Scrutable

I mean, f.cking hell.

link for lpm: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... rdon-brown

Gotta get the supply of no-fixed-abode serfs ready for next fruit season.

This is the £20 that was granted on a temporary basis last year, just for lockdown, isn't it?

BBC explains it in a bit more balanced way https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126

But yes, now we've unleashed inflation, taking back the whole £20, even though it was only ever supposed to be temporary, will leave them poorer than they started.

It beggars belief that when the £20 increase was mooted, and someone said "Hold on, that's X billion annually", that someone thought that making it temporary would be a good idea. You either do it, and get used to that item being in the budget, and indeed look forward to scoring brownie points a year or two later when you announce that you're making it permanent (showing how "compassionate" you are), or you don't do it at all, because when you take it away, the optics are going to be absolutely f.cking terrible even without Covid and Brexit.

That said, government minister is one of the very few occupations where you accept that your current income is potentially only temporary, cf. the sacked ministers from last week. One of the great conflicts between elected officials and civil servants, in most democracies, is that the former have really quite insecure employment, which they have learned to embrace in whatever way, whereas the latter tend to have the most secure salaries and pensions of anyone in the country. So I can understand, to a very limited extent and not trying to discount the "Tory c.nts" aspect, why ministers might additionally have a more relaxed attitude to income security.

(Indeed even just being an MP requires a plan B if you're in one of the 200 or so not-very-safe seats. At my previous place of work we had a woman working as an administrative assistant who had been an MP for Blair's first two terms before the slow swing away from Labour caught up with her in 2005. She was making OK money as a low-ranking European civil servant, perhaps 75% after tax of what she had been getting as a backbencher, but it was still very much a return to civilian life. Not everyone leaves national politics and goes on the lecture or consultancy circuit.)

The 'brownie' points would largely come from people who never vote Tory, of course. That currently includes a sizeable chunk of what we used to call the working class. I think they'll ride this out.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 8:40 pm

The 'brownie' points would largely come from people who never vote Tory, of course. That currently includes a sizeable chunk of what we used to call the working class. I think they'll ride this out.

Isn't it now young voters who 'never vote Tory' rather than working class voters?

jdc wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:37 pm

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 8:40 pm

The 'brownie' points would largely come from people who never vote Tory, of course. That currently includes a sizeable chunk of what we used to call the working class. I think they'll ride this out.

Isn't it now young voters who 'never vote Tory' rather than working class voters?

Yes, I meant to write 'tory vote now includes a sizable chunk of what we used to call the working class'.

Being dependent on state benefits is grim. Nobody sane thinks it's luxurious or easy. But Gordon Brown's argument seems to be that there should be no temporary spending programs, only permanent ones. Had it been framed that way at the start, there would probably never have been an extra £20.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:05 pm

Being dependent on state benefits is grim. Nobody sane thinks it's luxurious or easy.

Indeed. Look out for ruling party claims that benefit claimants all have the latest smartphone and 50" TVs

JQH wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:11 pm

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:05 pm

Being dependent on state benefits is grim. Nobody sane thinks it's luxurious or easy.

Indeed. Look out for ruling party claims that benefit claimants all have the latest smartphone and 50" TVs

Boris might say something stupid like that if everybody around him has a public school accent and he forgets it's all being written down. I don't think any of the sharper, younger ones like Rishi Sunak would get caught saying something like that. I expect this will get shut down with a pretty simple 'this was only ever temporary and that was well known, Labour are back to their usual fiscal irresponsibility again' and it will fizzle out.

This is fairly unconvincing politicking from Brown from my perspective. If I were a Labour politician I would go back to being the voice of freedom against Covid passports and rooting out all the Tory cabinet corruption over protective supplies etc..

Ideologically both main parties represent a very simillar scientistic, managerial, corporatist view of running a country so the differences are largely in small percentage tweaks to very simillar policies, and theatrical stuff. And the current Labour party are awful at theatrical stuff. At every turn they manage to show up as the frowny, depressing, *anxious* roundheads against the posh, buffoonish but somehow swashbuckling cavaliers led by Boris.

Well, for a lot of people, it's not as if the £20 was some nice little bonus that they can just adapt to budget without. Before it was introduced they were extremely f.cking skint. Once it was introduced they were maybe a teeny tiny bit less skint, in that they might have been able to pay a teeny tiny bit extra towards some of their debts without actually seeing any of that extra money themselves. Now they are going to go back to being extremely f.cking skint again and are going to default on their debts.

I couldn't really care less if ministers are psychologically desensitized to insecure income or whatever, it's a real mental strain to see that as mitigation. Insecure employment is far from uncommon anyway, and not just just in the gig economy/zero hour contracts. I've been lurching from 4-6-12 months fixed term contract to fixed term contract myself for the last two years (in the same job) because most of my job comes from funding that is dependant on the yearly government budget. I'd be kind of surprised if I was the only one here in a similar position. Sure I know when my contract is due to end rather than just getting called in one day (I hope) but if anything it makes me more conscious of the potential consequences of a precarious income.

In an alternate universe where Corbyn wasn't mates with loads of loonies and antisemities and he was allowed to be a brexiter, he could have won the last election. The Starmerites screwed it up for Labour, but they don't seem to be blamed for it because the party activists still don't seem to understand why they lost.

discovolante wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:26 pm

Well, for a lot of people, it's not as if the £20 was some nice little bonus that they can just adapt to budget without. Before it was introduced they were extremely f.cking skint. Once it was introduced they were maybe a teeny tiny bit less skint, in that they might have been able to pay a teeny tiny bit extra towards some of their debts without actually seeing any of that extra money themselves. Now they are going to go back to being extremely f.cking skint again and are going to default on their debts.

I couldn't really care less if ministers are psychologically desensitized to insecure income or whatever, it's a real mental strain to see that as mitigation. Insecure employment is far from uncommon anyway, and not just just in the gig economy/zero hour contracts. I've been lurching from 4-6-12 months fixed term contract to fixed term contract myself for the last two years (in the same job) because most of my job comes from funding that is dependant on the yearly government budget. I'd be kind of surprised if I was the only one here in a similar position. Sure I know when my contract is due to end rather than just getting called in one day (I hope) but if anything it makes me more conscious of the potential consequences of a precarious income.

Totally agree. There is nothing remotely compassionate about this government.

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 8:29 pm

That said, government minister is one of the very few occupations where you accept that your current income is potentially only temporary, cf. the sacked ministers from last week. One of the great conflicts between elected officials and civil servants, in most democracies, is that the former have really quite insecure employment, which they have learned to embrace in whatever way, whereas the latter tend to have the most secure salaries and pensions of anyone in the country.

This is somewhat false in practice. A government minister's stock holdings, company directorships, and desirability for consultancy and speaking fees don't magically vanish when they stop being a minister. For Tories at least, their government salary is a drop in the pool of their lifetime income from having been a senior Tory and government minister.

In case we forgot the kind of thing that happened when Brown was chancellor http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/347747.stm

The corporate-sponsored managerial elite will continue to chip away at benefits for the poorest whilst singing humbug HR-department phrases about green energy and diversity.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:16 pm

And the current Labour party are awful at theatrical stuff.

As if on cue https://news.sky.com/story/labour-leade ... y-12414746

An 11,000 word essay? f.cking hell.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 5:42 am

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:16 pm

And the current Labour party are awful at theatrical stuff.

As if on cue https://news.sky.com/story/labour-leade ... y-12414746

An 11,000 word essay? f.cking hell.

He was a QC - probably used to being paid per word!

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 5:42 am

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 10:16 pm

And the current Labour party are awful at theatrical stuff.

As if on cue https://news.sky.com/story/labour-leade ... y-12414746

An 11,000 word essay? f.cking hell.

Pithy.

I know topics will often bleed into each other but FYI there is a whole Keir Starmer thread here: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1174&hilit=Starmer

Have fun with it.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 23, 2021 12:14 am

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 8:29 pm

That said, government minister is one of the very few occupations where you accept that your current income is potentially only temporary, cf. the sacked ministers from last week. One of the great conflicts between elected officials and civil servants, in most democracies, is that the former have really quite insecure employment, which they have learned to embrace in whatever way, whereas the latter tend to have the most secure salaries and pensions of anyone in the country.

This is somewhat false in practice. A government minister's stock holdings, company directorships, and desirability for consultancy and speaking fees don't magically vanish when they stop being a minister. For Tories at least, their government salary is a drop in the pool of their lifetime income from having been a senior Tory and government minister.

Sure, but they at least have a degree of uncertainty about it. In fact I think they may use that uncertainty (which, as you point out, is very unlikely to culminate in homelessness) as part of their psychological justfication for their actions ("With the chance that I might lost my ministerial Jag, I'm almost taking risks like an entrepreneur").

a little bit of back-pedalling already

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... credit-cut