Benefits Britain - channel 5

[nutty nigel 7,509]

But Rickyyyy, back then there was passion and belief in politics. It was interesting and attracted people with sharp minds. If you didn''t believe in those policies you still had dear old Fatcha for your vote. But having said that the old Labour Party could scarcely be called socialist.

[BarclayWazza 91]

Not sure whether this has been mentioned already but people pay National Insurance throughout their lives which I''m fairly certain is partially for the purpose of paying a future state pension. There''s a huge difference between that and the benefits paid to people of working age. My taxes go towards facilitating this lifestyle and it makes me sick.

[Bill 1,788]

if it is so good, why not join them ?

[BarclayWazza 91]

Self respect and my capacity to earn being above the benefit cap.

My issue with it is that I was brought up to believe that you only buy what you can afford and many live in complete disregard of that. If you want a 50 inch TV, get a job to pay for it. This BBC story infuriated me:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]But Rickyyyy, back then there was passion and belief in politics. It was interesting and attracted people with sharp minds. If you didn''t believe in those policies you still had dear old Fatcha for your vote. But having said that the old Labour Party could scarcely be called socialist.[/quote]

The world has changed beyond recognition Nigel. People now go into politics as a lifestyle choice, straight from University after studying Politics and Economics. They have no experience of life outside that political bubble. In the old days both Tories and Labour had people who could draw on knowledge and experience from other fields. The political convictions were forged from those external experiences.Conviction politicians died out with Maggie on the right and Tony Benn on the left. Say what you like about either of them, at least they believed in the policies they advocated. All we have now is people telling us what they think we want to hear. I may have grown cynical with age but when I look at what we are left with today I see very few with any stature.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Spot on Rickyyyy! And it doesn''t matter who we vote for because theres only a small shift each time we get a new government. But what we have now won''t be forever. There will be other Benns and Thatchers. We aren''t consigned to bland forever!

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="nutty nigel"]But Rickyyyy, back then there was passion and belief in politics. It was interesting and attracted people with sharp minds. If you didn''t believe in those policies you still had dear old Fatcha for your vote. But having said that the old Labour Party could scarcely be called socialist.[/quote]

The world has changed beyond recognition Nigel. People now go into politics as a lifestyle choice, straight from University after studying Politics and Economics. They have no experience of life outside that political bubble. In the old days both Tories and Labour had people who could draw on knowledge and experience from other fields. The political convictions were forged from those external experiences.Conviction politicians died out with Maggie on the right and Tony Benn on the left. Say what you like about either of them, at least they believed in the policies they advocated. All we have now is people telling us what they think we want to hear. I may have grown cynical with age but when I look at what we are left with today I see very few with any stature.

[/quote]having met him a number of times I can say he believed in nothing, but himself - a fraud of the highest orderas to Thatcher she was as mad as a hatter and did pretty much what she was told ..... if the every day joe was aware of Jimmy Saville then why did she havebhim round for Xmas year in year out ?

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Spot on Rickyyyy! And it doesn''t matter who we vote for because theres only a small shift each time we get a new government. But what we have now won''t be forever. There will be other Benns and Thatchers. We aren''t consigned to bland forever![/quote]There have been very few really great PM''s in my lifetime Nigel. As Purple remarked, The Atlee government set the political consensus for a generation and when that failed Maggie reset it again. Both in their own ways can be considered great IMO. I doubt I''ll live to see another.The big disappointment was Tony Blair. Everything was in his favour, a benign economic environment and a massive majority but he somehow contrived to chuck it all away through a lack of any real convictions and a desperate desire to be popular. You have to know how to smile to be a Prime Minister but you also have to be able to wield the knife. He found it easier to kill half a million people in an illegal foreign war than to slit Browns throat. In the end it did for both of them but it did for a lot of us as well.

[Badger 2,405]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user=" Badger"][quote user="Herman "]When did we last have a socialist government anyway?[/quote]Or more to the point have we ever had one?[/quote]You are all far to young to remember.The Gas Board, The Coal Board, British Rail, British Road Services etc etc.Read some history and let the rose tinted glasses fall from your eyes.[/quote]Regretfully I am not too young to remember! Not sure what it has to do with socialism though - more like state capitalism to me. Unless, of course Churchill, Macmillan etc were converted socialists!

[Badger 2,405]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]The reforming government of 1945-51, led by the greatest peacetime prime minister of the 20th century (or the 21st), was the closest we have had. Its welfare policies were widely copied throughout western Europe, and led to a social democratic (note the lower cases) political consensus that was broadly beneficial, certainly in decades past, and even now, despite horrendous finacial pressures undreamt of at the outset.[/quote]Would agree that the 45-51 Labour Governments was one of the two greatest Governments of the 20th Century, along with Liberals along with Liberals after 1905. Both were radical and progressive, but not sure that either was really socialist. If anything, I think that 1905 Liberals were the most radical and progressive.

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user=" Badger"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user=" Badger"][quote user="Herman "]When did we last have a socialist government anyway?[/quote]Or more to the point have we ever had one?[/quote]You are all far to young to remember.The Gas Board, The Coal Board, British Rail, British Road Services etc etc.Read some history and let the rose tinted glasses fall from your eyes.[/quote]Regretfully I am not too young to remember! Not sure what it has to do with socialism though - more like state capitalism to me. Unless, of course Churchill, Macmillan etc were converted socialists![/quote]Indeed not by they must have been converted to the new political consensus else they would have changed it when the Conservatives came to power.I think you would find it hard to argue that the first Post War government wasn''t Socialist in orientation, Badger.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Blair didn''t disappoint me Rickyyyy. He was just what I expected.

Both labour and Tories came together because the sdp took the centre when they were poles apart. This squeezed out the sdp but left the 2 big parties too close. Now there is room for extreme parties on either side. You could say ukip have taken the right wing and if they pose a threat the Tories will become more right to see them off.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user=" Badger"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user=" Badger"][quote user="Herman "]When did we last have a socialist government anyway?[/quote]Or more to the point have we ever had one?[/quote]You are all far to young to remember.The Gas Board, The Coal Board, British Rail, British Road Services etc etc.Read some history and let the rose tinted glasses fall from your eyes.[/quote]Regretfully I am not too young to remember! Not sure what it has to do with socialism though - more like state capitalism to me. Unless, of course Churchill, Macmillan etc were converted socialists![/quote]

Indeed not by they must have been converted to the new political consensus else they would have changed it when the Conservatives came to power.I think you would find it hard to argue that the first Post War government wasn''t Socialist in orientation, Badger. [/quote]

just as you can be a bit more pregnant in orientationthe

post war Labour Government merely set out to run capitalism a bit more

efficiently by unifying some extremely ineffiecient and wasteful private

services under government controlmuch as the next incoming conservative government embarked upon a massive government house building scheme

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Spot on Rickyyyy! And it doesn''t matter who we vote for because theres only a small shift each time we get a new government. But what we have now won''t be forever. There will be other Benns and Thatchers. We aren''t consigned to bland forever![/quote]There have been very few really great PM''s in my lifetime Nigel. As Purple remarked, The Atlee government set the political consensus for a generation and when that failed Maggie reset it again. Both in their own ways can be considered great IMO. I doubt I''ll live to see another.The big disappointment was Tony Blair. Everything was in his favour, a benign economic environment and a massive majority but he somehow contrived to chuck it all away through a lack of any real convictions and a desperate desire to be popular. You have to know how to smile to be a Prime Minister but you also have to be able to wield the knife. He found it easier to kill half a million people in an illegal foreign war than to slit Browns throat. In the end it did for both of them but it did for a lot of us as well.[/quote]The Attlee consensus certainly hit problems but, as I indicated, these were financial, and so potentially temporary (taking a long-term view of what constitutes "temporary").That consensus, which was altruistic, generous and inclusive, did not fail in the sense that it was shown to be intellectually or morally flawed. The belated and ham-fisted attempts by various US administrations to provide some sort of basic safety-net health cover for people living in the richest country on the planet demonstrate that.The Thatcher/Reagan "reset", on the other hand, which was mean-spirited, exclusive and divisive, already looks like a cul-de-sac down which few will go in the future.

[paul moy 235]

Labour only really works for scroungers.Every time they have been in power since the 70s they have left a worse debt and economic situation than they inherited even in 1976 had to go to the IMF for a bailout. We will not get over their last deficit debacle for many more years as we still spend 300 million pounds more a day than we cover by taxes.How this has worked for anybody apart from scroungers beggars belief.

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Spot on Rickyyyy! And it doesn''t matter who we vote for because theres only a small shift each time we get a new government. But what we have now won''t be forever. There will be other Benns and Thatchers. We aren''t consigned to bland forever![/quote]There have been very few really great PM''s in my lifetime Nigel. As Purple remarked, The Atlee government set the political consensus for a generation and when that failed Maggie reset it again. Both in their own ways can be considered great IMO. I doubt I''ll live to see another.The big disappointment was Tony Blair. Everything was in his favour, a benign economic environment and a massive majority but he somehow contrived to chuck it all away through a lack of any real convictions and a desperate desire to be popular. You have to know how to smile to be a Prime Minister but you also have to be able to wield the knife. He found it easier to kill half a million people in an illegal foreign war than to slit Browns throat. In the end it did for both of them but it did for a lot of us as well.[/quote]The Attlee consensus certainly hit problems but, as I indicated, these were financial, and so potentially temporary (taking a long-term view of what constitutes "temporary").That consensus, which was altruistic, generous and inclusive, did not fail in the sense that it was shown to be intellectually or morally flawed. The belated and ham-fisted attempts by various US administrations to provide some sort of basic safety-net health cover for people living in the richest country on the planet demonstrate that.The Thatcher/Reagan "reset", on the other hand, which was mean-spirited, exclusive and divisive, already looks like a cul-de-sac down which few will go in the future.[/quote]It may not have been morally flawed but it was most certainly intellectually and economically flawed.

[Buh 0]

As the OP I want to add this post was just a jibe at scummy Ipswich people, not an invitation to the home affairs select committee.

[Badger 2,405]

[quote user="ricardo"]

Indeed not by they must have been converted to the new political consensus else they would have changed it when the Conservatives came to power.I think you would find it hard to argue that the first Post War government wasn''t Socialist in orientation, Badger. [/quote]I don''t think it is at all difficult to state that the post-war Labour government was not socialist, Ricardo. After the failure of classical economics in the 30s, there was a world-wide acceptance that governments should become more active in economic and social policy. This was about operating capitalism more effectively. Essentially a form of state capitalism, which is why Churchill, Eden, Butler (remember "Butskellism?"), Macmillan and Home were happy to live with it, with just very minor amendments. Anything which increases the power of governments is in many ways the antithesis of socialism (although, I accept this point is often confused and misrepresented).I don''t know if you have read it but there is a brilliant book by Anatole Kaletsky "Capitalism 4.0," which looks at the development of capitalism. He identifies the post-war consensus as Capitalism 2.2. Knowing your interest in History and Economics, if you have not read this Ricardo, I would strongly recommend it. I thought it was brilliant and bought it for several friends as a Christmas present!

[ricardo 7,347]

I will certainly give it a look Badger.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Spot on Rickyyyy! And it doesn''t matter who we vote for because theres only a small shift each time we get a new government. But what we have now won''t be forever. There will be other Benns and Thatchers. We aren''t consigned to bland forever![/quote]There have been very few really great PM''s in my lifetime Nigel. As Purple remarked, The Atlee government set the political consensus for a generation and when that failed Maggie reset it again. Both in their own ways can be considered great IMO. I doubt I''ll live to see another.The big disappointment was Tony Blair. Everything was in his favour, a benign economic environment and a massive majority but he somehow contrived to chuck it all away through a lack of any real convictions and a desperate desire to be popular. You have to know how to smile to be a Prime Minister but you also have to be able to wield the knife. He found it easier to kill half a million people in an illegal foreign war than to slit Browns throat. In the end it did for both of them but it did for a lot of us as well.[/quote]The Attlee consensus certainly hit problems but, as I indicated, these were financial, and so potentially temporary (taking a long-term view of what constitutes "temporary").That consensus, which was altruistic, generous and inclusive, did not fail in the sense that it was shown to be intellectually or morally flawed. The belated and ham-fisted attempts by various US administrations to provide some sort of basic safety-net health cover for people living in the richest country on the planet demonstrate that.The Thatcher/Reagan "reset", on the other hand, which was mean-spirited, exclusive and divisive, already looks like a cul-de-sac down which few will go in the future.[/quote]It may not have been morally flawed but it was most certainly intellectually and economically flawed.[/quote]Ricardo, according to a recent study by the Commonwealth Fund, which is nothing to do with the British Commonwealth but is a highly-respected US foundation, the NHS is the best health service in the world. "The United Kingdom ranks first overall, scoring highest on quality, access and efficiency." In  a survey of 11 major countries the UK finished above the much-lauded French service, ahead of Germany and the Netherlands, and - of course - ahead of the US. And this despite spend less per head on patients than nine of the other 10 countries. That doesn''t sound much like a system that is either intellectually or economically flawed.

[militantcanary 0]

"]All these types of programmes do is help keep the social underclass in their place by creating a modern freak show.  Jeremy Kyle''s the same pimping the underclass out for a few crumbs off the table so the rest can take the piss.

The sad thing is many people watching are falling for it.  Blame the people on TV rather than the government and the filth at the top who stay at the top by making sure the poor are at the bottom.

I couldn''t agree more, perhaps some facts for those of the Daily Heil/Tory scum leaning:

There are a massive 190 families in GB with more than 10 children claiming benefits, perhaps its called benefit street as that is the equivalent of 1 street in the whole Country. There are just 900 with 8 Children or more. The amount spent on job seekers allowance is less than a 1/10 spent on Pensions and is a 1/8 of the uncollected tax on big business. All this is administered by 19 Millionaires in the Cabinet who are waging a war against the working class/poor in this Country who some of you are either too thick to see or actively approve of..

[Mello Yello 2,281]

Phew!.....At least Gordon Brown had the astute sense to retain our gold reserves.....Errrr mmmh?

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Spot on Rickyyyy! And it doesn''t matter who we vote for because theres only a small shift each time we get a new government. But what we have now won''t be forever. There will be other Benns and Thatchers. We aren''t consigned to bland forever![/quote]There have been very few really great PM''s in my lifetime Nigel. As Purple remarked, The Atlee government set the political consensus for a generation and when that failed Maggie reset it again. Both in their own ways can be considered great IMO. I doubt I''ll live to see another.The big disappointment was Tony Blair. Everything was in his favour, a benign economic environment and a massive majority but he somehow contrived to chuck it all away through a lack of any real convictions and a desperate desire to be popular. You have to know how to smile to be a Prime Minister but you also have to be able to wield the knife. He found it easier to kill half a million people in an illegal foreign war than to slit Browns throat. In the end it did for both of them but it did for a lot of us as well.[/quote]The Attlee consensus certainly hit problems but, as I indicated, these were financial, and so potentially temporary (taking a long-term view of what constitutes "temporary").That consensus, which was altruistic, generous and inclusive, did not fail in the sense that it was shown to be intellectually or morally flawed. The belated and ham-fisted attempts by various US administrations to provide some sort of basic safety-net health cover for people living in the richest country on the planet demonstrate that.The Thatcher/Reagan "reset", on the other hand, which was mean-spirited, exclusive and divisive, already looks like a cul-de-sac down which few will go in the future.[/quote]It may not have been morally flawed but it was most certainly intellectually and economically flawed.[/quote]Ricardo, according to a recent study by the Commonwealth Fund, which is nothing to do with the British Commonwealth but is a highly-respected US foundation, the NHS is the best health service in the world. "The United Kingdom ranks first overall, scoring highest on quality, access and efficiency." In  a survey of 11 major countries the UK finished above the much-lauded French service, ahead of Germany and the Netherlands, and - of course - ahead of the US. And this despite spend less per head on patients than nine of the other 10 countries. That doesn''t sound much like a system that is either intellectually or economically flawed.[/quote]Perhaps that''s why all those other countries in the world rushed to copy our model.Oh!     Wait.Nobody has.

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user="militantcanary"]"]All these types of programmes do is help keep the social underclass in their place by creating a modern freak show.  Jeremy Kyle''s the same pimping the underclass out for a few crumbs off the table so the rest can take the piss.

The sad thing is many people watching are falling for it.  Blame the people on TV rather than the government and the filth at the top who stay at the top by making sure the poor are at the bottom.

I couldn''t agree more, perhaps some facts for those of the Daily Heil/Tory scum leaning:

There are a massive 190 families in GB with more than 10 children claiming benefits, perhaps its called benefit street as that is the equivalent of 1 street in the whole Country. There are just 900 with 8 Children or more. The amount spent on job seekers allowance is less than a 1/10 spent on Pensions and is a 1/8 of the uncollected tax on big business. All this is administered by 19 Millionaires in the Cabinet who are waging a war against the working class/poor in this Country who some of you are either too thick to see or actively approve of..[/quote]

Nobody minds seeing genuine claimants getting the help they are entitled to, but they do mind when they see people who are quite blatantly taking the pi$$.

[Bill 1,788]

or in reality, pretty much a greater part of the world has healthcare free at the point of need

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user="City1st"]or in reality, pretty much a greater part of the world has healthcare free at the point of need

[/quote]The only people who ever get free health care are those who have never paid tax and National Insurance. That''s not me and I suspect not you either.

[Bill 1,788]

it is paid for by empoyers as a tax on their profits - which income tax and NI arethe NHS was introduced as a means of insuring a healthy workforce rather than any kindly benevolence towards the populacethat was why free orange jioce and milk was introduced to the young - and why a future Conservative government built so many council houses

you need to open your eyes a bit more dear fellow

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user="City1st"]it is paid for by empoyers as a tax on their profits - which income tax and NI arethe NHS was introduced as a means of insuring a healthy workforce rather than any kindly benevolence towards the populacethat was why free orange jioce and milk was introduced to the young - and why a future Conservative government built so many council houses

you need to open your eyes a bit more dear fellow

[/quote]I''ve got to admit that I did enjoy the free National Dried Milk and Orange Juice.[:D]Not so keen on the Cod Liver Oil though.

[Badger 2,405]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]Phew!.....At least Gordon Brown had the astute sense to retain our gold reserves.....Errrr mmmh?[/quote]I see this myth has reared its head again. It depends upon how much of a speculator you wish the Chancellor of UK to be.Holding your assets in gold is not generally a sensible idea as it is not interest bearing. In other words, you do not earn any income from holding gold and are totally reliant on its capital value. Of course, if you time your entry into the market and exit perfectly, you are set to able to make money; equally if you time it wrong you will lose money. However, this is essentially not the function of "reserves:" it is not "speculation money."However, in the long-term, holding assets in non interest bearing forms is less rewarding that benefiting from interest and its compounding effects. Holding assets in gold, is largely an anachronism, due to the Gold Standard and fixed exchange rates. In the long run it will be a profitable decision, as a spread of compounding interest-bearing assets will grow more quickly than gold. It was a sensible decision but the economics behind it is probably too complex for most MPS (of all parties)!

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user=" Badger"][quote user="Mello Yello"]Phew!.....At least Gordon Brown had the astute sense to retain our gold reserves.....Errrr mmmh?[/quote]I see this myth has reared its head again. It depends upon how much of a speculator you wish the Chancellor of UK to be.Holding your assets in gold is not generally a sensible idea as it is not interest bearing. In other words, you do not earn any income from holding gold and are totally reliant on its capital value. Of course, if you time your entry into the market and exit perfectly, you are set to able to make money; equally if you time it wrong you will lose money. However, this is essentially not the function of "reserves:" it is not "speculation money."However, in the long-term, holding assets in non interest bearing forms is less rewarding that benefiting from interest and its compounding effects. Holding assets in gold, is largely an anachronism, due to the Gold Standard and fixed exchange rates. In the long run it will be a profitable decision, as a spread of compounding interest-bearing assets will grow more quickly than gold. It was a sensible decision but the economics behind it is probably too complex for most MPS (of all parties)![/quote]However very few countries have followed that lead which should give you a clue as to how sensible it was. It was also probably the least well timed financial decision of all time.I''ll give you credit for a brave defence of a foolish action, Badger. Dear old Gordo not only sold our gold at the bottom of the market but forced that market bottom by signalling his intentions well in advance. The average price of that sale was around $270 an ounce. Gold has since risen to over $1800 an an ounce and although it has  fallen recently it is still very close to $1300 an ounce. This is some five times the price that we got for it.How many centuries of compound interest do we need before we get our money back?