Are We Heading For A Recession Like In The 30s?

[andyofborg 11]

34 minutes ago, Anna B said:

 

What's the point of a Labour victory if it's merely a quasi Tory party that will not change anything for the people? We'll be back where we started howling for change, which is what led to the rise of Corbyn in the first place.

The point is that an incoming Labour government offers the hope of at least marginal competence. Whatever change people wanted it's clear that Mr. Corbyn and his ilk do not represent the change which people wanted and that's been clear for 40 years. Anyway, maybe this part of the discussion belongs in another thread. 

 

[nightrider 13]

48 minutes ago, andyofborg said:

The point is that an incoming Labour government offers the hope of at least marginal competence. Whatever change people wanted it's clear that Mr. Corbyn and his ilk do not represent the change which people wanted and that's been clear for 40 years. Anyway, maybe this part of the discussion belongs in another thread. 

 

Polling data showed that with a different leader and identical manifesto they would have won far more seats. But they still would have lost. So policies would also need to shift away from the left to get a win I think. Its unclear if under Starmer they would to the latter.

[ECCOnoob 1,021]

I feel like I am stating the obvious. But since when has paying into the system given anyone an automatic right to receive a payout. It simply doesn't work like that.

 

There are some unfortunate people who have paid into the system all their life and never had a penny out.   Other people have never paid in whatsoever but received benefits continually. 

 

Whatever the arguments, benefits should only ever be for those who genuinely NEED it.  It's irrelevant how long or how much someone is paying into the system.  

 

Ultimately, if someone has savings, assets or other funds available it's only right that they should use those first before seeking any government handout.

 

I'm sure it is upsetting for someone who suddenly loses their job or gets into poverty to see their hard earned savings or car or house fritter away on costs of living but such is life.  That why people have savings and investments.   Until such time as they have nothing else why should the get benefit?

 

The line has to be drawn somewhere.  Otherwise we would end up with benefit claimants sat with £200k savings, a villa in Marbella and a  Merc in the drive. 

Edited October 7, 2020 by ECCOnoob

[L00b 441]

On 6 October 2020 at 02:38, Anna B said:

Your thoughts?

(a) not the right thread for it, really

 

(b) broadly in agreement with Eco above as a matter of principle, but not so about as a matter of practice (by now, the UK system is grossly defunded and too biased towards denying any assistance by default)

 

(c) people are getting the governance they deserve

 

And with delectable irony, all the people who voted Cobservative at the GE for fear of Corbynomics, are now getting leftier policies under the Conservatives and yet, when looking at Johnson government's approval ratings (mid to high 40s last time I looked?),  seem happy with the fact. Nowt funnier than folks, eh! 

[tzijlstra 11]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

I think someone did a study, and when you add up ALL the taxes we pay, including  things like road tax, VAT, Council tax,  and other hidden taxes as well as income tax, it works out we pay nearly as much as the Scandinavian countries for much less in return.

I can categorically state that this is not true. The tax pressure in the UK is significantly lower than in Nordic countries. The Netherlands is comparatively cheap when put next to Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland, but compared to the UK It is very expensive. Here's a simple one - Healthcare in the Netherlands for a family of 4 is around 350 Euros a month and then you still have 'personal excess fees', personal income tax is higher than it is in the UK, council tax is more expensive, there is an additional monthly fee for 'watership management' and so on. 

 

The UK is the most capitalist/low tax nation in (or now out of) the EU that I know of, bar maybe Cyprus. 

[catmiss 12]

The last recession seemed to be felt most keenly by the north of the country, possibly exacerbating the effects of the loss of traditional industries during Mrs Thatcher’s reign and not adequately addressed by Tony Blair’s government. I wonder if all the Tory MPs elected last time by disillusioned northerners will fight their corner in Boris’ government 

[Anna B 1,401]

11 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

I feel like I am stating the obvious. But since when has paying into the system given anyone an automatic right to receive a payout. It simply doesn't work like that.

 

There are some unfortunate people who have paid into the system all their life and never had a penny out.   Other people have never paid in whatsoever but received benefits continually. 

 

Whatever the arguments, benefits should only ever be for those who genuinely NEED it.  It's irrelevant how long or how much someone is paying into the system.  

 

Ultimately, if someone has savings, assets or other funds available it's only right that they should use those first before seeking any government handout.

 

I'm sure it is upsetting for someone who suddenly loses their job or gets into poverty to see their hard earned savings or car or house fritter away on costs of living but such is life.  That why people have savings and investments.   Until such time as they have nothing else why should the get benefit?

 

The line has to be drawn somewhere.  Otherwise we would end up with benefit claimants sat with £200k savings, a villa in Marbella and a  Merc in the drive. 

I agree, I don't like but can accept your reasoning on those with savings, but the point is many people who genuinely need help are simply not getting it, hence the rise in foodbank use and ultimately the increasing problem of homelessness. I don't think you can get more needy than that. Once you disappear down that particular rabbit hole, it's very very difficult to climb out. And don't get me started on the poor treatment of people with disabilities and mental illness. The draconian system that is Universal Credit is something they just can't cope with. If they didn't have mental problems at the start, they will have by the time they've tried to navigate the rules, regulations, delays and pitfalls of this unwieldy bureaucratic mess.    

 

Working your way out is not an option when the jobs are simply not there, and 200 applicants for every job suggest this to be the case. Discrimination against the older or disabled worker doesn't help. What work there is often tends to be problematic in itself with 0 hour contracts,  short term contracts, the'gig' economy, poor prospects etc.

 

This is supposed to be a rich country, yet how we are treating our poorest citizens and vulnerable people in need is shameful. 

Edited October 8, 2020 by Anna B

[alchresearch 214]

21 hours ago, Anna B said:

What's the point of a Labour victory if it's merely a quasi Tory party that will not change anything for the people? We'll be back where we started howling for change, which is what led to the rise of Corbyn in the first place.

So Labour 1997-2010 didn't change anything for the people and for the better?

 

You need to start accepting that Labour party you want is dead. People have moved on and there are more centrist Labour supporters than Corbynistas.

 

Remember "for the many, not the few"?  That applies to the party too.

[Anna B 1,401]

10 hours ago, alchresearch said:

So Labour 1997-2010 didn't change anything for the people and for the better?

 

You need to start accepting that Labour party you want is dead. People have moved on and there are more centrist Labour supporters than Corbynistas.

 

Remember "for the many, not the few"?  That applies to the party too.

The world of 1997 to 2008 was a different place. We had a buoyant economy and everybody was pretty complacent and politics not at the forefront of most people's minds. The only things that stand out for me was the Iraqi war, the twin towers and the death of Dr David Kelly. (All 3 are connected if you think about it.)

 

Everything  changed in 2008 with the world wide financial crash, (which The Tories tried to blame on Labour.)  and a government lead by Cameron which plunged people into austerity. This was used as an excuse to get all sorts of iniquities passed and onto the statute book. We are still living with the results.

 

You seem to have forgotten the anger and despair at the political process  of the time. How people were refusing to vote and crying out for things to change.

 

That is what we will be going back to. Circumstances have given Boris a shot at the title but he is failing miserably. Starmer may well get in next election time after a few years of bumbling Boris, but he will make little difference. The gap between rich and poor will have grown wider still and he will not be able to stop it. 

 

The whole cycle will start again. But by then we will have lost even more of our rights, maybe even the right to protest, so once again the Establishment wins.

 

 

 

 

 

[andyofborg 11]

4 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Starmer may well get in next election time after a few years of bumbling Boris, but he will make little difference.

How do you know that?

[Jim117 72]

Dunno about like the 30’s recession but in my lifetime we’ve had the 70’s full of strikes, shortages and power cuts. Then we had the 80’s when in our area at least, Maggie destroyed the steel industry, mining and all the support industries linked to them like haulage, pubs, buttie shops, etc. Then we had the financial crash mentioned already on here. Both main political parties presided over these events. What I would like is to have a party with a plan that I could get behind instead of having to treat elections as a damage limitation exercise by voting for the party I think would be the least crap.

[MarcyC 0]

On 08/09/2020 at 09:35, Arnold_Lane said:

For a dangerous second there I thought you knew what you were talking about.

 

Define "common knowledge" in this context.  Do you mean even the man on the Clapham Omnibus knows - or it's just common knowledge in the banking world?

Its the people who claim that they know what they are talking about that have both irrational fear and confidence in regard to money and finance.

Most do not even know the difference between money and currency

Most are not aware that all the world currencies are no Fiat and that no Fiat currency in known history has ever endured this long

 

If the government of any country chose to move the decimal point in its bank balance  to the right and told nobody, who'd know?    Thats all I'm saying

 

It the whole world had gone into debt through the corona virus and complications thereof.   Then who are they all in debt to?

 

As for common knowledge I merely meant the majority of sentient people.