ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think we discussed this before on another thread (one of those on the Labour Party, I think). There’s also an article about it in next month’s Socialist Standard out here online on Sunday but already on its way to subscribers to the paper version.
Yesterday I received through my letter box a leaflet from the local Green Party, one news of which, headed “Time For New Big Ideas” said:
“The Council has backed the Green’s motion to trial Universal Basic Income (UBI). UBI is a regular, non-means tested government payment to everyone, regardless of their income or work situation.”
I have sent the following email to the local Green Party councillor:
“Thanks for the leaflet delivered yesterday. I have a question about the proposed trial of this ‘regular, non-means tested government payment to everyone, regardless of their income or work situation.’
Will the trial that the Council is calling for be a trial of this, i.e., of everyone in a selected area being paid for a period a non-means tested sum of money regardless of their income or work situation?”Watch this space for her reply so we can see whether the proposed trial would be of UBI or of something else.
Well, they went and done it.
I would have thought that it’s wrong to describe the expelled groups as “far left” except the Trotskyist “Socialist” Appeal or even as pro-Corbyn (even though his anti-lockdown brother turned up to protest, but then JC is not his brother’s keeper).
They seem to have been expelled for taking an anti-Zionist position rather than a pro-Corbyn one. Anyway, the Jewish Labour Grouo was pleased. Labour’s traditional Muslim voters probably not, as may become evident in future elections.
A perfect example of perfide Albion. Clearly Johnson signed the Northern Ireland Protocol with no intention of implementing it just to be able to say he had “got Brexit done” and win an election on that basis.
He hasn’t got Brexit done as is now becoming evident. Not over Gibraltar either.
I don’t think the EU will give way on this. The notoriously perfidious Johnson is about to find that he can’t have his pork pie and eat it.
Added to the Edgar Hardcastle Internet Archive, 8 more articles from the Socialist Stadard of the 1920s:
The capital levy, August 1923
Why Socialists Oppose Nationalisation, November 1924
The Capitalist and his Case, April 1925
The shorter working day, January 1926
Shall we emigrate?, July 1926
The Struggle for World Trade, August 1926
Personalities and Socialist politics, October 1926
Is Britain over-populated?, August 1927”Socialist Appeal sources argue that they don’t allow anyone to stand against Labour, they always call for a Labour vote . . .”.
Of course and they will continue to call for a Labour vote even after they’ve been booted out. As other Trotskyist groups that have voluntarily withdrawn from the Labour Party, such as the SWP, always do. In fact “Vote Labour till Doomsday” could almost be said to be a basic tenet of Trotskyism. They certainly behave as if it is.
The Labour leaders won’t mind. Volunteer vote-catchers for them which they can disclaim responsibility for.
I saw that in the papers this morning. The Times, presumably on the basis of something Labour HQ told its journalists, describes “Socialist Appeal” as “communist”. This is wrong both in terms of the logical meaning of the term (a society based on common ownership of productive resources, what we call socialism) nor in the popular misusage of it (to mean support for Stalin and the overseas agencies called “communist parties” that the rulers of state capitalist Russia sponsored). They are of course our old friends, the Militant Tendency (the relatively honest section that didn’t try to usurp our name). And of course they have been banned before by Neil Kinnock.
That seems a reasonable analysis and interpretation. Brexit does seem to have been an issue that interested ordinary non-political people more than the sham Tory/Labour fight at elections. Pity it revealed how narrow-minded most were. But I suppose that was predictable in view of the years and years of patriotic and nationalistic propaganda that people have been subjected to.
I also noticed, despite the idiot adverts in the link, another point Steve Coleman made:
“ you have Conservatives up here in the North, who are voting because they think the Conservative Party is going to do what Labour used to do which is spend more on them,”
They’re in for a shock, not that Labour did much for them either. Isn’t this what in US is called pork barrel politics?
Three more articles from the Socialist Standard added:
The Class Struggle, March 1925
Henry Ford or Karl Marx?, August 1926
The Mirage in Spain, April 1934QE does cause inflation but limits this to “asset” prices which increases the nominal wealth of “wealthy asset holders” as the House of Lords calls them. It doesn’t seem to do much else.
MMT would cause a massive and uncontrollable rise in the general price level as in Weimar Germany and present-day Zimbabwe. Only a big player like the US (possibly only the US) could get away with it without too much of this because most of the extra money would be used by other countries.
QE is not currency crankism. MMT is.
Yes, herd immunity is back on the agenda in Britain. The policy is to achieve this by a combination of vaccinating as many as possible and letting the virus rip amongst the unvaccinated who are assumed to be mostly the young and so less likely to end up in hospital and/or die. That way enough people should have enough anti-bodies to keep the virus at bay.
I hope they know what they are doing as many informed commentators are referring to it as an “experiment”, which suggests that they are not sure whether it will work, ie achieve herd immunity.
I think we should stop calling this sort of scheme UBI and start calling them VBI — very basic income.
For a start they are not universal (ie not for everyone) and, second, they are just tweaks to the system of how to deal with people who would otherwise be destitute. In other words, a reform of the Poor Law system.
Yes, some people are taking delight in the situation that sanctions has largely brought about. “Sanctions” are an act of war, legalised by the UN charter. They have replaced gunboat diplomacy but their effect on the population of the country attacked is worse.
Here’s what the Report says in its own words:
“We conclude, on balance, that the evidence shows quantitative easing has had limited impact on growth and aggregate demand over the last decade. To stimulate economic growth and aggregate demand, quantitative easing is reliant on a series of transmission mechanisms that operate primarily in and through financial markets. There is limited evidence to suggest that these increase bank lending or investment, or boost consumer spending by wealthy asset holders. (Paragraph 50)
Quantitative easing is an imperfect policy tool. Its use in 2009, in conjunction with expansionary fiscal policy, prevented a recurrence of the Great Depression and in so doing mitigated the growth of inequalities that evidence shows are exacerbated and deepened during economic downturns. (Paragraph 67)
However, the mechanisms through which quantitative easing effectively stabilised the financial system following the global financial crisis have benefited wealthy asset holders disproportionately by artificially inflating asset prices. On balance, we conclude that the evidence shows that quantitative easing has exacerbated wealth inequalities. (Paragraph 68)”
The report in today’s Times is ever more damning. It says the report says that the only thing QE has done is to increase “asset” price (ie the price of bonds and shares on the stock exchange”) but “has done little for growth, consumer spending and investment during the past decade”
Another failed attempt to control capitalism and one that has in fact made matters worse. The original idea was to make it easier for firms to invest by supplying them with cheap money. That didn’t work (because it’s the prospect of making a profit not cheap money that moves firms to invest). They brought the horse to water but it didn’t drink.
Predictably, causing “asset” prices to rise was going to benefit those who own them and the more the more stocks and shares they owned. This has increased inequality (even though the increase in “asset” prices is only a paper increase in wealth not an increase in the real things that make up wealth).
