Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Self Employed Youth

The Economically Inactive Could Democratically Seize Control Of The Uk

Recommended Posts

In the 2010 elections, 10.7 million voted for the Conservatives, and come late 2010 the amount of economically inactive individuals aged 16-64 in the country exceeds 9.29 million.

The pension age is to rise and increase the amount of the economically inactive working age population (whilst unemployment is rising). If the economically inactive got organised, and they have plenty of time on their hands to do so, then within the next decade, they could seize power.

What would be the consequences..

Suppose there was a shift in taxation, from the poor to the rich, and a maximum wage imposed. Whilst at the same time, the minimum wage could be increased and employment programs rolled out.

One thing is for sure, without relatively well paid jobs and with high unemployment, these things are crossing the mind of the economically inactive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comparison of the numbers. I have been fearing change to deal with the huge and growing unemployment caused by the modern technology and economy.. would not be in serious discussion until the amount of people unemployed reached a 'critical mass'.

Especially when people like yourself who are thoughtful, strong at communicating, passionate.. start being left out in the cold in the economy. Part of the problem of the early stages of unemployment crisis is the people most affected are also the ones least likely to put up effective resistance. Like people who are below average intelligence, poor social skills, unmotivated, poor health, older..the same traits which caused them to be the first left out, make it seem unlikely they would organize.

Otoh a 'critical mass' might build.. if enough people were out there fighting to be brought in from the cold, those other weaker people might at least be able to make it down to the voting booth.

The Tories gave the banks £7 billion for some Irish losses without giving it a second thought. Well that £7 billion could fund 350,000 jobs that paid £20,000 a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

Thomas Jefferson 1762-1826

As you very accurately state, the consequences of the change in the makeup of the 51% can radically alter the conditions facing the remaining 49%.

The conclusion that the 51% will be hard left people might be a bit premature though. They could well be hard right people with a completely different set of outcomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No , they're more likely to be hard left nutters in my experience - especially the ones under 25 and students.

Still , if they couldnt be bothered getting a job (and there's plenty of shit ones out there if you're willing to pick vegetables ; most aren't) why would they be bothered to organise a mass protest? They just want to sit and watch daytime tv or play world of war craft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No , they're more likely to be hard left nutters in my experience - especially the ones under 25 and students.

Still , if they couldnt be bothered getting a job (and there's plenty of shit ones out there if you're willing to pick vegetables ; most aren't) why would they be bothered to organise a mass protest? They just want to sit and watch daytime tv or play world of war craft.

I have no idea what will happen. History shows us that societies act in unexpected ways and that strange alliances form when they approach breakdown. We seem to be heading in that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The economically inactive and low paid already have taken control of the country.

Every policy espoused by the 3 main parties is engineered to keep them sweet.

The good news is the economically inactive (not pensioners in the majority) and low paid cannot be bothered to get off their sweet fannies and go and vote.

Can you imagine if this huge majority actually chose to do something other than whinge and complain, sponge and be feckless?

Please don't give this idle lot any ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as I know, "economically inactive" means that one is dead.

do the dead vote now, as well as claim benefits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Move along, nothing to see. This is the same fallacy as any other "group" taking control. That important womens vote, for instance? It's just as split as the mens vote ....

All that matters to the main parties is swing voters in marginal constituencies. The rest of us can be ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The economically inactive and low paid already have taken control of the country.

Every policy espoused by the 3 main parties is engineered to keep them sweet.

The good news is the economically inactive (not pensioners in the majority) and low paid cannot be bothered to get off their sweet fannies and go and vote.

Can you imagine if this huge majority actually chose to do something other than whinge and complain, sponge and be feckless?

Please don't give this idle lot any ideas.

Even if they did vote , if the masses voted for an 'extreme' party (IE any party not liblabcon) then that party would be marginalised and attempts would be made to deregister it or destroy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Move along, nothing to see. This is the same fallacy as any other "group" taking control. That important womens vote, for instance? It's just as split as the mens vote ....

All that matters to the main parties is swing voters in marginal constituencies. The rest of us can be ignored.

Does a form of PR at least partially address this problem?

I think that direct rather than representative democracy certainly does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as I know, "economically inactive" means that one is dead.

do the dead vote now, as well as claim benefits?

Not sure how you deduce "economically inactive" = "one is dead".

Plenty of people are economically inactive. Receiving benefits only and spending them is economically inactive. They are hardly contributing to society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they did vote , if the masses voted for an 'extreme' party (IE any party not liblabcon) then that party would be marginalised and attempts would be made to deregister it or destroy it.

From 1997 until 2010 the masses voted for an extreme party. Look at the total mess we have been landed in. You are correct, that party have now been marginalised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 2010 elections, 10.7 million voted for the Conservatives, and come late 2010 the amount of economically inactive individuals aged 16-64 in the country exceeds 9.29 million.

The pension age is to rise and increase the amount of the economically inactive working age population (whilst unemployment is rising). If the economically inactive got organised, and they have plenty of time on their hands to do so, then within the next decade, they could seize power.

What would be the consequences..

Suppose there was a shift in taxation, from the poor to the rich, and a maximum wage imposed. Whilst at the same time, the minimum wage could be increased and employment programs rolled out.

One thing is for sure, without relatively well paid jobs and with high unemployment, these things are crossing the mind of the economically inactive.

Collectively, the economically inactive/active are too stupid to pull off what you suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how you deduce "economically inactive" = "one is dead".

Plenty of people are economically inactive. Receiving benefits only and spending them is economically inactive. They are hardly contributing to society.

He is correct. Why is receiving benefits 'economically inactive'? Why do you conflate not 'contributing to society' (a very subjective term) with 'economically inactive'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Collectively, the economically inactive/active are too stupid to pull off what you suggest.

Porca Miseria is right about the way that representative democracy works.

In general, the left's strategy is to try to attract enough of the vote of the inactive (beyond their traditional ideological supporters) to gain power. The right's strategy is to try to attract enough of the vote of the active (again beyond their traditional ideological supporters) to gain power.

When the balance between active and inactive economic participants changes, it becomes easier for one side or the other to gain power. The process is all about bribing voters in exchange for power and doesn't require voters to do anything beyond accepting the bribe. It is actually quite an ugly process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is correct. Why is receiving benefits 'economically inactive'? Why do you conflate not 'contributing to society' (a very subjective term) with 'economically inactive'?

Because the millions who collect a few pounds and spend it to survive are not contributing to society. They are not wealth generators. They pay their VAT and that's about it.

Look at it in simple logic. Do they cost more than they pay in? Answer yes. Therefore defacto they are takers, and economically inactive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the millions who collect a few pounds and spend it to survive are not contributing to society. They are not wealth generators. They pay their VAT and that's about it.

Look at it in simple logic. Do they cost more than they pay in? Answer yes. Therefore defacto they are takers, and economically inactive.

For some, this is voluntary. For some it is involuntary.

I am all for helping those (probably even more than we do to-day) for whom this situation is involuntary. Those who are voluntarily in this position do not deserve any societal support at all.

A robust method of determining whether people are in this situation by choice is very difficult to construct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some, this is voluntary. For some it is involuntary.

I am all for helping those (probably even more than we do to-day) for whom this situation is involuntary. Those who are voluntarily in this position do not deserve any societal support at all.

A robust method of determining whether people are in this situation by choice is very difficult to construct.

Whether they be in the situation voluntarily or otherwise is irrelevent. They are economically inactive.

Perhaps if there have not been enough years payments of income tax (of whatever level) should mean voting rights withdrawn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the millions who collect a few pounds and spend it to survive are not contributing to society. They are not wealth generators. They pay their VAT and that's about it.

Look at it in simple logic. Do they cost more than they pay in? Answer yes. Therefore defacto they are takers, and economically inactive.

Bankers cost more than they pay in (What with all the bailouts and tax dodges accounted for)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether they be in the situation voluntarily or otherwise is irrelevent. They are economically inactive.

Perhaps if there have not been enough years payments of income tax (of whatever level) should mean voting rights withdrawn?

You views are more extreme than mine. I think that choosing to live off society's largesse is very different to being forced to rely on society to survive.

If a child had been hit by a bus while riding its pushbike at the age of 12 and been severely injured, I would certainly hope that society would ensure that it was looked after over its lifetime.

I don't feel the same way about everyone living off the taxpayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does a form of PR at least partially address this problem?

I think that direct rather than representative democracy certainly does.

Well, it would do something!

I don't think we even need PR, though. The AV proposal we now have on offer is a huge improvement: first-past-the-post but with a post to pass, and the opportunity to vote for what you believe in without wasting your vote.

Now if they'd add a "none of the above" option to AV we could have a genuine snapshot of what people want!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether they be in the situation voluntarily or otherwise is irrelevent. They are economically inactive.

Perhaps if there have not been enough years payments of income tax (of whatever level) should mean voting rights withdrawn?

Will you be creating paying work for these economically inactive?

When the Tories helpfully shut down all the mines I didn't see entrepreneurs rushing to employ all of these ex miners in their businesses and building a manufacturing base in these areas.

Wealth creation is a bit of a double edge sword, as is being economically inactive, they can't all do window cleaning rounds as there simply isn't enough windows.

Once the mines where shut down probably the best move would have been to have low taxation and minimal red tape in these areas to encourage private enterprise, instead these areas get the same rules as the more economically advanced areas and it would appear more or less impossible to create self sustaining economies in these areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 2010 elections, 10.7 million voted for the Conservatives, and come late 2010 the amount of economically inactive individuals aged 16-64 in the country exceeds 9.29 million.

The pension age is to rise and increase the amount of the economically inactive working age population (whilst unemployment is rising). If the economically inactive got organised, and they have plenty of time on their hands to do so, then within the next decade, they could seize power.

What would be the consequences..

Suppose there was a shift in taxation, from the poor to the rich, and a maximum wage imposed. Whilst at the same time, the minimum wage could be increased and employment programs rolled out.

One thing is for sure, without relatively well paid jobs and with high unemployment, these things are crossing the mind of the economically inactive.

One set will vote for the people's army of Judea - but you vote for the Judean militia - the corolloray is that the non-working are so disorganised by nature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 311 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.