The politics of envy

More than 40% of former council homes now rented out by private landlords

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/19/ministers-urged-halt-right-buy-council-homes-rented

What an interesting thread - it certainly shows why Johnson is popular in some quarters.

Urmonstongran You refuse to click on a link which may be critical of Johnson. I make a point of clicking on links so that if I feel there are misrepresentations being made I can point them out. People will draw their own conclusions as to why a person would be averse to reading or watching certain links.

I would have thought the Good Samaritan parable was fairly straightforward in its meaning. It wasn't suggested that the man who had been attacked was a poor man - it is likely that he appeared be well off - otherwise why would robbers target him? The people who "passed by on the other side" did what some people do - they see something unpleasant has happened but they don't want to get involved - it's not their family or friend so they avert they avert their eyes and make as if they haven't seen.

It isn't about a rich man spending his money to help a poor stranger. It is about a person showing concern and sacrificing his own safety and comfort in order to help a fellow human being - irrespective of whether he knew or had something in common with that person.

Complaining about a parable being seen in a political way seems ridiculous to me. Jesus was a political person in that he challenged the status quo and often spoke up for people who were sometimes seen as lesser beings - less deserving of care and respect - than others.

Opal Here's some news for you. You are not the only person who has worked and paid their taxes. Most people work and most people pay tax, apart from those who are ill or disabled or those who choose to use every legal/illegal method available to avoid paying them. A lot of our generation's wealth is significantly boosted by the huge increases in property prices - so not anything to do with how hard a person has worked but just to do with the vagaries of the market and the area in which the property is located.

Why is it that people on the right tend to think everybody but themselves is either spending their working days avoiding doing any work or fiddling the system? Just because a few people are like that doesn't mean that significant numbers are. Nurses, doctors and teachers, for instance, often put in far more work than they are paid for, due to staff shortages and pressures of work. Research has shown that workers in private companies are also being expected to work extra hours unpaid due to cuts in staffing.

Mrs Thatcher brought in the right to buy council houses, she said because she believed in a "property owning democracy". Many people feel her motives were far less altruistic - (1) because of the huge discounts available, those who benefited were much more likely to vote Conservative in future elections; (2) because of the depletion in council house numbers, landowners and investors, having no competition from the public sector, would be able to make handsome profits from private housing. In fact now there are far fewer people able to purchase their own homes.

Yes, the people who at that time benefited from buying heavily discounted homes were very fortunate - and, mostly, very pleased with the deal, for very obvious reason. I don't think many people would criticise them for taking up this offer. However, it did mean that those lower paid workers who have followed in their footsteps are much less likely to get decent social housing and instead have to rely on a highly inflated private rental market. Furthermore, research has shown that a fairly significant number of former council houses are now owned by private landlords because fewer people are now able to afford to save the substantial amount of money needed to get together a deposit.

The selling off of council houses has hardly been a roaring success for a lot of people. Especially those who are now in the private sector paying massive rent without any prospect of every buying. It was a short sighted policy. As per usual

It appears the Brexit Party has said something along those lines Calendargirl. I would say that means no worries but Mr Johnson seems to be making things up when the mood takes him so who knows.

He surprised me today and that takes some doing as my opinion of him is already so low. I am sure he launched into the bit from the Tory manifesto about roads - it seemed to sound incredibly old fashioned somehow.

Also I see it has been brought up about bus passes, also on another thread. No evidence free bus passes for older people to be phased out, scaremongering I think.

pinkquartz
that the wealthy want the poor to not even aspire to being better off

What about Margaret Thatcher allowing people to buy their council houses? That must have been something that helped them be better off surely?

Boris Johnson has said that envy of others' wealth is necessary, so that people are inspired to work harder to acquire more themselves.

Funny old world, isn't it? I thought the "politics of envy" was supposed to be a criticism of left -wingers .

JenniferEccles can you explain exactly why you think that Labour are 'envious of successful people'. Any evidence?

We vote Labour and are very successful - but not:

(a) the super-rich tax-avoiding kind or

(b) the big corporation kind

(a) and (b) support and vote Tory, quite logically, as it benefits them hugely (money, power and unfair advantage - what's not to like?)

but (c), the vast majority of Tory voters, really puzzle me.

Do they admire and support (a) and (b)? Do they enjoy depriving themselves to give the money, power and unfair advantage to them? If so, why?

Gonegirl He only had 2 denarii on him; roughly equivalent to 2 days pay for a labourer. Not much really.

and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have But that doesn't necessarily mean he was rich. I've done the same but I had to borrow to pay the debt

Opal
Truce accepted

Back to the OP.

Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all.

It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?

This, if we complain and say it shouldn't be so - it's the same here as it is in the USA, is what is then tarred as "the politics of envy". How on earth can that be so?

Oh, Oh ... can I do one starting with "I".

Is this a game. Words beginning with "c" perhaps, or farmyard animals?

It seems a strange repost to me finding I have yet another character flaw.

Cow.

Gracesgran you are mucking up a beautiful story.

What rubbish. The bible uses stories not to put you to sleep at bedtime but to explain the meaning of various laws. It's fine if you don't want to learn about that but please don't corrupt them.

I have just realised I lack the wisdom that St Paul expounded to suffer fools gladly.

Well said Ginny42.

On the point about "the politics of envy", I think it refers more to the people who criticise families on benefits, giving unsubstantiated stories about large families and lifestyle choices etc. They are the ones that sound envious to me.

I am not envious of anyone with more money than I have. I suppose the phrase 'I want for nothing' would cover my lifestyle.

I am angry with those who can read of children who go to school hungry, know that the food banks are struggling to cope, see people sleeping in doorways and can walk by and are considering voting for more of the same.

Kind hearted people aren't able to solve this problem by dropping coins to them as we walk by. It requires a massive government commitment to get them into shelters, provide decent longer term accommodation and jobs for those able to work, and aid for those who can't. Many people reduced to feeding their families from food banks are working on very low wages, they're not lazy layabouts.

It's the government who should be playing the role of the good Samaritan. I don't believe the Tory manifesto has demonstrated the will to seriously address the issue of poverty once and for all, and I will not endorse their selfish attitudes with a cross in a box.

Their policies appeal only to what is selfish in me, i.e. to conserve what I have for me and mine. However, we live in 'society' and in my book that means caring for all.

''BUT I DO believe that only a strong capitalist market economy generates most wealth, and without it, none of the services you mentioned can be properly financed. ''

I agree- but do you really think that losing our strongest markets, and becoming vassals of Trump and others- and dependent on WTO which is being destroyed by Trump- is the way to achieve this? Really?

The title is so stereotypical. The assumption, that if you work hard, do well, and are able to buy a nice home and have a good standard of living, be in fact quite 'well off' - automatically equates to being a Tory, is just nonsense.

It is very possible to do all that, achieve a lot in many ways, and not become selfish and uncaring for those who fall on bad times, for one reason or another. Nonsense.

OK pq let's call a truce. I understand all the points you have listed, sadly it's not a perfect world. I sympathise with your position, I honestly do. And I sympathise with those in genuine need. I don't agree with losing free bus passes, that would be wrong.

BUT I DO believe that only a strong capitalist market economy generates most wealth, and without it, none of the services you mentioned can be properly financed. They certainly cannot be properly financed and managed by
Corbyn and his cronies. Socialism just doesn't work in my book, and no-one has yet managed to convince me otherwise.

They were probably all well off MaizieD. Only one stopped to help. And he was the neighbour.

Yes, of course I've watched the clip. How would I know what he said otherwise. Again

A new thread has started on GN....we may soon lose free bus passes.
What can you say to that Opal

Blimey - varian and I actually AGREE on a political thread‼️

Opal

I am not on a high horse. I do not understand how you support the Tory Party who are destroying all that is good in the UK.
And I do NOT sound like a Labour supporter.
I just hate the Tory Party for all the suffering I experience and observe around me.
Hospitals closing, Libraries closing. lack of GP's. Rubbish education.
No Social Care when it is needed etc etc
All the knife crime that we barely take notice of anymore.
there is so much more as you know, but i am tired.
The NHS is already being sold off.
The big Pharma companies in the US are waiting to push up drug prices and then we will be unable to get the meds we might need. As too expensive.
I wish I was wrong
But look how much harder and harsher the UK is now.
Utility bills are very high, too high.
I have to start to choose between heating and food. Great.

Jennifer Eccles If the "politics of envy" accusation is the basis for Labour philosophy, how do you explain people who are very comfortably off but who campaign and work for changes, which may well negatively impact them, in order to achieve a fairer society? Oh, wait a minute, I know, another catch-all insult - "champagne socialists".

Whereas, of course, all people on the right are highly intellectual, moral and altruistic, having only the interests of the country at heart.

It is true there are people on the left who adopt that political stance because they resent not having what other people have - and who are quite willing to change their political allegiances once things start looking up for them personally. But there are also many people who don't have a particular axe to grind with regard to their own lives but who do believe that there is a great inequality and injustice in our society, which should be addressed.

No doubt there are people on the right - rich and poor - who genuinely feel enterprise and self-determination alone are the key to a thriving economy, and that this benefits everybody in the long run. But surely there are also people on the right who, like Boris Johnson, praise the "Greed is good" mantra of the fictional Gordon Gekko and who have no particular concern for anyone other than themselves and those closest to them and who believe their good fortune is entirely down to their own superior qualities, and thus well deserved.

So, in reality there are self-absorbed and self-seeking individuals in every area of the political spectrum, not primarily on the left of it. It is, in my view, lazy, irrational and insulting to try to discredit a whole group of people by characterising them as morally and intellectually dishonest.