[Politics] Sir Keir Starmer’s route to Number 10

[Ding Dong !]

And to think many here believe a Labour Gov't are going to be our saviours !!

 

[WATFORD zero]

And to think many here believe a Labour Gov't are going to be our saviours !!

And particularly when you make such a well reasoned, detailed, intelligent and eloquent case for more of Johnson, Truss, Sunak and co

 

[Gwylan]

My basic understanding is that everyone gets it no matter how financially well off you are, the pros are of course the whole benefits system and associated management and administration of disappears saving billions, the cons are debatable but £1600 in your pocket each month for doing f*** all imho spells disaster, If people aren’t working, there is less taxable income for a start, and that’s before you consider the effects of lack of workforce, sure companies will have to pay more to entice people out of bed but ultimately that cost will be past onto the consumer and prices will rise, the those who live solely off UBI and haven’t worked for a few years will start asking for more.

You're looking at this all wrong. The idea is that it will increase the workforce not reduce it. For example, at the moment if you're on UC, there's no incentive to work a few extra hours as it comes of your UC (and creates a whole lot of more bureaucracy). If you introduce people would be free to work more hours without any impact. Look at the Albion as an example - they recruit a bunch of students to work the bars at the Amex, people who move on after a year or so. UBI may encourage other workers, long term Brighton residents, to go there, so there's no need to keep on training them.

The other benefit is that it encourage entrepreneurs to set up a business, as they'd have some income to fall back on. If successful, these could create more jobs. And, yes, there may be some people who'd want to do cock-all and just pocket the UBI, but they'd have no luxuries, no holidays and little chance of starting a family. How many people would want to do that?

 

[chickens]

And to think many here believe a Labour Gov't are going to be our saviours !!

At this stage we’ll settle for basic competence, but thank you for your contribution.

 

[jcdenton08]

The problem I have was that the policy and quoted figure was made without any costings whatever, with no knowledge of what the global economy would be doing if/when in power, or crucially how much money they had to fund this policy.

I don’t criticise Labour for backtracking on this issue, but I do criticise them for announcing it in the first place.

 

[Chicken Run]

You're looking at this all wrong. The idea is that it will increase the workforce not reduce it. For example, at the moment if you're on UC, there's no incentive to work a few extra hours as it comes of your UC (and creates a whole lot of more bureaucracy). If you introduce people would be free to work more hours without any impact. Look at the Albion as an example - they recruit a bunch of students to work the bars at the Amex, people who move on after a year or so. UBI may encourage other workers, long term Brighton residents, to go there, so there's no need to keep on training them.

The other benefit is that it encourage entrepreneurs to set up a business, as they'd have some income to fall back on. If successful, these could create more jobs. And, yes, there may be some people who'd want to do cock-all and just pocket the UBI, but they'd have no luxuries, no holidays and little chance of starting a family. How many people would want to do that?

It sounds very good, are there any countries in the world where UBI has been used and what were the results?

 

[BadFish]

And to think many here believe a Labour Gov't are going to be our saviours !!

Looking at the UK from the outside in (so forgive me if I am off the mark), there really is no saviour. A saviour suggests a quick fix swopping in and making everything better.

To me it is far more sensible to look for incremental improvements to the policial landscape by using ones vote to elect better each time.

By consistently voting for more of the same, UK politicians have been able to shaft the electorate again and again. They almost have a mandate to do this.

Of course this saviour narrative will mean that if Labour can't fix the problems caused by the last 40 odd years of governance the electorate will (with the help of the media) restore to the default and reelect the Tories. Who will then continue with their mandate.

 

[chickens]

Looking at the UK from the outside in (so forgive me if I am off the mark), there really is no saviour. A saviour suggests a quick fix swopping in and making everything better.

To me it is far more sensible to look for incremental improvements to the policial landscape by using ones vote to elect better each time.

By consistently voting for more of the same, UK politicians have been able to shaft the electorate again and again. They almost have a mandate to do this.

Of course this saviour narrative will mean that if Labour can't fix the problems caused by the last 30 odd years of governance the electorate will (with the help of the media) restore to the default and reelect the Tories. Who will then continue with their mandate.

Depressingly accurate. Thank you.

 

[BadFish]

You're looking at this all wrong. The idea is that it will increase the workforce not reduce it. For example, at the moment if you're on UC, there's no incentive to work a few extra hours as it comes of your UC (and creates a whole lot of more bureaucracy). If you introduce people would be free to work more hours without any impact. Look at the Albion as an example - they recruit a bunch of students to work the bars at the Amex, people who move on after a year or so. UBI may encourage other workers, long term Brighton residents, to go there, so there's no need to keep on training them.

The other benefit is that it encourage entrepreneurs to set up a business, as they'd have some income to fall back on. If successful, these could create more jobs. And, yes, there may be some people who'd want to do cock-all and just pocket the UBI, but they'd have no luxuries, no holidays and little chance of starting a family. How many people would want to do that?

I wonder about the benefits to the arts sector also. A basic income would hopefully provide a platform for musicians, writers and other artists to create content to keep us all amused and entertained.

 

[beorhthelm]

You're looking at this all wrong. The idea is that it will increase the workforce not reduce it. For example, at the moment if you're on UC, there's no incentive to work a few extra hours as it comes of your UC (and creates a whole lot of more bureaucracy). If you introduce people would be free to work more hours without any impact. Look at the Albion as an example - they recruit a bunch of students to work the bars at the Amex, people who move on after a year or so. UBI may encourage other workers, long term Brighton residents, to go there, so there's no need to keep on training them.

The other benefit is that it encourage entrepreneurs to set up a business, as they'd have some income to fall back on. If successful, these could create more jobs. And, yes, there may be some people who'd want to do cock-all and just pocket the UBI, but they'd have no luxuries, no holidays and little chance of starting a family. How many people would want to do that?

thats not the idea. UBI is simply a system of welfare, not to create a workforce. UC doesn't come into it, as that's a recent implemention in UK, while the idea of UBI has been floated for decades across the world. the points made against it sound much like others, and good reason why it never takes off.

 

[Gwylan]

thats not the idea. UBI is simply a system of welfare, not to create a workforce. UC doesn't come into it, as that's a recent implemention in UK, while the idea of UBI has been floated for decades across the world.

No, it's not. The idea of UBI is that everyone gets it, not just the people on welfare. It's true that some trials have been for welfare recipients but classic UBI is that everyone gets it

 

[beorhthelm]

No, it's not. The idea of UBI is that everyone gets it, not just the people on welfare. It's true that some trials have been for welfare recipients but classic UBI is that everyone gets it

yes, everyone gets it, the universal part. it's still a system of welfare, government provided payments cover general living expense.

 

[chickens]

It sounds very good, are there any countries in the world where UBI has been used and what were the results?

If you don’t have time to read all this nonsense, you are absolutely forgiven, but my tuppenceworth is:

I believe there have been trials, and I would appreciate knowing more about the outcomes as well, if any does know more?

I’m attracted to the theory of UBI for three reasons:

1. Once you have benefits systems that impose conditionality, you have to employ Civil Servants to ensure the conditionality is being met. A fully implemented UBI would allow us to dismantle 3/4 of the DWP. You won’t get that benefit during a trial of UBI though, you’d have to go all in on implementing it.

2. While I believe in a work ethic being a highly desirable character trait, there are plenty of people out there who are to an organization what treacle is to the mechanism of a fine Swiss watch.

Despite wot Iain Duncan Smith says, there are people in the world who are simply not designed by nature to fit into formal hierarchical organizational structures. Rather than spend millions of taxpayers money trying (largely unsuccessfully) to hammer the square peg into the round hole, making employer and employee unhappy along the way, why not allow them to find their own way? 95% of them may fizzle out into comfortable tedium, doing the weekly shop and watching daytime TV, but they have money, so buy things, so keep the economy ticking over. From among the other 5% may come our next Beatles, our next Dickens, our next Hitchcock. When you give people time and space, many will make bad decisions, but some will make good ones.

3. I believe in aspiration and wanting people to do well for themselves, however I don’t believe that the very basics of civilization should be withheld from those who cannot/will not work.

While it’s absolutely right that if you’re making no contribution to society then you can’t enjoy its full riches, I don’t believe that this should come down to the very basics such as health, shelter, heat, food and access to education.

I want people to work because they want to be able to go to nice restaurants, or run a car, or go on decent holidays, and I want those things to be within reach of anyone who’s working. I don’t want a world where people are working and yet still struggling to heat their homes. That’s an exploitative world, that’s the world we have now.

The big question is how is it paid for? I do not expect to see UBI implemented in my lifetime, but if AI/robotics is coming to take all our jobs anyway, then we need to be able to imagine a world after work.

I’ve always said it’s a problem to allow too much wealth or power to accumulate in one place. We have to get serious (globally) about taxing wealth rather than income, and (to oversimplify) get used to the idea that millionaires = good, billionaires = bad.

 

[Chicken Run]

If you don’t have time to read all this nonsense, you are absolutely forgiven, but my tuppenceworth is:

I believe there have been trials, and I would appreciate knowing more about the outcomes as well, if any does know more?

I’m attracted to the theory of UBI for three reasons:

1. Once you have benefits systems that impose conditionality, you have to employ Civil Servants to ensure the conditionality is being met. A fully implemented UBI would allow us to dismantle 3/4 of the DWP. You won’t get that benefit during a trial of UBI though, you’d have to go all in on implementing it.

2. While I believe in a work ethic being a highly desirable character trait, there are plenty of people out there who are to an organization what treacle is to the mechanism of a fine Swiss watch.

Despite wot Iain Duncan Smith says, there are people in the world who are simply not designed by nature to fit into formal hierarchical organizational structures. Rather than spend millions of taxpayers money trying (largely unsuccessfully) to hammer the square peg into the round hole, making employer and employee unhappy along the way, why not allow them to find their own way? 95% of them may fizzle out into comfortable tedium, doing the weekly shop and watching daytime TV, but they have money, so buy things, so keep the economy ticking over. From among the other 5% may come our next Beatles, our next Dickens, our next Hitchcock. When you give people time and space, many will make bad decisions, but some will make good ones.

3. I believe in aspiration and wanting people to do well for themselves, however I don’t believe that the very basics of civilization should be withheld from those who cannot/will not work.

While it’s absolutely right that if you’re making no contribution to society then you can’t enjoy its full riches, I don’t believe that this should come down to the very basics such as health, shelter, heat, food and access to education.

I want people to work because they want to be able to go to nice restaurants, or run a car, or go on decent holidays, and I want those things to be within reach of anyone who’s working. I don’t want a world where people are working and yet still struggling to heat their homes. That’s an exploitative world, that’s the world we have now.

The big question is how is it paid for? I do not expect to see UBI implemented in my lifetime, but if AI/robotics is coming to take all our jobs anyway, then we need to be able to imagine a world after work.

I’ve always said it’s a problem to allow too much wealth or power to accumulate in one place. We have to get serious (globally) about taxing wealth rather than income, and (to oversimplify) get used to the idea that millionaires = good, billionaires = bad.

I did read all of that and found it very compelling, before I comment further could you confirm unequivocally that they are all your own words that you have replied to me with?

 

[chickens]

I did read all of that and found it very compelling, before I comment further could you confirm unequivocally that they are all your own words that you have replied to me with?

I’m afraid so. This is the bit where you point out it’s Friday night and I should step away from the phone and pour a large scotch isn’t it?

EDIT: I think I’ve nicked the Swiss watch/treacle gag from somewhere, the rest is my own.

 

[Chicken Run]

I’m afraid so. This is the bit where you point out it’s Friday night and I should step away from the phone and pour a large scotch isn’t it?

No this is the bit where I say most of the transcript is hard to argue with, I’ll pop my responses in a quoted reply, reassuring that whilst a lot of what you say forms a desired utopian existence there are people like you who still dare to dream, bravo sir! Ps stay off the whiskey, you’ll turn all aggressive

 

[Chicken Run]

If you don’t have time to read all this nonsense, you are absolutely forgiven, but my tuppenceworth is:

I believe there have been trials, and I would appreciate knowing more about the outcomes as well, if any does know more?

I’m attracted to the theory of UBI for three reasons:

1. Once you have benefits systems that impose conditionality, you have to employ Civil Servants to ensure the conditionality is being met. A fully implemented UBI would allow us to dismantle 3/4 of the DWP. You won’t get that benefit during a trial of UBI though, you’d have to go all in on implementing it. AGREED

2. While I believe in a work ethic being a highly desirable character trait, there are plenty of people out there who are to an organization what treacle is to the mechanism of a fine Swiss watch. AGREED

Despite wot Iain Duncan Smith says, there are people in the world who are simply not designed by nature to fit into formal hierarchical organizational structures. Rather than spend millions of taxpayers money trying (largely unsuccessfully) to hammer the square peg into the round hole, making employer and employee unhappy along the way, why not allow them to find their own way? 95% of them may fizzle out into comfortable tedium, doing the weekly shop and watching daytime TV, but they have money, so buy things, so keep the economy ticking over. From among the other 5% may come our next Beatles, our next Dickens, our next Hitchcock. When you give people time and space, many will make bad decisions, but some will make good ones. SORT OF AGREE, but many of the 95% have grown up watching parent/s doing f*** all all day so know no different

3. I believe in aspiration and wanting people to do well for themselves, however I don’t believe that the very basics of civilization should be withheld from those who cannot/will not work.

While it’s absolutely right that if you’re making no contribution to society then you can’t enjoy its full riches, I don’t believe that this should come down to the very basics such as health, shelter, heat, food and access to education.

I want people to work because they want to be able to go to nice restaurants, or run a car, or go on decent holidays, and I want those things to be within reach of anyone who’s working. I don’t want a world where people are working and yet still struggling to heat their homes. That’s an exploitative world, that’s the world we have now.

The big question is how is it paid for? I do not expect to see UBI implemented in my lifetime, but if AI/robotics is coming to take all our jobs anyway, then we need to be able to imagine a world after work.Good point

I’ve always said it’s a problem to allow too much wealth or power to accumulate in one place. We have to get serious (globally) about taxing wealth rather than income, and (to oversimplify) get used to the idea that millionaires = good, billionaires = bad.FAIRPOINT

 

[chickens]

There’s a fair chunk of common ground there. Lovely stuff. With regard to this bit:

SORT OF AGREE, but many of the 95% have grown up watching parent/s doing f*** all all day so know no different

It absolutely can and does happen, but I believe this is slightly less common now. I think the current stats are that about half of Universal Credit claimants are working people.

When we were in the EU I know the EU had a project they wanted to implement with the Welsh government to try and parachute funds toward motivating families with “inter-generational unemployment.”

I don’t believe it ever got further than planning before the “B” word kicked in, I would have loved to know what they planned. For me, all you can do is ensure that opportunities to educate people exist, and gently encourage them. It’s really difficult (I would say actively counterproductive) to mandate people to learn and engage.

 

[chip]

There's a trial for young people leaving care in Wales. That seems a good group to trial this on.

Basic income pilot for care leavers: overview of the scheme | GOV.WALES

Guidance about the scheme to help care leavers receive a set amount of money from government to cover basic needs.

www.gov.wales

 

[Chicken Run]

Looking at the UK from the outside in (so forgive me if I am off the mark), there really is no saviour. A saviour suggests a quick fix swopping in and making everything better.

To me it is far more sensible to look for incremental improvements to the policial landscape by using ones vote to elect better each time.

By consistently voting for more of the same, UK politicians have been able to shaft the electorate again and again. They almost have a mandate to do this.

Of course this saviour narrative will mean that if Labour can't fix the problems caused by the last 40 odd years of governance the electorate will (with the help of the media) restore to the default and reelect the Tories. Who will then continue with their mandate.

I think the inhabitants of this Island may need to fix themselves before they start placing trust in others to fix the problems