the entrepreneurial activities of the rich would indirectly help the poor. None of this is directly connected to rising inequality but it certainly changes the conversation.
Yet there is more going on than a change in the political wind. By most reasonable measures, inequality of incomes has risen substantially over the past 40 years in both the US and the UK, with a particular surge in the 1980s. That should clarify the issue: the problem is most clearly seen within boundaries of nation states rather than globally; in income rather than wealth; and over the past few decades rather than the past few years. And it is stark enough to need no exaggeration.
I recently attended the launch of Inequality: What Can Be Done?, a book by Anthony Atkinson. Professor Atkinson is the economist who set the stage for younger stars such as Piketty and Emmanuel Saez; his first major paper on the subject of inequality was published in 1970, before either of them was born.
One thing that can be done, says Atkinson, is to use the same old redistributive tools with more vigour. The UK already redistributes income extensively. As Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics points out, the UK’s richest fifth had 15 times the pre-tax income of the poorest fifth, but after taxes and benefits they had just four times as much.
For some people that will seem more than enough redistribution. Others will disagree, and Atkinson is one of them. He would like to see the current 45 per cent top rate of tax levied at a much lower level (about £65,000), a new 65 per cent top rate for those earning more than £200,000, a substantially higher minimum wage, a “minimum inheritance” paid to every 18-year-old, guaranteed public employment, more comprehensive taxation of inheritance and property and an expansion of universal benefits.
Like it or loathe it, this is ambitious stuff. I don’t know if a 65 per cent top rate of tax is likely to be counterproductively high and neither does Tony Atkinson. I suspect that it is, and the available evidence provides some support for that suspicion. However, there is a wide margin of uncertainty so Atkinson is right to say that the evidence doesn’t conclusively rule it out.
Atkinson also wants to make market incomes themselves more egalitarian, leaving the welfare state with less to do. Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, once talked of “pre-distribution”, which is an ugly word for the same idea. But neither Miliband nor Atkinson is entirely persuasive about how this might work. Atkinson suggests that competition policy, vetting mergers and breaking up or regulating monopolies, should be used to reduce inequality. Or possibly the state’s support for science and innovation — always important — could favour innovations that complement labour rather than replacing it? In theory all this is possible. But my imagination is not up to the task of figuring out what these labour-complementing innovations might be, nor how the government might help produce them.
The UK general election on May 7 might well produce a Labour-led government but it will be astonishing if that government embraces a redistributive agenda half as ambitious as Atkinson’s. The conversation about inequality has changed quickly — but what mainstream politicians are willing to countenance has not."
ToffeeDoug
Player Valuation: £35m
Secondary school!! Wow, Eton has really gone down the plughole!
Ed went to the same school as John Barnes. Must be a left wing breeding ground *boom tish*
daylightrobber
Player Valuation: £15m
Here's what we think the reality is, what we think it should be and what it actually is.
The 'challenging economy' as you put it has only been challenging for those of us without any wealth, and those at the bottom of the scale have too often found that challenge too much. Some of the tragic consequences of being plunged into poverty are undeniable. And yet, the top 20% are siphoning off all the wealth for themselves. There is no trickle down, just suck up. If you are not in the top 20% you are being fleeced. Maybe you think you can afford it, but the question is are you happy that the money is finding its way into the pockets of those who have plenty, rather than the mouths of those who don't know where their next meal is coming from? If you back policy that encourages this and Tory policy does, you are part of the problem. You are directly responsible for the misery that thousands of people in this country face day in day out.
The Tory mantra that there is no money is nothing but bull. Its there alright, and people are hoarding it like their lives depend on it. They are hiding it from the tax man so that ultimately they can die rich. What an achievement in life. What a legacy, having a number on a balance sheet that is bigger than anyone else's, whilst the worms eat your rotting corpse.
Blue 1
Player Valuation: £70m
No, Dave. The economy is slowing down because business is scared of Labour getting in, so it's Labour's fault, even though they're not in government. You know that's what they'll say.
- Status
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
