Jump to content

Staunton

Members
  • Content Count

    918
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Staunton

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Staunton

    Finland and the Basic Income experiment

    tzijlstra's proposal might well rely on magic as it conflates the reasonable proposal of a universal basic income with the neoliberal dream of a flat tax, which let's the rich off the hook. There are a great many variables to consider in the debate over the idea of a basic universal income. Not least among these is its potential to alleviate the social and economic tensions as working practices come under stress in the wake of the technical revolution. This dynamic is set to generate enormous wealth for those well placed enterprises and individuals while many will face redundancy and hardship. A robust tax system will be an essential component of polity if further inequality and unrest is to be avoided.
  2. Staunton

    Finland and the Basic Income experiment

    The basic income model is one without condition, i.e. not linked in any way to employment or other consideration. The Finland experiment would imply an annual basic income of around £6,000 per citizen in UK terms. This award would be tax free. For a useful overview of the theme of basic income see: Guy Standing, Basic Income: and how we can make it happen, Pelican (2017).
  3. Staunton

    Finland and the Basic Income experiment

    That's an important point! for more on basic income see: https://www.basicincome.org.uk/what_is_basic_income
  4. Staunton

    Finland and the Basic Income experiment

    The Basic Income model is one of universality. It is awarded to every citizen, rich or poor, in or out of work and without condition. The Finland experiment has skewed these basic aspects .
  5. The Basic Income, as focused upon in Finland at present, is fundamentally one of a regularly awarded sum distributed to each and every citizen, without means test and, importantly, unconditionally - i.e. without any requirement to work or demonstrate willingness to work. This last aspect is a crucial point to bear in mind as the Finland basic income experiment is likely to generate some significant negative press over the coming weeks, and debate is certain to focus on precisely that spurious aspect.
  6. Staunton

    More hypocrisy from the Archbishop

    Listen to the debate concerning Archbishop Justin Welby's call for taxing the wealthy on: Sunday, BBC Radio 4, Sunday 9 September 2018, 7:10am Presenter: William Crawley (about 16 minutes into the programme) https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/play/b0bgw2mg Listen to Ian Paul, educated at Dulwich College, (a fee paying independent school, so privileged), and university (St John's College, Oxford, more privilege), now a 'reverend doctor', married to a GP (average GP salary £72,165 pa, so not an ordinary family on an average salary, but, again, privileged). Paul wishes to distract from any idea of political activism. He believes that Christians should turn their eyes heavenward and focus on salvation, not go about challenging the sickening injustices that destroys lives down here on earth by doing such things as calling for just tax reform. Well, he would say that wouldn't he, he's rich, privileged, he's an evangelical. It's the evangelical doctrine, let the poor look after themselves, turn to Christ, the Messiah that never showed up, and look forward to heaven, sometime, whenever, maybe never. https://www.indeed.co.uk/salaries/General-Practitioner-Salaries
  7. Staunton

    North South Divide - When is Enough Enough?

    At least the revenues allocated to local authorities are fairly distributed by central government aren't they?
  8. Staunton

    North South Divide - When is Enough Enough?

    Luke Raikes of the think-tank IPPR is the author of a report on transport investment in the UK. On Mind the Gap: Britain's Transport Divide (broadcast on Radio 4, Wednesday 4 July 2018, 11:00am), he stated: 'If you look at the government's planned spending on transport infrastructure, about £4,200 per head is going to be spent on London in the current plans, and only about £1,600 per head will be spent on the North of England, and much less in fact, per head, in the North-East and Yorkshire and the Humber. That means that in London they are likely to get 2.6 times more per person spent on transport infrastructure, about five times more per person than in the North East and the Humber. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b86z4s And in National Health Stories, in an episode entitled 'Unequal' (broadcast on Radio 4, Thursday 5 July 2018, 1:45pm), we learn: The Black Report on Health Inequalities, published in 1980, concluded that the health of people who were living on estates like Netherley [an economically marginalised district in Liverpool] had been neglected. The author of the report, Sir Douglas Black, was a doctor, and the first chief scientist at the Department of Health and Social Security. He'd been asked in 1977 by the then Labour government to look into health inequalities. By the time the report was ready Labour had lost a general election and Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government had come to power. Dame Margaret Whitehead, a long term researcher, recalls what happened to the Black Report: 'It was greeted very frostily indeed. It wasn't welcome at all. For a start they didn't have any press conference on it, they released it ready for a bank holiday Monday, the best time of all to avoid any coverage, and they only printed 250 photocopies of it, so it was very low-key indeed, and the Secretary of State did a two-paragraph forward to it basically saying “well we've received this report but it's too expensive, everything's far too expensive, and we're not sure about the evidence anyway so we can't support it”. In the report, ten areas were identified that should be targeted for extra resources to reduce inequalities in health. Apart from Tower Hamlets in London, all of the others were in the North In this programme an interesting linguistic point: … Despite the government ignoring the report, and even banning the use of the word 'inequalities', preferring 'variations in health' the Black Report made an impact in academic circles... https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b8b7rb Hmm, interesting isn't it?
  9. US Attourney General Jeff Sessions uses the bible to justify the law. He cites Romans 13: 1-5 to insist that citizens should obey the laws of government: 1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. I wonder if Mr Sessions ever takes the trouble to read verses six and seven? 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Perhaps not, that's too many verses for someone with a short span of attention.
  10. Staunton

    The changing face of the high street

    That is a very interesting question indeed!
  11. Staunton

    The changing face of the high street

    And don't forget the changing face of the ring road, the endless development of windowless sheds where minimum wage order pickers shall toil in a twenty-four hour culture of misery and exploitation processing branded sportswear and designer handbags!
  12. Oh, what an interesting letter! It says it all really, exposing the vicious hypocrisy of the conservative party: Jacob Rees-Mogg justifies his opposition to gay marriage and abortion even in cases of rape on the basis of his firmly held Christian beliefs (Report, 7 September). Fine. One can admire people with principles based on profound belief. So where is his opposition to welfare cuts on the grounds that Jesus went out of his way to demonstrate his compassion for the poor and the lame, the lepers and the prostitutes? When Jesus says “blessed are the peacemakers”, how does that fit with Rees-Mogg’s record of consistently voting for military intervention? Where are his statements on debates about executive pay, reminding other MPs that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven? I’m confused: I thought being a committed Christian meant following the teachings and actions of Jesus, rather than standing at the pick-and-mix counter in a sweetshop, only choosing the fizzy snakes. Iain Rowan Sunderland https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/08/jacob-rees-moggs-right-to-free-speech
  13. Staunton

    We are all poorer, much poorer

    No stamina? Avoiding the question?
  14. Staunton

    We are all poorer, much poorer

    You'll have to go away and engage in a great deal of work if you wish to demonstrate these claims and provide evidence that the neoliberal project has been the agent of delivery for those advances you cite.
  15. Staunton

    We are all poorer, much poorer

    I for one have some sympathy for many tories, who are entirely unaware that the party they support has been subject to a hostile take-over and transformed by an altogether more malign and destructive ideology. Indeed neoliberalism is at odds with many of the traditional conservative's basic principles as it subverts institutions, supplants the slow, measured principles of reform with aggressive destruction, restructures steady accumulation in favour of reckless appropriation. And I meet and converse with many tories who are bewildered by the downturn in the opportunities now being visited on their own children and grandchildren. The vicious destructive ideology of neoliberalism serves no one but the very few, at the expense of everyone else, here in the UK and across the world!
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.