People's Assembly Against Austerity

Nonu - if you google a word you will find the definition!

You are soo helpful . or i could look in the huge dictionary i have !!!

Gosh why did not I think of that doh!

Just caught up with this thread. A People's Assembly against Austerity sounds wonderful, but it makes as much sense as a People's Assembly against Norovirus. We are stuck with austerity as the result of many years of our government and us (most of the people, not Gransnetters of course) living beyond our means.

By all means debate how austerity is to be lived with, and how fairly it can be administered, but don't let's pretend it can be avoided. Least of all that people like Tony Benn have anything new or useful to say.

Trident

Re IDS and the real world. When his wife was diagnosed with cancer, he said he went back to the office, packed up and went home to be with her throughout. A wonderful thing to be able to do - just like the rest of us. I well remember my husband's diagnosis - oh yes next day I was at work - odd things like mortgage to meet, bills to pay, food to buy, fitted in supporting him and dd who was having serious surgery at the same time - shut up IDS you don't have a clue. Don't insult us with pretending you even know what £53 looks like - wouldn't buy your lunch!

Nonu If you've got something to say, why not say it, rather than make sarcastic remarks and try to belittle people?

grumppa In what way is this "austerity" plan working? We were told that in order to maintain the UK's high credit rating, we must have austerity measures. Then, when our credit rating was reduced we were told (a) it demonstrated how important it was to keep on with the austerity measures or (b) a high credit rating wasn't that important anyway. Many respected economists have said this extreme cost-cutting won't work and they've also warned that pouring money into the private housing market will make the situation worse.

How can anybody think this is anything but an incompetent government.

Agree with you bluebell re IDS.

Forgot to say that the during the full 6 months he took off to be with her, he received his full MPs salary - which was er a bit more than £53 a week!

Eloethan no two economists agree - France currently has a Socialist Government, elected because the people didn't want to face the cuts - is it working there do you think?

Sel, benefits in Germany are significantly better than here. Obviously there are differences in detail, but if anyone is going to be unemployed, Germany is a better place to be.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits#Germany

There are many and complex reasons why the German economy is strong, just one of the reasons being that they have a rigorous apprenticeship programme which employers have to support.

Reform of the welfare system has defeated most politicians, they just tinker at the edges with consequences which range from mildly beneficial to totally disastrous.

To get people of the unemployment register, the economy has to grow; at present it is stagnating as a consequence of the Condem government policies.

We have been very lucky in our lives, compared with our parents' generation, because we have been able to access education, and health care which is not based on whether we can pay for it. I sense this is changing now, and the role of the state is being eroded and replaced by private sector interests, or nothing at all. Education is being privatised through the Free School and Academy programmes, and this will result in profit for sponsors first, and quality for children second. Poorer people are being demonised or patronised ("skivers" or "strivers") and we are all being set against each other. There seems to be a greater voice in the media and the government for us to develop a myopic and mean attitude to people who need state support. The government offers some protection to older people because they think we will vote for them ( a large percentage of the over 60's vote Tory) . Those of us who don't and won't agree with them should try to find a way to say so, but we hear little of a dissenting voice. Can we be bought off with a bus pass, while our children and grandchildren pay through the nose through increased taxes and pension contributions? Or sit on the sidelines in comparative luxury and care nothing for what is going on?
I will be going to the conference. It's timely.

MiceElf I'm not so sure Germany would be a better place to be unemployed. Yes, unemployment pay is higher but then it comes from a contributory fund from employer/employee. You have to have worked for a year to qualify. There is a much lower allowance for those who don't fulfil the criteria and there are lots of conditions attached: must be available for work, any holiday away from home must be agreed in advance, must take any job, even at much lower pay etc etc. I don't think Germany has the situation that has happened here where there is generational unemployment and living on benefits can become a way of life rather than a safety net for bad times.

Sel You'd be hard pushed to find any economists who support Osborne at the moment: -

A contributor to Conservative Home (hardly a hot bed of left wing agitators) on 22 March wrote a damning critique of Osborne's house buying initiative:

£3.5 billion has been set aside to help people purchase newly built homes for up to £600,000. Buyers will only have to put 5% down and can borrow 20% from the government, interest free for 5 years. Borrowers will repay the loan when the home is sold. However, newly built homes are know to depreciate by as much as 25%, and people may find themselves in a home that is worth much less than they paid for it. In addition, after 5 years they will be liable to either pay off the 20% loan to the government or start incurring interest on it.

The government is also using £130 billion for a direct government guarantee to home owners that will run for 3 years.

Both these schemes risk the artificial overheating of the housing market, followed by the "bursting of the bubble" as occurred after 2007 when house prices dropped 18%.

The Chairman of the Office of Budget Responsibility recently rebuked Cameron and Osborne for misrepresenting the Office's views on the current state of the economy.

Jim O'Neill, Chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, said the Chancellor's continued pursuit of austerity, despite signs that the economy was stagnating, including worse-than-expected GDP figures, risk a lost decade for the British economy, with low growth and increasing public debt.

Mervyn King said that the system we have does not work. The whole financial system needs overhauling.

So, even the Conservatives' own traditional supporters are increasingly critical of the way in which the economy is being run.

ELOETHAN. Would be good to meet up before the Assembly. We will be arriving in London on Friday afternoon and will be free in the evening. Can you please send me a private message.

I have just read this whole thread (but not the links) and would make the following observations:

It seems to me that quotes have been chosen to back up different arguments but that the opposite opinions could also be quoted.

Please define 'Social Justice'. Would it require funding and if so how should it be funded?

Eurozone unemployment is 12%

The UK can borrow money much cheaper than most countries which may imply that our economy is doing better than some suggest.

The over occupation of property has been badly thought out. Can anyone tell me if claimants would lose their benefit if they took in a lodger? This would mean they could stay in their own homes and also provide a home for someone who needed it.

It is hoped that some of the money used to bail out banks will be recoered.

It is necessary for businesses to make money so they can grow and employ more people and pay their shareholders. 'Shareholder' is not a dirty word, their investment funds your pension etc.

How would you stop people earning what you consider to be too much?

When I worked with Europeans it was my experience that the Germans, Finns, Danes and Dutch worked a lot harder than the Italians and Spanish. the French were somewhere in the middle.

It is an over-simplification to comment on the benefit system in Germany v UK unless you also comment on how these are funded.

There are 1112 cases of potential housing fraud being investigated in the Borough of Westminster. Presumably some of them will not be fraud but that may be counter balanced by the ones which are not investigated. One landlord in Westminster who is not British and does not live here has wondered why we feel it is necessary for our taxes to be spent on keeping people in such expensive areas.

Fraud is fraud whether perpetrated by a banker or an asylum seeker. Both are wrong and I find it rather silly that they keep being compared on GN.

I don't think social housing tenants are allowed to sublet and take in lodgers are they movealot?
Just occurred to me, listening to the news, that Osbourne and Cameron only ever go out and give speeches within companies these days e.g. B and Q HQ, Mercedes Training Centre etc. Places where they can be assured that employees of companies will be polite to them. (Am I wrong about this? It is just an impression I have gained. )

Not always Jessm , they were in our town last week , talking with the general public .

Jess I don't know, which is why I asked the question! I do know that we can take in a lodger and not pay tax as long as their rent is less than about £5k a year.

I also know that in parts of London there are people who rent social housing and then live somewhere else and sublet their properties for rather more than they are paying to their landlord. That is not qhat I was asking though.

Bedroom Tax

This seems to imply that at least some social housing tenants can take in lodgers, but it doesn't actually say that! (near the bottom of the page)

Actually, a quick browse of the internet does indicate that social housing tenants definitely can take in lodgers.

Thanks Ana that surely would be a solution for at least some people.

Yes, but it's not ideal, especially if there are children in the family. And if the spare bedroom was occupied by a lodger, wouldn't it make it harder for a family to be downsized when a smaller property became available?

So there would be no room for family to visit? I would be very unhappy at having to share my bathroom with a stranger and I have no reason to think that somebody in social housing is less sensitive than I am.
Nobody has answered the point that there are simply not enough smaller properties, so this is simply a way of cutting benefits but in a very underhand way.

Movedalot, you ask for a definition of social justice.

'The virtue that inclines one to cooperate with others in order to make the institutions of society better serve the common good. While the obligation of social justice falls upon the individual , that person cannot fulfil the obligation alone. But must work in concert with others, through organised bodies, as a member of a group whose purpose is to identify the needs of society, and by the appropriate means to meet these, locally, regionally, nationally and globally. Implicit in the virtue of social justice is an awareness that the world has entered on a new phase of social existence with potential for great good or great harm vested in those who control the media and the structures of modern society. Christians therefore are expected to respond to the new obligations created by the extraordinary means of promoting the common good not only of small groups, but literally of all humanity'.

Thanks Mice so how do we interpret that? How far do we go?

We are very good on GN at pointing out the problems but not at all good at coming up with solutions.

We all know what we would like and therefore think we know what others would like but so far none of us has come up with a way of making these things happen.

It is very easy to criticise and over simplify but not so hard to suggest practical ways to accomplish what we think is the right thing for all. No, slashing Trident is not a complete answer.

Something I should have mentioned: when I was young and living in a big city away from home I rented a room and discovered I couldn't save anything so found a lodger. We shared a room and also shared our bathroom with another couple. It was not ideal but something that was necessary in order for me to be able to buy my wedding dress and a few other things. I didn't expect anyone else to fund my life or put money in my gas meter. I do know what it is like and I don't think it did me any harm. If someone had helped me out I wonder if I would have achieved all I have since those days.

I am not advocating that everyone should have to live like this, just explaining that it is possible and that given the will to improve one's life, that is possible too.