Brothers and sisters, I have had a revelation.
All debate on what's to be done about the deficit, the welfare state, the benefits system and George Osborne's face ultimately come down to whether you ascribe to one ideology or another.
What's lacking is some empirical facts. How many of those currently unemployed are poor souls who need some help through a rough patch where the employment market is harsh and unforgiving, and how many are 'layabouts' 'sponging' off the system?
What I propose is that we stop all benefit payments. No unemployment, housing, child, disability or any other allowances. This will incentivise the 'feral underclass' into going after those jobs that absolutely categorically are out there.
Within a couple of months the face of the country will be changed completely. Those who are still unemployed and have been evicted and forced to live rough on the streets will be those we know are really having a hard time and do need our help.
But hold on there... if these folks are cunning enough to have figured out the easiest way to swindle money from the system, surely they'll be able to tough a couple of months on the street safe in the knowledge that we can't just leave them there?
Good point, which is why this can;t be a temporary measure. What's needed is a permanent suspension of the welfare system to really sort the wheat from the chaff.
While we're at it, why should pensions go untouched? The state pension accounts for more than two-thirds of the social protection budget. If we axe that we'll be able to see how effective a higher retirement age would really be. I mean people are living longer, surely old Aunt Mildred doesn't really have to stop until she's well into her seventies?
OK, so it might mean a slight increase in the number of homeless people on our streets, but at least then we can toss them a penny or two safe in the knowledge that they really do need it?
Hmm, perhaps not. Maybe what we need is somewhere we can house those poor misfortunates, and maybe give them some productive work to be doing too... Now if only I could come up with a name for this idea...
Maybe I should stand for MP?
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
Tuesday, 15 May 2012
The Illusion of Necessity
What are the pre-requisites of a utopia?
And I mean a real utopia, not a painfully self-interested justification for our current system?
Well one of the requirements, according to a lot of people, is for a society to have developed to a point of post-scarcity. i.e. to the point where everyone can have anything.
This idea takes a bit of a tumble when you stop to consider that fact that, in western society, even the poor people (aside from the homeless, which is a big problem, beyond the scope of this blog post) are (or rather can readily be) overweight.
Once one looks at this the only real conclusion is that, as a society, we are able to clothe feed and (mostly) house ourselves. Why, then, is there still the gap between the haves and the have-nots? What necessitates the ongoing struggle for wealth?
Partly it comes down to graduations in living standards. There are nice beds and uncomfortable beds, nice food and Tesco value. But the standard of living of most of us is almost unrecognisable when compared to a hundred years ago. Indoor toilets, running water, electric lighting, televisions. We live in the lap of luxury. So when are we going to have enough?
When will society have reached the point where to have or experience anything more is simply not worth the effort? When everyone has ipads? When we've all got our own mansion, helicopter and gigantic blu-ray collection?
Or maybe, just maybe, we're already living in that society but we're just too stupid to realise it.
And I mean a real utopia, not a painfully self-interested justification for our current system?
Well one of the requirements, according to a lot of people, is for a society to have developed to a point of post-scarcity. i.e. to the point where everyone can have anything.
This idea takes a bit of a tumble when you stop to consider that fact that, in western society, even the poor people (aside from the homeless, which is a big problem, beyond the scope of this blog post) are (or rather can readily be) overweight.
Once one looks at this the only real conclusion is that, as a society, we are able to clothe feed and (mostly) house ourselves. Why, then, is there still the gap between the haves and the have-nots? What necessitates the ongoing struggle for wealth?
Partly it comes down to graduations in living standards. There are nice beds and uncomfortable beds, nice food and Tesco value. But the standard of living of most of us is almost unrecognisable when compared to a hundred years ago. Indoor toilets, running water, electric lighting, televisions. We live in the lap of luxury. So when are we going to have enough?
When will society have reached the point where to have or experience anything more is simply not worth the effort? When everyone has ipads? When we've all got our own mansion, helicopter and gigantic blu-ray collection?
Or maybe, just maybe, we're already living in that society but we're just too stupid to realise it.
Thursday, 10 May 2012
A Little Knowledge
I'm going to break ranks here and say what a lot of people have been thinking. I know there's a budget deficit and a national debt. But I don't care!
The most successful move the conservatives have managed is to equate the current economic situation with the fact that this country, like most in the developed world, operates a budget deficit.
You see a deficit is something easy to explain and which, when compared to, say, normal household budgeting, is easy to represent as being reckless.
So we have a lot of people that now understand a little about how the country's economics don't make sense, which is a good thing.
Except that it has bugger-all to do with the reason so many people are feeling the pinch of reduced hours, wage freezes or outright redundancy.
When Labour's Milli-creep comes out with half-hearted critiques of the government saying "Well, we'd have cuts too, but not quite so quick" I want to slap him. If the current state of the economy shows us anything it's that you can't cut your way out of a recession. Yes deal with the deficit if you must but you know what? There's a reason nobody mentioned it when the times were good, and that's because, in the grand scheme of global economics, it doesn't matter.
Let me just reiterate that last point: the budget deficit doesn't matter. The global economic crisis was not caused by government borrowing. If it was really that vitally important that we balance our books, wouldn't somebody have suggested trying to increase tax revenues too, you know like a balanced two-pronged approach? I mean instead of eliminating the 50p tax bracket?
But by painting this image of necessary austerity the conservatives have put us in a position where economic growth (which is what we really need in order for companies to grow and create new jobs) is bumping along the bottom and large swathes of the population are shrugging their shoulders as key pillars of the welfare state that had NOTHING to do with the economic crisis are dismantled before David Cameron's grinning eyes.
The most successful move the conservatives have managed is to equate the current economic situation with the fact that this country, like most in the developed world, operates a budget deficit.
You see a deficit is something easy to explain and which, when compared to, say, normal household budgeting, is easy to represent as being reckless.
So we have a lot of people that now understand a little about how the country's economics don't make sense, which is a good thing.
Except that it has bugger-all to do with the reason so many people are feeling the pinch of reduced hours, wage freezes or outright redundancy.
When Labour's Milli-creep comes out with half-hearted critiques of the government saying "Well, we'd have cuts too, but not quite so quick" I want to slap him. If the current state of the economy shows us anything it's that you can't cut your way out of a recession. Yes deal with the deficit if you must but you know what? There's a reason nobody mentioned it when the times were good, and that's because, in the grand scheme of global economics, it doesn't matter.
Let me just reiterate that last point: the budget deficit doesn't matter. The global economic crisis was not caused by government borrowing. If it was really that vitally important that we balance our books, wouldn't somebody have suggested trying to increase tax revenues too, you know like a balanced two-pronged approach? I mean instead of eliminating the 50p tax bracket?
But by painting this image of necessary austerity the conservatives have put us in a position where economic growth (which is what we really need in order for companies to grow and create new jobs) is bumping along the bottom and large swathes of the population are shrugging their shoulders as key pillars of the welfare state that had NOTHING to do with the economic crisis are dismantled before David Cameron's grinning eyes.
Tuesday, 8 May 2012
Sham Pain
I've been accused in the past of being a 'Champagne Socialist'. To which my response has, and remains, 'So what?'
When I was young, and as a student, I didn't have a lot of money. I didn't struggle either, but I didn't have the means to change the world and nobody really expected me to.
Then I graduated and got a job and suddenly things stopped being simple. Once I was earning a comfortable living from the capitalist system we live in my political ideology started to smack of hypocrisy.
Yes, I could give all of my money to charity, live a simpler lifestyle, shop in charity shops and put the difference towards making the world a better place. But it wouldn't work, because I don't make enough money for it to make a difference to any more than a handful of people.
Yes you could call it 'leading by example' but this sends out the wrong message. If you look at the solution to the world's problems as being through charity then you're also acknowledging that making the world better is optional rather than obligatory.
Charity is a fine and noble thing, but it's not the answer because, as the amount of tax evasion that goes on should make clear, you cannot legislate on the basis of everyone doing the right thing.
As a society we should have moved beyond this idea that we should be eternally grateful and deferent to those wealthier than ourselves, placing caps in hands and tugging our forelocks at every dropped penny.
So you can call me a Champagne Socialist, but by doing so you're missing the point. Because, once you reduce it to the merits and actions of an individual the argument's already lost, because nobody's perfect.
So pull out the cork and let's maybe talk about the idea rather than the thinker?
When I was young, and as a student, I didn't have a lot of money. I didn't struggle either, but I didn't have the means to change the world and nobody really expected me to.
Then I graduated and got a job and suddenly things stopped being simple. Once I was earning a comfortable living from the capitalist system we live in my political ideology started to smack of hypocrisy.
Yes, I could give all of my money to charity, live a simpler lifestyle, shop in charity shops and put the difference towards making the world a better place. But it wouldn't work, because I don't make enough money for it to make a difference to any more than a handful of people.
Yes you could call it 'leading by example' but this sends out the wrong message. If you look at the solution to the world's problems as being through charity then you're also acknowledging that making the world better is optional rather than obligatory.
Charity is a fine and noble thing, but it's not the answer because, as the amount of tax evasion that goes on should make clear, you cannot legislate on the basis of everyone doing the right thing.
As a society we should have moved beyond this idea that we should be eternally grateful and deferent to those wealthier than ourselves, placing caps in hands and tugging our forelocks at every dropped penny.
So you can call me a Champagne Socialist, but by doing so you're missing the point. Because, once you reduce it to the merits and actions of an individual the argument's already lost, because nobody's perfect.
So pull out the cork and let's maybe talk about the idea rather than the thinker?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)