UK Politics: Picking Your Career

[Spockydog]

It's not the factionism that upsets me. It's the arbitrary deselection of a good man, a well respected public servant who has done nothing but good for the people of his community, because he once shared a stage with Ken Loach or some shit. 

Edited June 3, 2023 by Spockydog

[The Anti-Targ]

Politics is a dirty, filthy game that makes bastards and hypocrits of everyone who gets sucked far enough in. And the best people at it are self-serving egotists.

And that's why we end up with shit governments more often than not.

 

[Spockydog]

 

 

[A wilding]

We got another good gallows laugh out of the news this morning.

The government has told Johnson that they will cut off the taxpayer funding for his lawyers if he releases any material to the Covid inquiry.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65801103

[Spockydog]

 

 

[Which Tyler]

Couldn't find the old UBI thread

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/04/universal-basic-income-of-1600-pounds-a-month-to-be-trialled-in-england

[dog-days]

Will be interested to see how this and the trials in Wales develop. 

[Spockydog]

 

[The Anti-Targ]

GBP1600/month is equivalent, I think to a full time job being paid GBP9.32/hr. That appears to be less than adult minimum wage but more than the youth minimum wage. According to the living wage website the UK living wage is 10.90/hr and for London it's 11.95. This is the problem with UBI, it is never set to be an amount people can live on as a sole income. And it's completely unnecessary to pay everyone a base sub-living wage income.

This is why I advocate for a job guarantee programme, which ensures everyone not employed in the private sector gets a living wage.

[Rippounet]

5 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Couldn't find the old UBI thread

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/04/universal-basic-income-of-1600-pounds-a-month-to-be-trialled-in-england

Seems really nasty to do it with such a small group. Obviously UBI will have widely different effects if it is tested on at least a small community (which, iirc, is how most such experiments are performed).

[The Anti-Targ]

UK working age population is about 37 million. At 1600/month if applied nationally and universally that's 59bn/month added to the governments expenditure, 710Bn/year. Can the govt spend that kind of money more wisely than giving 90% of people extra money they don't need? I think they can. For starters, assuming long term average unemployment under the current neoliberal capitalist system of ~4.5% a job guarantee can ensure those 1.7 million people a living wage of 1,820/month, let's round it up to 1900, for the paltry sum of 3.2bn/month or 39Bn/year, leaving the govt with 671Bn to spend on other things, like housing, education, healthcare etc. And that guaranteed income (renewed regularly for inflation) sets the wage floor for the private sector without having to formally legislate a minimum wage.

[horangi]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

UK working age population is about 37 million. At 1600/month if applied nationally and universally that's 59bn/month added to the governments expenditure, 710Bn/year. Can the govt spend that kind of money more wisely than giving 90% of people extra money they don't need? I think they can. For starters, assuming long term average unemployment under the current neoliberal capitalist system of ~4.5% a job guarantee can ensure those 1.7 million people a living wage of 1,820/month, let's round it up to 1900, for the paltry sum of 3.2bn/month or 39Bn/year, leaving the govt with 671Bn to spend on other things, like housing, education, healthcare etc. And that guaranteed income (renewed regularly for inflation) sets the wage floor for the private sector without having to formally legislate a minimum wage.

While I am not sold on UBI as an effective use of government funds or economically viable either, that scheme at least preserves the incentive to work.  At 1900 a month/22.8k a year, you'd be setting unemployment at a higher rate than the second quintile for the UK population and about a quarter of the jobs.  I am sure part of the intent would be to force companies to up their base wage, it would have to be significantly above the 22.8k to be able to attract workers.   If you offered a pound over that 'wage' it would be a salary of about 25k full time, but who is going to choose working 40 hours a week at McDonalds for an added 40 pounds vs not working?  I got to assume that you'd have to offer several pounds over that to get anyone to do undesirable jobs.  Granted, it can be a conservative canard warped to attack any kinds of unemployment assistance (which I am fully supportive of so long as the incentive for able bodied folks to work is maintained), but there is a point when wages become too high to be economically viable and those goods/services most impacted are those consumed by those at the lowest end of the wealth spectrum.  Dr. Google tells me that the average fry cook makes a shade under 17k a year in London and a Big mac goes for around 4.20.  You are looking at nearly doubling that fry cook's salary to keep him working, how much of that is going to get passed on to the price of the burger?  Maybe not the best example since we'd all be healthier not eating there, but the same would apply to crop harvesting or other essential jobs.  I'd expect you'd just end up inflating the cost of goods/services to the detriment of everyone who does work. 

Edited June 5, 2023 by horangi

[BigFatCoward]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65814126

Good old tories. I wonder what he allegedly said. 

[mormont]

I remember this one. He was arguing with a Bahraini activist and told him to 'go back to Bahrain'. Bit insensitive since the activist in question was stripped of his Bahraini citizenship by the government there and if he did go back, he'd be in real danger of death. (He has been granted asylum in the UK because of this.)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64033838
 

Quote

In a video, provided to the BBC by Mr Alwadaei, Mr Stewart said in response to his questioning: "Get stuffed. Bahrain's a great place. End of."

He later added: "Go away, I hate you. You make a lot of fuss. Go back to Bahrain."

After being asked again if he had accepted any money from the Bahraini regime, Mr Stewart said: "You're taking money off my country, go away!"

Edited June 5, 2023 by mormont

[The Anti-Targ]

8 hours ago, horangi said:

While I am not sold on UBI as an effective use of government funds or economically viable either, that scheme at least preserves the incentive to work.  At 1900 a month/22.8k a year, you'd be setting unemployment at a higher rate than the second quintile for the UK population and about a quarter of the jobs.  I am sure part of the intent would be to force companies to up their base wage, it would have to be significantly above the 22.8k to be able to attract workers.   If you offered a pound over that 'wage' it would be a salary of about 25k full time, but who is going to choose working 40 hours a week at McDonalds for an added 40 pounds vs not working?  I got to assume that you'd have to offer several pounds over that to get anyone to do undesirable jobs.  Granted, it can be a conservative canard warped to attack any kinds of unemployment assistance (which I am fully supportive of so long as the incentive for able bodied folks to work is maintained), but there is a point when wages become too high to be economically viable and those goods/services most impacted are those consumed by those at the lowest end of the wealth spectrum.  Dr. Google tells me that the average fry cook makes a shade under 17k a year in London and a Big mac goes for around 4.20.  You are looking at nearly doubling that fry cook's salary to keep him working, how much of that is going to get passed on to the price of the burger?  Maybe not the best example since we'd all be healthier not eating there, but the same would apply to crop harvesting or other essential jobs.  I'd expect you'd just end up inflating the cost of goods/services to the detriment of everyone who does work. 

If a job guarantee is set to the living wage then to attract someone out of that programme to the private sector would not require double the wage. People will move from one job to another for a 5-10% financial bump, or for a job they would prefer to do, or for a job that fits their personal circumstances better. So if the living wage is 22K/year then a fry cook wage could be slightly above that or more or less the same, not double the current 17K. JG programmes are conceived to be employment of last resort which means if there are private sector jobs available they would need to be filled first, unless there is a material reason a person can't do the private sector jobs that are available.

It's been tried with what appears to be positive socio-economic results.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-02-world-s-first-universal-jobs-guarantee-experiment-starts-austria

https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/news/worlds-first-universal-job-guarantee-boosts-wellbeing-and-eliminates-long-term-unemployment/

 

[horangi]

39 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If a job guarantee is set to the living wage then to attract someone out of that programme to the private sector would not require double the wage. People will move from one job to another for a 5-10% financial bump, or for a job they would prefer to do, or for a job that fits their personal circumstances better.

 

Ah gotcha, I misunderstood the setup you were proposing and thought it was just UBI for the unemployed, essentially.  That makes a lot more sense! 

[Spockydog]

£1600 a month, no questions asked? I'd be rich.

And I'd be allowed to take a part-time job.

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by Spockydog

[felice]

On 6/5/2023 at 7:00 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

assuming long term average unemployment under the current neoliberal capitalist system of ~4.5% a job guarantee can ensure those 1.7 million people a living wage of 1,820/month, let's round it up to 1900, for the paltry sum of 3.2bn/month or 39Bn/year

What would the actual guaranteed job be, though? How is it matched to the abilities of the worker? Do they have any choice in what they do? Forcing people to do pointless makework for 40 hours a week seems pretty cruel.

[The Anti-Targ]

On 6/7/2023 at 8:18 AM, felice said:

What would the actual guaranteed job be, though? How is it matched to the abilities of the worker? Do they have any choice in what they do? Forcing people to do pointless makework for 40 hours a week seems pretty cruel.

A proper job guarantee programme fits skills to work, but more crucially provides education and training for people wanting to work but lacking skills. The main difference between a job guarantee programme and "work for the dole" is who is doing the pushing and who must comply. In a job guarantee programme I as someone without a job can go to the relevant govt agency (in NZ's case WINZ I would think) and say give me a job and the agency is obliged to provide a job or training for a job if I don't have the skills. Work for the dole is the govt holding unemployed people to ransom. The purpose of a JG programme is to make / keep people employable in the private sector.

Job guarantees are supposed to be aimed at people willing and able to work. Financial support for the very few people who are able but unwilling to work could potentially be set to a lower rate to at least offer a bit of an incentive to become less unwilling, but ultimately that number of people is so low that the financial cost of providing a subsistence income is negligible.

[Spockydog]

Notes on a scandal: this is how Starmer’s bullies took out Jamie Driscoll – and why it matters

Quote

 

On Sunday, Labour frontbencher Jonathan Reynolds told Sky News that Driscoll was excluded for sharing a platform with “someone who themselves has been expelled for their views on antisemitism” – a line swiftly amplified by the media, yet not quite true. I asked Loach’s office to forward his letters of expulsion, which say only that he is “ineligible” due to his support of “a political organisation other than an official Labour group”. That was Labour Against the Witchhunt, which did claim allegations of Labour antisemitism were “politically motivated”. Reynolds was conflating the two. I asked how many other journalists had sought clarification. The answer was one.

A column about Driscoll is not the place to litigate Ken Loach’s views, even if I disagree with much of what he says about Labour’s treatment of antisemitism. It barely needs saying that sitting on stage with a director to discuss their films does not mean you share all their opinions. Far more troubling for British democracy is how anonymous, factional briefings are simply machine-pressed into newspaper “facts” then spewed out on TV.

“They were always looking to get me,” Driscoll claimed this week. I have read emails dating back to 2020 where the new metro mayor asks Labour officials for the party’s local membership lists used by councillors, MPs and mayors as standard. But not here: IT issues meant the lists supposedly weren’t shareable. Until this year that is, when he was told the upcoming mayoral contest meant he could only access lists “if you make a confirmation that you are not seeking the selection”. Another email, sent by Driscoll last month to party officials, notes that a local constituency party has been told by a senior official to disinvite him from speaking.

Asked for comment, Labour didn’t reply – but this is petty, attritional stuff, which is what happens when politics is evacuated of ideas and arguments and becomes simply about who is in whose good books. Cliqueishness is hardly exclusive to Keir Starmer’s Labour, but it is starker now because instead of real politics all this lot have is office politics.

Which brings us back to the much-discussed NEC panel, supposedly to divine his suitability to stand. I have viewed footage of the entire hour on Zoom, which discusses nothing of Driscoll’s beliefs or achievements. Three of the five panel members are from groups on the right of the party, and all anyone wants to know is why he spoke to Loach. They refer to the director’s “controversial views” and quote the Jewish Chronicle’s coverage. How, they ask, might the event be viewed by a “hostile media”?

Driscoll replies that Holocaust denial is “abhorrent” and that he has signed up to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. He recalls how he used to fight fascists in the street. None of it is good enough.

A rather bumptious young man informs the mayor that “you can’t separate someone’s views from their work”. The twentysomething declares that Driscoll shouldn’t have discussed the films but instead attacked Loach’s politics. On that basis, Starmer ought to be disqualified for appearing with Loach on the BBC’s Question Time – and so too should the shadow foreign secretary, David Lammy, who in 2019 wrote a paean in this paper to Loach’s Sorry We Missed You, praising the way it “brings across how the right to a family life has been eroded in modern Britain”.

We all know that a week is a long time in Starmer’s politics, but he did once proclaim a proud regionalism. Now what’s left?

Attacking McCarthyism, Ed Murrow told his TV audience: “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another.”

By these standards, Driscoll is a victim of McCarthyism. The office he holds is now a mere electoral toy to be enjoyed by a favoured faction. And those people in Newbiggin and Ashington and anyone else who might be looking on with half an eye will see nothing but machine politicians serving themselves. This was the swamp out of which Nigel Farage emerged.