John McDonnell

[iamnumerate]

1 minute ago, PopGun said:

The facts to back up the openly Marxist state comment. 

If this is true then why worry about McDonnell? We already have what people fear he’d implement (apparently).

Fortunately we are only Marxist in regards to welfare, and getting less so (benefit cap) not everything else.  McDonnell would get rid of the benefit cap  and bring in Marxism in other regards.

Sadly things can always get worse.

[tomandlu]

5 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Fortunately we are only Marxist in regards to welfare, and getting less so (benefit cap) not everything else.  McDonnell would get rid of the benefit cap  and bring in Marxism in other regards.

Sadly things can always get worse.

The only absolute requirement for a functional benefits system is that you should always be better off working, and you can **** that up whatever your political position.

[ManVsRecession]

On 11/01/2018 at 10:06 AM, doomed said:

I can see how people may think it can't get much worse but it could. The problems the west has run far deeper than what political party is in power. Demographics, monetary system, globalisation and technology destroying jobs faster than new ones can be created. 

I don't care who you put in charge they can't come up with a plan to create a land of milk and honey for the majority.

There comes a point, as bankruptcy and/or personal ruin becomes inevitable, when it can make sense to use any remaining credit to buy hard assets and stuff you'll need over the coming years.  Things you'll still be able to make use of productively like a vehicle and tools for work, new boots, boiler repairs etc.

I think the same can apply at a national level. If the money system means we're f**ked anyway, why not at least have some decent infrastructure and housing to show for it all.

Edited January 12, 2018 by ManVsRecession

[PopGun]

16 minutes ago, tomandlu said:

The only absolute requirement for a functional benefits system is that you should always be better off working, and you can **** that up whatever your political position.

You beat me to it. 

[PopGun]

26 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Fortunately we are only Marxist in regards to welfare, and getting less so (benefit cap) not everything else.  McDonnell would get rid of the benefit cap  and bring in Marxism in other regards.

Sadly things can always get worse.

So not very Marxist at all then really?

Id agree our welfare system is flawed to say the least. However it’s living costs and wage suppression that’s made a life on benefits a more attractive option, not benefits per se.

[nothernsoul]

I went to denmark a few years ago and it is definitely more left wing than the uk. The reason,  is it is obviously a more egalitarian society, with deliberate efforts to make it so, such as having one of the highest minimum wages in the world and high tax rates. 

[jonb2]

5 hours ago, oatbake said:

The free market (capitalist) way of dealing with this would certainly not have involved state intervention. Banks would have gone bust, savers would have list their money and guilty bankers would have ended up in jail.

I think capitalism is a misnomer. People will always be the problem. The few are the greedy and the corrupt. Most others are the downtrodden and the victims.

I said earlier that economics should dictate nothing. Neoliberalism has Hayek - an idea where people don't exist. Capitalism V1 has Adam Smith who's dream has distorted out of recognition.

Expect sociopaths and psychopaths in every society. Nullify them. Free markets will not work unless regulated and overseen. The regulation has been eroded by the elites, puppeteered media and bent or inept politicians.

The whole thing needs a new vision. Start again - this time with people.

Finally, bankers and their friends should go to prison if they cause harm, the top brass, not scapegoats - this way you get rid of a lot of continued damage. Currently they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

 

[PopGun]

26 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

I think capitalism is a misnomer. People will always be the problem. The few are the greedy and the corrupt. Most others are the downtrodden and the victims.

I said earlier that economics should dictate nothing. Neoliberalism has Hayek - an idea where people don't exist. Capitalism V1 has Adam Smith who's dream has distorted out of recognition.

Expect sociopaths and psychopaths in every society. Nullify them. Free markets will not work unless regulated and overseen. The regulation has been eroded by the elites, puppeteered media and bent or inept politicians.

The whole thing needs a new vision. Start again - this time with people.

Finally, bankers and their friends should go to prison if they cause harm, the top brass, not scapegoats - this way you get rid of a lot of continued damage. Currently they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

 

Spot on

54 minutes ago, nothernsoul said:

I went to denmark a few years ago and it is definitely more left wing than the uk. The reason,  is it is obviously a more egalitarian society, with deliberate efforts to make it so, such as having one of the highest minimum wages in the world and high tax rates. 

 

Well we’re more Marxist/socialist apparently..

Not really sure how Marxism can make an apparent already Marxist uk any worse...

We could have the best of both worlds but no the consequences of one extreme is the other..

[EUBanana]

6 hours ago, PopGun said:

So not very Marxist at all then really?

We have progressive taxation, 'from each according to ability.'

Welfare is allocated purely on need.  There's no contribution required.  You rock up to the dole office, you declare you have no income and less than 16k, you get money. 'to each according to his needs'.

I wasn't aware this was controversial, do you disagree?  

[PopGun]

8 hours ago, EUBanana said:

We have progressive taxation, 'from each according to ability.'

Welfare is allocated purely on need.  There's no contribution required.  You rock up to the dole office, you declare you have no income and less than 16k, you get money. 'to each according to his needs'.

I wasn't aware this was controversial, do you disagree?  

Nicely framed but it won’t wash.

You’ve taken a slither of state provision and clumsily presented that one aspect as proof we are already Marxist. Just think about that for a minute.

Then ask yourself if you still consider us more Marxist than the Scandinavians who thanks to union power and franchisment, allows collective bargaining to render a national minimum wage unnecessary..

[malk]

Just a quick point. There's little point discussing Marxism is you haven't read any Marx.

However, this thread has been excellent for clueless about Marx bingo, bravo!

[iamnumerate]

On 12/01/2018 at 5:00 PM, PopGun said:

So not very Marxist at all then really?

Id agree our welfare system is flawed to say the least. However it’s living costs and wage suppression that’s made a life on benefits a more attractive option, not benefits per se.

Of course living costs are increased by benefits, it is a vicious circle - which Tony Blair was in the perfect position to solve - the economy was buoyant but did not.

[Meerkat]

On 1/12/2018 at 6:02 PM, nothernsoul said:

I went to denmark a few years ago and it is definitely more left wing than the uk. The reason,  is it is obviously a more egalitarian society, with deliberate efforts to make it so, such as having one of the highest minimum wages in the world and high tax rates. 

Communitariasm it is called. To work, it does require pretty uniform and high standard of ethics across the community concerned. And Scandinavia + Denmark and Finland have historically had it with not many other places coming anywhere near it. It is a very fragile set-up and can be rather easily usurped and hijacked by sociopaths or that's the risk. It is also anything but perfect (government induced and sponsored business cycles omnipresent). Anyway,  a wet dream for your garden variety marxists in other places as it just won't work due to an exceptionally high presence of disturbed individuals attracted to the bureaucratic apparatus which they eventually hijack. It literally becomes the government of the government by the government for the government.  

[crashmonitor]

John McDonnell is probably the Tories best hope of re-election, even moderate Labourites are scared of him. He looks demented, he wants to lynch certain women ( a bit of a no no these days) he is very far left in his outlook on spending money we don't have.

Labour should get rid of him, and the Tories should hope they don't.

Edited January 15, 2018 by crashmonitor

[tomandlu]

1 hour ago, crashmonitor said:

John McDonnell is probably the Tories best hope of re-election, even moderate Labourites are scared of him. He looks demented, he wants to lynch certain women ( a bit of a no no these days) he is very far left in his outlook on spending money we don't have.

Labour should get rid of him, and the Tories should hope they don't.

I dunno. It seems kind of weird to look at the state of the world, and the massive imbalances in asset distribution, and conclude that rampant socialism is the problem.

[PopGun]

20 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

Of course living costs are increased by benefits, it is a vicious circle - which Tony Blair was in the perfect position to solve - the economy was buoyant but did not.

Well rents of course and tax credits etc.

Yet when you destroy the industrial base of 3/4s of a country to retain captail in the remaining quarter (rather than modernising/investing in viable industry ala our friends in Germany) then what do you expect?

Blair was there to finish off Thatcher’s implementation.

[PopGun]

1 hour ago, tomandlu said:

I dunno. It seems kind of weird to look at the state of the world, and the massive imbalances in asset distribution, and conclude that rampant socialism is the problem.

Quite

[Democorruptcy]

McDonnell's let sub prime buyers refused by banks have cheap council backed mortgages.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/21/labour--councils-help-first-time-buyers-mortgages-john-mcdonnell

What happened to building council houses?

[tomandlu]

5 minutes ago, Democorruptcy said:

McDonnell's let sub prime buyers refused by banks have cheap council backed mortgages.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/21/labour--councils-help-first-time-buyers-mortgages-john-mcdonnell

What happened to building council houses?

2016 - was that an option, or even on the horizon? iirc councils are allowed to invest in many daft things, but not housing stock (directly).

To put it another way, if McDonnell is the raging marxist many believe, it doesn't seem very likely that he wouldn't support the building of new council stock. I could be mistaken, but I suspect most tories support the building of additional council housing these days, let alone whatever McDonnell is (or isn't).

[Democorruptcy]

1 hour ago, tomandlu said:

2016 - was that an option, or even on the horizon? iirc councils are allowed to invest in many daft things, but not housing stock (directly).

To put it another way, if McDonnell is the raging marxist many believe, it doesn't seem very likely that he wouldn't support the building of new council stock. I could be mistaken, but I suspect most tories support the building of additional council housing these days, let alone whatever McDonnell is (or isn't).

I know it was 2016 and have posted it before because whenever I see his name it's what springs to mind. If he cannot see anything wrong with using councils to support lending to people banks are refusing, I don't see much hope in him as chancellor.

[Gush]

18 minutes ago, Democorruptcy said:

If he cannot see anything wrong with using councils to support lending to people banks are refusing, I don't see much hope in him as chancellor.

I don't agree. HTB as well is a good policy if the intentions are right, instead of just pumping the bubble and builders profit.  If HTB was introduced in london with strict limit on the cost of the new build say 20-30% below the then average say 200k in london and 150k outside london, that in itself would have brought down the floor price gradually to meet the subsidy criteria.  Given government allocated billions it should have created a market of its own, rather than fit into the existing market.

[Meerkat]

8 hours ago, tomandlu said:

I dunno. It seems kind of weird to look at the state of the world, and the massive imbalances in asset distribution, and conclude that rampant socialism is the problem.

Or maybe its twin sista fascism (reallocation of resources to state backed industries, companies, broadly speaking) or a combo of both? In fact the border is a lot of times very hard to draw, but whatever problem you see I bet you in 99 out of 100 cases it will have resulted from too much of state intervention into something that can much better work when left on its own.

I also sense another folly in your thinking - that inequality as such is a problem. No, mate, it is not- we are all very unequal naturally and, clearly, in a more laissez faire world you would see people delivering superior service/skills earn more money resulting in natural purchasing  power inequality. But tell you what - what you have currently got thru a myriad and hundred years of state interventions along 10 Marx's cardinal tenets  and some of Mussolini/Hitler's stuff thrown in is nothing free market capitalism could ever offer or come close. Teachers homeless by now and what not, NHS crumbling, potholes and the list goes on and on with public sector pay and pensions becoming higher than those in the private sector - think about it and think if this is something brought about by a free market practice?

The advantage of leaving things where market can be established to the market is that the lowest earning people would have much higher purchasing power relatively to what they would have in a heavily distorted, quasi-socialism/fascism set up (that you have currently got in the UK), let alone in 100% socialism. A cleaning lady in the United States in 1950-60s was way richer than a PhD in the USSR. And no, capitalism was not to blame, to the contrary. If you handle inequality with heavy state involvement with the aim of soaking capitalists, you end up making everyone poor eventually except a few pigs. Think Orwell. Think North Korea. The ugliest form of inequality you can achieve. 

Edited January 15, 2018 by Meerkat

[Funn3r]

On 1/12/2018 at 4:38 PM, tomandlu said:

The only absolute requirement for a functional benefits system is that you should always be better off working, and you can **** that up whatever your political position.

I don't agree. Can you state your reasons for taking this point of view?

[PopGun]

54 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

Or maybe its twin sista fascism (reallocation of resources to state backed industries, companies, broadly speaking) or a combo of both? In fact the border is a lot of times very hard to draw, but whatever problem you see I bet you in 99 out of 100 cases it will have resulted from too much of state intervention into something that can much better work when left on its own.

I also sense another folly in your thinking - that inequality as such is a problem. No, mate, it is not- we are all very unequal naturally and, clearly, in a more laissez faire world you would see people delivering superior service/skills earn more money resulting in natural purchasing  power inequality. But tell you what - what you have currently got thru a myriad and hundred years of state interventions along 10 Marx's cardinal tenets  and some of Mussolini/Hitler's stuff thrown in is nothing free market capitalism could ever offer or come close. Teachers homeless by now and what not, NHS crumbling, potholes and the list goes on and on with public sector pay and pensions becoming higher than those in the private sector - think about it and think if this is something brought about by a free market practice?

The advantage of leaving things where market can be established to the market is that the lowest earning people would have much higher purchasing power relatively to what they would have in a heavily distorted, quasi-socialism/fascism set up (that you have currently got in the UK), let alone in 100% socialism. A cleaning lady in the United States in 1950-60s was way richer than a PhD in the USSR. And no, capitalism was not to blame, to the contrary. If you handle inequality with heavy state involvement with the aim of soaking capitalists, you end up making everyone poor eventually except a few pigs. Think Orwell. Think North Korea. The ugliest form of inequality you can achieve. 

A well written but cliche ridden reply.

Again No one is advocating communism, so I’m a bit puzzled as to its continued irrational  reference. 

Ah yes the road to hell is paved with good intentions etc. Please let us know when the Bolsheviks reach Copenhagen.

[zugzwang]

1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

Or maybe its twin sista fascism (reallocation of resources to state backed industries, companies, broadly speaking) or a combo of both? In fact the border is a lot of times very hard to draw, but whatever problem you see I bet you in 99 out of 100 cases it will have resulted from too much of state intervention into something that can much better work when left on its own.

I also sense another folly in your thinking - that inequality as such is a problem. No, mate, it is not- we are all very unequal naturally and, clearly, in a more laissez faire world you would see people delivering superior service/skills earn more money resulting in natural purchasing  power inequality. But tell you what - what you have currently got thru a myriad and hundred years of state interventions along 10 Marx's cardinal tenets  and some of Mussolini/Hitler's stuff thrown in is nothing free market capitalism could ever offer or come close. Teachers homeless by now and what not, NHS crumbling, potholes and the list goes on and on with public sector pay and pensions becoming higher than those in the private sector - think about it and think if this is something brought about by a free market practice?

The advantage of leaving things where market can be established to the market is that the lowest earning people would have much higher purchasing power relatively to what they would have in a heavily distorted, quasi-socialism/fascism set up (that you have currently got in the UK), let alone in 100% socialism. A cleaning lady in the United States in 1950-60s was way richer than a PhD in the USSR. And no, capitalism was not to blame, to the contrary. If you handle inequality with heavy state involvement with the aim of soaking capitalists, you end up making everyone poor eventually except a few pigs. Think Orwell. Think North Korea. The ugliest form of inequality you can achieve. 

Yeah, it's tough at the top after 100 years of quasi-socialism.

Some of the deserving rich have fewer than five houses each.