The Politics Thread

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

Pru, I'm guessing the French have finally got to you eh?

I don't buy into the idea that everyone who earns a lot of money is a work shy free loader who has conned us all. THe vast majority work very hard, but no harder than someone who does a forty hour week as a cleaner for example. One can make all the points one wants, but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that two people working 40 hour weeks and working hard deserve the same amount of money. There is no argument against that morally.

If that's what you think, then fair enough, but a view like that pretty much does away with a demand for further education.
Labour is a commodity - it is bought by employers, from employees, for a price (wage). Like any commodity it has a value, and this is derived from the useful things it provides. If an employee's skill is seen as more valuable than another employee's skill, the former will get paid more. Is that not fair?

We need to take a leaf out of the US' book. Hopefully a gay disabled lesbian Muslim woman, who hasn't had time to become mauled by the political world will come from nowhere and lead the country on an wave of optimism to a new dawn. Or something. That or a skin head Nazi called John Mary The Pen. Vive la revolution

If you believe Obama hasn't played the politics, you're quite naive there sunshine!

Missed this. First of all yes Obama played the politics, but in a way where he seemed to be fresh and not jaded by the political world, and whether atrificial or not you cannot deny it has changed the American political landscape completely. People actually care now. We as a country are magnificently passionate about apathy, some outsider from nowhere to break the choice between two larger similar idiots would be nice.

As for your first point about incentives etc.. IF we accept that equal wages would kill hard work, something which is an accepted truth for reasons that escape me, but in the context of this debate we have, I'm not suggesting we actually pay everyone the same, just saying that on a moral plane, everyone's time is equal, it MUST be for us to delud eourselves our society is fair, equal and democratic. Reality is a different matter, and if you think we do in fact live in a moral world or system I would suggest it ain't me who is deluded, moonshine.

Weren't the Liberal Democrats set up for this very reason? Look what happened there.

Let's face it, British politics is fooked because anyone who wants to get anywhere needs to revert to type, climb the greasy pole and pander to everyone rather than have a passion about making a difference to the country as a whole.

I know that's the sort of White van man thinking that's normally not welcome, but it's all I can muster.

[Prufrock]

Pru, I'm guessing the French have finally got to you eh?

I don't buy into the idea that everyone who earns a lot of money is a work shy free loader who has conned us all. THe vast majority work very hard, but no harder than someone who does a forty hour week as a cleaner for example. One can make all the points one wants, but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that two people working 40 hour weeks and working hard deserve the same amount of money. There is no argument against that morally.

If that's what you think, then fair enough, but a view like that pretty much does away with a demand for further education.
Labour is a commodity - it is bought by employers, from employees, for a price (wage). Like any commodity it has a value, and this is derived from the useful things it provides. If an employee's skill is seen as more valuable than another employee's skill, the former will get paid more. Is that not fair?

We need to take a leaf out of the US' book. Hopefully a gay disabled lesbian Muslim woman, who hasn't had time to become mauled by the political world will come from nowhere and lead the country on an wave of optimism to a new dawn. Or something. That or a skin head Nazi called John Mary The Pen. Vive la revolution

If you believe Obama hasn't played the politics, you're quite naive there sunshine!

Missed this. First of all yes Obama played the politics, but in a way where he seemed to be fresh and not jaded by the political world, and whether atrificial or not you cannot deny it has changed the American political landscape completely. People actually care now. We as a country are magnificently passionate about apathy, some outsider from nowhere to break the choice between two larger similar idiots would be nice.

As for your first point about incentives etc.. IF we accept that equal wages would kill hard work, something which is an accepted truth for reasons that escape me, but in the context of this debate we have, I'm not suggesting we actually pay everyone the same, just saying that on a moral plane, everyone's time is equal, it MUST be for us to delud eourselves our society is fair, equal and democratic. Reality is a different matter, and if you think we do in fact live in a moral world or system I would suggest it ain't me who is deluded, moonshine.

Weren't the Liberal Democrats set up for this very reason? Look what happened there.

Let's face it, British politics is fooked because anyone who wants to get anywhere needs to revert to type, climb the greasy pole and pander to everyone rather than have a passion about making a difference to the country as a whole.

I know that's the sort of White van man thinking that's normally not welcome, but it's all I can muster.

That's pretty much true. But people were bored of politics in America before Obama, and in France before Le Pen, which shows that it is possible for someone to come out of nowhere. Hopefully if that does happen here it will be more Obama-esque than Le Pen-esque, though it wouldn't surprise me were it to go that way.

As for your point about the climbing the greasy ladder, there was an interview (perhaps Parky) with David Mitchell (comedian, not author) where he said when he went to uni he wanted to be a politician, but going to the debating society at Cambridge he saw the power mental types who were going to go into politics, none of whom actually gave a shiny feck about anything other than winning hteir little battles agaisnt each other. Uplifting stuff.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

One can make all the points one wants, but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that two people working 40 hour weeks and working hard deserve the same amount of money.

Oh well, at least you're good enough to be up front about the fact that your views are unlikely to respond to reasoned argument, lest anyone waste much time, effort or exasperation on you.

Firstly, I suppose it's safe to assume you meant "working equally hard" and not just "working hard"...

A few questions, then...

Does your desert concept have some way of equating physical effort and mental effort?

Is 'working hard' the only relevant factor in your desert theory? What about the man who does a risky job? Or the man who does a stressful job? Or the man who has to work anti-social hours or spend long periods away from his family?

Are you only prepared to look at any given 40-hour week? What about what has gone before? What of the man who has invested the time, effort, money and risk to train or educate himself, and the man from the same background with the same opportunities, who decided not to? If they both go on to work equally hard in their 40-hour week, do they both 'deserve' the same remuneration? What of the man who has put in many years of service and loyalty into the same job, acquiring experience and gaining competence along the way - does he 'deserve' the same pay as the young newbie, if they both expend the same effort in their working week?

What of the man whose medical problems mean he can only work 7/6/5/4 hours in a day? What of the man whose medical problem means he can't work at all? Where does your desert system that has a 40-hour week of hard work as its paradigm fit them in?

Not a shred of doubt?

How lucky you are to have your Weltanschauung settled by the age of 20.

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

Pru, I'm guessing the French have finally got to you eh?

I don't buy into the idea that everyone who earns a lot of money is a work shy free loader who has conned us all. THe vast majority work very hard, but no harder than someone who does a forty hour week as a cleaner for example. One can make all the points one wants, but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that two people working 40 hour weeks and working hard deserve the same amount of money. There is no argument against that morally.

If that's what you think, then fair enough, but a view like that pretty much does away with a demand for further education.
Labour is a commodity - it is bought by employers, from employees, for a price (wage). Like any commodity it has a value, and this is derived from the useful things it provides. If an employee's skill is seen as more valuable than another employee's skill, the former will get paid more. Is that not fair?

We need to take a leaf out of the US' book. Hopefully a gay disabled lesbian Muslim woman, who hasn't had time to become mauled by the political world will come from nowhere and lead the country on an wave of optimism to a new dawn. Or something. That or a skin head Nazi called John Mary The Pen. Vive la revolution

If you believe Obama hasn't played the politics, you're quite naive there sunshine!

Missed this. First of all yes Obama played the politics, but in a way where he seemed to be fresh and not jaded by the political world, and whether atrificial or not you cannot deny it has changed the American political landscape completely. People actually care now. We as a country are magnificently passionate about apathy, some outsider from nowhere to break the choice between two larger similar idiots would be nice.

As for your first point about incentives etc.. IF we accept that equal wages would kill hard work, something which is an accepted truth for reasons that escape me, but in the context of this debate we have, I'm not suggesting we actually pay everyone the same, just saying that on a moral plane, everyone's time is equal, it MUST be for us to delud eourselves our society is fair, equal and democratic. Reality is a different matter, and if you think we do in fact live in a moral world or system I would suggest it ain't me who is deluded, moonshine.

Weren't the Liberal Democrats set up for this very reason? Look what happened there.

Let's face it, British politics is fooked because anyone who wants to get anywhere needs to revert to type, climb the greasy pole and pander to everyone rather than have a passion about making a difference to the country as a whole.

I know that's the sort of White van man thinking that's normally not welcome, but it's all I can muster.

That's pretty much true. But people were bored of politics in America before Obama, and in France before Le Pen, which shows that it is possible for someone to come out of nowhere. Hopefully if that does happen here it will be more Obama-esque than Le Pen-esque, though it wouldn't surprise me were it to go that way.

As for your point about the climbing the greasy ladder, there was an interview (perhaps Parky) with David Mitchell (comedian, not author) where he said when he went to uni he wanted to be a politician, but going to the debating society at Cambridge he saw the power mental types who were going to go into politics, none of whom actually gave a shiny feck about anything other than winning hteir little battles agaisnt each other. Uplifting stuff.

That's the problem - there'll never be an Obama moment in British politics in it's present incarnation. It's too set in the ways of the Cambridge Debating Society for it to become anything other than playground shenanigans between the Reds and the Blues. And because the selection process of the House Captains of these school teams is such a closed shop (remember, we didn't even vote our current PM in), it's unlikely to change in our lifetimes. Which is a shame, really, because it's our lives they're pissing about with.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It will delight some of you to know that this has annoyed me more and more as I've digested it.

Your selfless worrying about people in the £150k salary bracket is a credit to you.

Nobody in my family earns £150k - I can hardly be accused of being selfish.

I'm worried about that group in the sense that it's the engine room of our economy, not because I fear for the living standards of the individual that comprise it.

It's pure politics - a desperate, fumbling attempt to tap into the current Zeitgeist that says the banker-led rich are to blame for all our troubles.

Are you suggesting that they haven't played a rather large part in it?

What, 'the rich' as a group? Come on mate, you're better than that. Over simplification, over generalisation and over inclusion are all unhelpful in a serious discussion about 'blame'.

Well, they will have their headlines tomorrow morning - but at what cost? Quite apart from the trifling matter of a flagrant and unapologetic abandonment of a clear manifesto pledge, the bottom has well-and-truly fallen out of the New Labour 'project': we are no longer the enterprise economy that is 'comfortable' with people being rich...

So Osborne has pledged to reverse the budget tax rises yes? He was asked at least 4 times on BBC this morning what he would do differently and on each occasion couldn't (or chose not to) answer.

Well, there is the obvious point that the next Government will be hamstrung to a large extent by the mistakes of this one.

But, that won't do as a reply.

It's disappointing and frustrating that we're not standing up for what we believe is right and sensible, because it is felt that it isn't a risk that's worth taking at the moment. I can't defend that position on the basis of principle, so I won't try.

Matthew Parris made the point better than I can in the second half of his column in The Times today:

If the Tories believe that government cannot spend and borrow its way out of the hole that yesterday's Budget described, if they believe that, given the reins of power next year, harsh accommodations would have to be made with budgetary reality, if they believe that shin-kicking populist tax increases on wealth creators will not help the poor but hamper recovery, and if they have the moral and intellectual confidence that this is an argument that can be persuasively made, and the voters can understand, then they must find the courage to make it. To break cover with such talk only after winning an election would not only be dishonest, but rob them of the mandate that they will need.

This Budget has rendered in stark relief the dividing lines that - beneath the PR patina - we know exist between natural Conservatives and natural supporters of the Left. The Tories should not feel sheepish about that divide, but proud of the side they stand on. When will a Conservative opposition find a better basis than yesterday's Budget for taking this stand?

It is possible in politics to box too clever. Because new Labour has boxed very cleverly for the past 12 years, and knocked much stuffing and self-belief out of the Conservative Party, some Tory strategists have become hypnotised into a sort of stupefied acceptance of the new Labour analysis of modern politics. If (they figure) Mr Brown wants a scrap about public spending, or taxing the better-off, then he and his advisers must know what they're talking about; so we Tories would be fools to fight him on that ground.

But what these Conservatives have not considered is that this analysis might simply be wrong: out of step with cruelly changed times. How cruelly times have changed was made plain yesterday. Voters can see it. I believe the Brown analysis is wrong. As battle lines are drawn up over this Budget, and if the Prime Minister wants to invite his Tory adversaries to choose public spending and the taxation of wealth as the battlefield, I would recommend the Opposition to accept his invitation.

“Yes,” should be their response, “you're right: we really are Tories, underneath. No indeed, just as you say, we haven't changed our spots. We still believe the State should limit what it takes from the individual taxpayer. We still believe that taxing success is destructive; we may or may not accept your 50p tax rate temporarily, but we don't like it, we don't call it social justice, and we don't think it will prove a solid source of substantial revenue.

“We're relaxed about admitting this. You can't believe your luck, you say? You want us to step outside and repeat it, to the crowds if necessary? Fine. Here's the door. There's the crowd. Come with us and let's argue this out in public. We're not ashamed of our philosophy and we think the voters are ready to hear it.”

Tory strategists are right that this is precisely the ground on which Gordon Brown wants to fight. Where they are wrong is in concluding that that is a reason for ducking. It is a fight the Tories will win.

[William the White]

What the tories are really scared of, i suspect, is that they can only run a very short distance with the argument that the current crisis is Labour's responsibility. And then the truth - that it is the tories' natural supporters in finance capital who are responsible for it - led by people for whom £150k a WEEK was chicken feed - will, accurately, and damagingly, come out. what did they say in opposition to Labour's free rein for capitalism? nothing - in fact they egged them onto more and more.

I think labour's warm embrace of finance capital was grotesquely mistaken and disgraceful - but no tory EVER issued a warning against it - they were just pissed off that they weren't in power at this wildly delusional 'golden time'. The mistress of deregulation was thatcher. They were the sowers of the seeds. the trouble is that reapers are the poor to middling masses... That those failed and retired bankers might face a 50% tax rate is only a minor consolation...

What's hilarious is the threat that they will leave the country... who, actually, wants them?

[Verbal]

Pru, I'm guessing the French have finally got to you eh?

I don't buy into the idea that everyone who earns a lot of money is a work shy free loader who has conned us all. THe vast majority work very hard, but no harder than someone who does a forty hour week as a cleaner for example. One can make all the points one wants, but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that two people working 40 hour weeks and working hard deserve the same amount of money. There is no argument against that morally.

If that's what you think, then fair enough, but a view like that pretty much does away with a demand for further education.
Labour is a commodity - it is bought by employers, from employees, for a price (wage). Like any commodity it has a value, and this is derived from the useful things it provides. If an employee's skill is seen as more valuable than another employee's skill, the former will get paid more. Is that not fair?

We need to take a leaf out of the US' book. Hopefully a gay disabled lesbian Muslim woman, who hasn't had time to become mauled by the political world will come from nowhere and lead the country on an wave of optimism to a new dawn. Or something. That or a skin head Nazi called John Mary The Pen. Vive la revolution

If you believe Obama hasn't played the politics, you're quite naive there sunshine!

Missed this. First of all yes Obama played the politics, but in a way where he seemed to be fresh and not jaded by the political world, and whether atrificial or not you cannot deny it has changed the American political landscape completely. People actually care now. We as a country are magnificently passionate about apathy, some outsider from nowhere to break the choice between two larger similar idiots would be nice.

As for your first point about incentives etc.. IF we accept that equal wages would kill hard work, something which is an accepted truth for reasons that escape me, but in the context of this debate we have, I'm not suggesting we actually pay everyone the same, just saying that on a moral plane, everyone's time is equal, it MUST be for us to delud eourselves our society is fair, equal and democratic. Reality is a different matter, and if you think we do in fact live in a moral world or system I would suggest it ain't me who is deluded, moonshine.

with regards to the Obama effect, it is worth commenting that a similar thing happened with Blair - over 70% of voters turned out for the 1997 election. He was seen as the fresh face and such like. Look w'happenin now.

Also, the UK has enjoyed a far higher turnout (in the 60s and high 50s) than comparative US elections. (49% in 1996, 51% in 2000 and 56% in 2004).

I've never suggested we live in a moral world...in fact, I've been arguing the opposite. Everyone's time is indeed equal in terms of its existence, how people use it is a rather different matter though.

[Verbal]

Also, for some reason I've got the inkling that MWCIEC is actually this man

[Worthy4England]

It will delight some of you to know that this has annoyed me more and more as I've digested it.

Your selfless worrying about people in the £150k salary bracket is a credit to you.

Nobody in my family earns £150k - I can hardly be accused of being selfish.

I'm worried about that group in the sense that it's the engine room of our economy, not because I fear for the living standards of the individual that comprise it.

On what basis do you suggest that earning > £150k makes you part of the engine room of the economy? I know plenty of people that earn £100k or better - they actually couldn't give two figs about the wider economy. What do you think changes when they hit £150k? We have generally a business model that encourages UK onshore companies to offshore as much as they can to get the benefit of lower labour rates. As we've moved from a predominantly manufacturing economy to services economy, then the wealth is recorded as growth for the UK, but more and more of the activities are being done abroad.

It's pure politics - a desperate, fumbling attempt to tap into the current Zeitgeist that says the banker-led rich are to blame for all our troubles.

Are you suggesting that they haven't played a rather large part in it?

What, 'the rich' as a group? Come on mate, you're better than that. Over simplification, over generalisation and over inclusion are all unhelpful in a serious discussion about 'blame'.

But on the one hand, you are contending that this group of 350,000 people are responsible for the growth in the economy, and in the next breath arguing that they have nothing to do with the problems that we're currently experiencing on a global scale. It's a bit like Megson's fault when we lose and the teams credit (nothing to do with Megson) when we win.

Well, they will have their headlines tomorrow morning - but at what cost? Quite apart from the trifling matter of a flagrant and unapologetic abandonment of a clear manifesto pledge, the bottom has well-and-truly fallen out of the New Labour 'project': we are no longer the enterprise economy that is 'comfortable' with people being rich...

So Osborne has pledged to reverse the budget tax rises yes? He was asked at least 4 times on BBC this morning what he would do differently and on each occasion couldn't (or chose not to) answer.

Well, there is the obvious point that the next Government will be hamstrung to a large extent by the mistakes of this one.

But, that won't do as a reply.

It's disappointing and frustrating that we're not standing up for what we believe is right and sensible, because it is felt that it isn't a risk that's worth taking at the moment. I can't defend that position on the basis of principle, so I won't try.

The amount contributed by the top 1% in income tax, during the Tory years moved from about 11% to 20% and has increased to 23% under Labour. The tax burden on the top 10% increased too from 35 to 48% in the Tory years and 48% to 53% under Labour, the top 50% from 82 to 88% during the Tory years and 88 to 89% under Labour. The underlying % of reciepts from Income Tax has remained fairly static since 1979.

Matthew Parris made the point better than I can in the second half of his column in The Times today:

The day I read Matthew Parris' column with anything other than total contempt is some way off. He once tried living for a week on the single man's dole allowance (which he'd advocated as being totally reasonable). He failed miserably. He also has a good relationship with Council tenants. The thought that this person knows anything outside or economic text books it actually quite alarming. I used to be quite ennervated by politics - it was great as a young guy about your age, just hoping that Thatcher dropped dead one night and dreaming of a Labour Government that would help change all the inequalities and excesses of the Thatcher years. Then it came, Labour government after Labour Government. What changed dramatically? Well the square root of f*ck all to be honest. What would I anticipate changing by switching from Labour to Conservative - about the same - no change, middle of the road politics.

[InsaneApache]

It was a budget for the Labour party not the country. Same old, same old....

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Also, for some reason I've got the inkling that MWCIEC is actually this man

I met Daniel Hannan before his recent rise to fame. Nice guy, but more Eurosceptic than I am, and he's a bit of a drama queen.

[Raven]

I was gobsmacked earlier this week, not only did we have leaflets from 2 parties (labour and conservative) the conservatives actually came round canvassing.......was not happy when I told him I thought all politicians were greedy liars just in it for themselves and voting for one party or the other really made no difference Labour only bothered with a phone call and when I was not clearly going to praise them to the hilt they quickly finished the call.

[superjohnmcginlay]

One can make all the points one wants, but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that two people working 40 hour weeks and working hard deserve the same amount of money.

You do talk some right fooking bollocks from time to time.

Praps, but you gonna make a point or something.....why don't they, and not italics, deserve the same? The capitalist society we live in means we have to attribute worth to certain jobs more than others, means certain people have to be paid more, but I'd like to see your argument on a simple level of pure morality, which is that one hour of one persons time is actually worth more than one hour of another's. Yes it is worth more to the economy, but that is not what I am talking about. If so that kind of undermines the whole fabric of equality and democracy.

I havent got time to write f*cking essays every post like you do. I sometimes have to do some work. I'll use an obvious example - heart surgeon v your cleaner. Im pretty sure the heart surgeon's 1 hour is worth more not just to the economy but to human life.

Now Im going to the pub to celebrate St George's day. Well actually I'm just going to the pub.

Again worth more to society, but does that person themself on a moral level deserve more money? I don't think so. Their still doing an hours hard work. Obviously society needs these people more, so we pay them more. But I don't think on the simplest level they are worth more as people. Therefore we should use the massive amounts of extra money they earn to make sure everyone gets a decent level of living. There we go. Concise.

There we go, we'll have you down to a sentence or 2 in no time.

[Puskas]

You do talk some right fooking bollocks from time to time.

Praps, but you gonna make a point or something.....why don't they, and not italics, deserve the same? The capitalist society we live in means we have to attribute worth to certain jobs more than others, means certain people have to be paid more, but I'd like to see your argument on a simple level of pure morality, which is that one hour of one persons time is actually worth more than one hour of another's. Yes it is worth more to the economy, but that is not what I am talking about. If so that kind of undermines the whole fabric of equality and democracy.

I havent got time to write f*cking essays every post like you do. I sometimes have to do some work. I'll use an obvious example - heart surgeon v your cleaner. Im pretty sure the heart surgeon's 1 hour is worth more not just to the economy but to human life.

Now Im going to the pub to celebrate St George's day. Well actually I'm just going to the pub.

Again worth more to society, but does that person themself on a moral level deserve more money? I don't think so. Their still doing an hours hard work. Obviously society needs these people more, so we pay them more. But I don't think on the simplest level they are worth more as people. Therefore we should use the massive amounts of extra money they earn to make sure everyone gets a decent level of living. There we go. Concise.

There we go, we'll have you down to a sentence or 2 in no time.

You sure?

[Prufrock]

Praps, but you gonna make a point or something.....why don't they, and not italics, deserve the same? The capitalist society we live in means we have to attribute worth to certain jobs more than others, means certain people have to be paid more, but I'd like to see your argument on a simple level of pure morality, which is that one hour of one persons time is actually worth more than one hour of another's. Yes it is worth more to the economy, but that is not what I am talking about. If so that kind of undermines the whole fabric of equality and democracy.

I havent got time to write f*cking essays every post like you do. I sometimes have to do some work. I'll use an obvious example - heart surgeon v your cleaner. Im pretty sure the heart surgeon's 1 hour is worth more not just to the economy but to human life.

Now Im going to the pub to celebrate St George's day. Well actually I'm just going to the pub.

Again worth more to society, but does that person themself on a moral level deserve more money? I don't think so. Their still doing an hours hard work. Obviously society needs these people more, so we pay them more. But I don't think on the simplest level they are worth more as people. Therefore we should use the massive amounts of extra money they earn to make sure everyone gets a decent level of living. There we go. Concise.

There we go, we'll have you down to a sentence or 2 in no time.

You sure?

.

[superjohnmcginlay]

I havent got time to write f*cking essays every post like you do. I sometimes have to do some work. I'll use an obvious example - heart surgeon v your cleaner. Im pretty sure the heart surgeon's 1 hour is worth more not just to the economy but to human life.

Now Im going to the pub to celebrate St George's day. Well actually I'm just going to the pub.

Again worth more to society, but does that person themself on a moral level deserve more money? I don't think so. Their still doing an hours hard work. Obviously society needs these people more, so we pay them more. But I don't think on the simplest level they are worth more as people. Therefore we should use the massive amounts of extra money they earn to make sure everyone gets a decent level of living. There we go. Concise.

There we go, we'll have you down to a sentence or 2 in no time.

You sure?

.

That's the best point you've made since you joined.

[Prufrock]

One can make all the points one wants, but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that two people working 40 hour weeks and working hard deserve the same amount of money.

Oh well, at least you're good enough to be up front about the fact that your views are unlikely to respond to reasoned argument, lest anyone waste much time, effort or exasperation on you.

Firstly, I suppose it's safe to assume you meant "working equally hard" and not just "working hard"...

A few questions, then...

Does your desert concept have some way of equating physical effort and mental effort?

Is 'working hard' the only relevant factor in your desert theory? What about the man who does a risky job? Or the man who does a stressful job? Or the man who has to work anti-social hours or spend long periods away from his family?

Are you only prepared to look at any given 40-hour week? What about what has gone before? What of the man who has invested the time, effort, money and risk to train or educate himself, and the man from the same background with the same opportunities, who decided not to? If they both go on to work equally hard in their 40-hour week, do they both 'deserve' the same remuneration? What of the man who has put in many years of service and loyalty into the same job, acquiring experience and gaining competence along the way - does he 'deserve' the same pay as the young newbie, if they both expend the same effort in their working week?

What of the man whose medical problems mean he can only work 7/6/5/4 hours in a day? What of the man whose medical problem means he can't work at all? Where does your desert system that has a 40-hour week of hard work as its paradigm fit them in?

Not a shred of doubt?

How lucky you are to have your Weltanschauung settled by the age of 20.

I promised you a response and here it is.

When I first joined this place I described myself as a communist. Not quite a german trench coat and Che Gueverra t-shirt wearing shower-dodger, but I believed in 'from each..to each...'. I still do believe in those principles, at least as the starting block for a scoiety. In a real world an actual communist world is never going to happen, much less work, and I don't think it is a good idea to even press that. If one could start from scratch and create an ideal world, play god in effect, then I'd probably go for that, but then I wouldn't populate my world with selfish humans.

When I say I won't change my beliefs, I mean I won't change the fundamental ideals of equality and liberty behind them. The fact I would no longer descrobe myself as a 'communist', and in no small part due to the discussions on this board, shows my individual beliefs, and even large parts of those are open to change. Any compromise of those fundamental ideals is not likely to be forthcoming however.

When I talked about one person's forty hour week being worth the same as another I hoped it was implicit that I meant two people working similarly dangerous jobs, working similarly hard, with similar working conditions, and similar physical abilities. Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough, or perhaps you took the road of pedantry...who knows

On the most basic level, I believe somebody who works as hard as they can to do their job and contribute to society, deserves as good a quality of life as anybody else. Our society needs doctors as much as it needs firemen as much as it needs petrol station attendants. Everybody doing their job to the best of their ability contributes. That is, as I say on a simplistic level. In real life however economic factors must come into play. Given the choice between a job as a fireman or a shop assistant for the same pay, most would pick the less dangerous. As a society we rely mainly on financial and service sectors, so we need to lure the better people to those sectors. Some people are not physically able to work as hard as others, and so need help from the state. Not to mention a thousand other factors which contribute. I am not a revolutionary, but I do think the gaps are too big, and in some places in the wrong areas. I don't subscribe to the view that only bankers are to blame for our current plight, or that they are all bastards. I do think the gaps between an average banker, and an average shop manager (as an example of the top of my head) are too far.

As an example stories are often told about barbers or shop owners taking from people what they can afford. So an old lady would be asked simply to pay by baking a cake, but a lawyer might be charged 40 quid for a hair cut. That is how I see the state. The state should run education, it should run healthcare, and if an individual contributes to the good of the state to the best of his ability, he should be helped out by the state when he is in need. We are all born equal in terms of rights, but not means. I don't think it is unfair to ask a high earner who has benefited from all society has to offer to pay extra to help somebody with fewer oppurtunities. Some people will say if you work hard you will be rewarded but that is not a rule. Social mobility is not at a hundred per cent (that might not be the right way to phrase that but you get my point), so obviously people with fewer oppurtunities have...erm fewer oppurtunities. We are products of our circumstances. Hence why, although I went to one, I don't believe in private schools, instead I believe in grammar schools, as long as that isn't at the expense of comprehensives.

My problem with the current ideas is the timing. I agree with taxing the rich, I agree with clamping down on tax havens, but I have in mind the bible fable of the king who dreamed of seven fat cows and seven thin ones as a metaphor for saving up when times are good. I agree with you that at a time when the economy needs people to spend money, higher taxes is probably a bad idea.

[TANGODANCER]

When you get married, try to buy a house and have two or three kids Pru, your perspectives will suffer a dramatic change of direction. I guarantee it, especially when you have to share your hard-earned with the guy on benefit down the road who can't work but mnanages to get a couple of rounds of golf in every week.

[superjohnmcginlay]

One can make all the points one wants, but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that two people working 40 hour weeks and working hard deserve the same amount of money.

Oh well, at least you're good enough to be up front about the fact that your views are unlikely to respond to reasoned argument, lest anyone waste much time, effort or exasperation on you.

Firstly, I suppose it's safe to assume you meant "working equally hard" and not just "working hard"...

A few questions, then...

Does your desert concept have some way of equating physical effort and mental effort?

Is 'working hard' the only relevant factor in your desert theory? What about the man who does a risky job? Or the man who does a stressful job? Or the man who has to work anti-social hours or spend long periods away from his family?

Are you only prepared to look at any given 40-hour week? What about what has gone before? What of the man who has invested the time, effort, money and risk to train or educate himself, and the man from the same background with the same opportunities, who decided not to? If they both go on to work equally hard in their 40-hour week, do they both 'deserve' the same remuneration? What of the man who has put in many years of service and loyalty into the same job, acquiring experience and gaining competence along the way - does he 'deserve' the same pay as the young newbie, if they both expend the same effort in their working week?

What of the man whose medical problems mean he can only work 7/6/5/4 hours in a day? What of the man whose medical problem means he can't work at all? Where does your desert system that has a 40-hour week of hard work as its paradigm fit them in?

Not a shred of doubt?

How lucky you are to have your Weltanschauung settled by the age of 20.

I promised you a response and here it is.

When I first joined this place I described myself as a communist. Not quite a german trench coat and Che Gueverra t-shirt wearing shower-dodger, but I believed in 'from each..to each...'. I still do believe in those principles, at least as the starting block for a scoiety. In a real world an actual communist world is never going to happen, much less work, and I don't think it is a good idea to even press that. If one could start from scratch and create an ideal world, play god in effect, then I'd probably go for that, but then I wouldn't populate my world with selfish humans.

When I say I won't change my beliefs, I mean I won't change the fundamental ideals of equality and liberty behind them. The fact I would no longer descrobe myself as a 'communist', and in no small part due to the discussions on this board, shows my individual beliefs, and even large parts of those are open to change. Any compromise of those fundamental ideals is not likely to be forthcoming however.

When I talked about one person's forty hour week being worth the same as another I hoped it was implicit that I meant two people working similarly dangerous jobs, working similarly hard, with similar working conditions, and similar physical abilities. Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough, or perhaps you took the road of pedantry...who knows

On the most basic level, I believe somebody who works as hard as they can to do their job and contribute to society, deserves as good a quality of life as anybody else. Our society needs doctors as much as it needs firemen as much as it needs petrol station attendants. Everybody doing their job to the best of their ability contributes. That is, as I say on a simplistic level. In real life however economic factors must come into play. Given the choice between a job as a fireman or a shop assistant for the same pay, most would pick the less dangerous. As a society we rely mainly on financial and service sectors, so we need to lure the better people to those sectors. Some people are not physically able to work as hard as others, and so need help from the state. Not to mention a thousand other factors which contribute. I am not a revolutionary, but I do think the gaps are too big, and in some places in the wrong areas. I don't subscribe to the view that only bankers are to blame for our current plight, or that they are all bastards. I do think the gaps between an average banker, and an average shop manager (as an example of the top of my head) are too far.

As an example stories are often told about barbers or shop owners taking from people what they can afford. So an old lady would be asked simply to pay by baking a cake, but a lawyer might be charged 40 quid for a hair cut. That is how I see the state. The state should run education, it should run healthcare, and if an individual contributes to the good of the state to the best of his ability, he should be helped out by the state when he is in need. We are all born equal in terms of rights, but not means. I don't think it is unfair to ask a high earner who has benefited from all society has to offer to pay extra to help somebody with fewer oppurtunities. Some people will say if you work hard you will be rewarded but that is not a rule. Social mobility is not at a hundred per cent (that might not be the right way to phrase that but you get my point), so obviously people with fewer oppurtunities have...erm fewer oppurtunities. We are products of our circumstances. Hence why, although I went to one, I don't believe in private schools, instead I believe in grammar schools, as long as that isn't at the expense of comprehensives.

My problem with the current ideas is the timing. I agree with taxing the rich, I agree with clamping down on tax havens, but I have in mind the bible fable of the king who dreamed of seven fat cows and seven thin ones as a metaphor for saving up when times are good. I agree with you that at a time when the economy needs people to spend money, higher taxes is probably a bad idea.

There we go, we'll have you down to a sentence or 2 in no time.

Hmm. Perhaps not. Cant say I didnt try though.

[Prufrock]

One can make all the points one wants, but there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that two people working 40 hour weeks and working hard deserve the same amount of money.

Oh well, at least you're good enough to be up front about the fact that your views are unlikely to respond to reasoned argument, lest anyone waste much time, effort or exasperation on you.

Firstly, I suppose it's safe to assume you meant "working equally hard" and not just "working hard"...

A few questions, then...

Does your desert concept have some way of equating physical effort and mental effort?

Is 'working hard' the only relevant factor in your desert theory? What about the man who does a risky job? Or the man who does a stressful job? Or the man who has to work anti-social hours or spend long periods away from his family?

Are you only prepared to look at any given 40-hour week? What about what has gone before? What of the man who has invested the time, effort, money and risk to train or educate himself, and the man from the same background with the same opportunities, who decided not to? If they both go on to work equally hard in their 40-hour week, do they both 'deserve' the same remuneration? What of the man who has put in many years of service and loyalty into the same job, acquiring experience and gaining competence along the way - does he 'deserve' the same pay as the young newbie, if they both expend the same effort in their working week?

What of the man whose medical problems mean he can only work 7/6/5/4 hours in a day? What of the man whose medical problem means he can't work at all? Where does your desert system that has a 40-hour week of hard work as its paradigm fit them in?

Not a shred of doubt?

How lucky you are to have your Weltanschauung settled by the age of 20.

I promised you a response and here it is.

When I first joined this place I described myself as a communist. Not quite a german trench coat and Che Gueverra t-shirt wearing shower-dodger, but I believed in 'from each..to each...'. I still do believe in those principles, at least as the starting block for a scoiety. In a real world an actual communist world is never going to happen, much less work, and I don't think it is a good idea to even press that. If one could start from scratch and create an ideal world, play god in effect, then I'd probably go for that, but then I wouldn't populate my world with selfish humans.

When I say I won't change my beliefs, I mean I won't change the fundamental ideals of equality and liberty behind them. The fact I would no longer descrobe myself as a 'communist', and in no small part due to the discussions on this board, shows my individual beliefs, and even large parts of those are open to change. Any compromise of those fundamental ideals is not likely to be forthcoming however.

When I talked about one person's forty hour week being worth the same as another I hoped it was implicit that I meant two people working similarly dangerous jobs, working similarly hard, with similar working conditions, and similar physical abilities. Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough, or perhaps you took the road of pedantry...who knows

On the most basic level, I believe somebody who works as hard as they can to do their job and contribute to society, deserves as good a quality of life as anybody else. Our society needs doctors as much as it needs firemen as much as it needs petrol station attendants. Everybody doing their job to the best of their ability contributes. That is, as I say on a simplistic level. In real life however economic factors must come into play. Given the choice between a job as a fireman or a shop assistant for the same pay, most would pick the less dangerous. As a society we rely mainly on financial and service sectors, so we need to lure the better people to those sectors. Some people are not physically able to work as hard as others, and so need help from the state. Not to mention a thousand other factors which contribute. I am not a revolutionary, but I do think the gaps are too big, and in some places in the wrong areas. I don't subscribe to the view that only bankers are to blame for our current plight, or that they are all bastards. I do think the gaps between an average banker, and an average shop manager (as an example of the top of my head) are too far.

As an example stories are often told about barbers or shop owners taking from people what they can afford. So an old lady would be asked simply to pay by baking a cake, but a lawyer might be charged 40 quid for a hair cut. That is how I see the state. The state should run education, it should run healthcare, and if an individual contributes to the good of the state to the best of his ability, he should be helped out by the state when he is in need. We are all born equal in terms of rights, but not means. I don't think it is unfair to ask a high earner who has benefited from all society has to offer to pay extra to help somebody with fewer oppurtunities. Some people will say if you work hard you will be rewarded but that is not a rule. Social mobility is not at a hundred per cent (that might not be the right way to phrase that but you get my point), so obviously people with fewer oppurtunities have...erm fewer oppurtunities. We are products of our circumstances. Hence why, although I went to one, I don't believe in private schools, instead I believe in grammar schools, as long as that isn't at the expense of comprehensives.

My problem with the current ideas is the timing. I agree with taxing the rich, I agree with clamping down on tax havens, but I have in mind the bible fable of the king who dreamed of seven fat cows and seven thin ones as a metaphor for saving up when times are good. I agree with you that at a time when the economy needs people to spend money, higher taxes is probably a bad idea.

There we go, we'll have you down to a sentence or 2 in no time.

Hmm. Perhaps not. Cant say I didnt try though.

Blame PB, he made me.