UK Politics Thread (Part 3)

Yet, here we are. A government that is further away from socialism that any before it. And it’s literally full of people who’ve made living off the toils of others into an art form. £100bn of our money in four years disappeared into the pockets of already wealthy people. And you still moan about socialists. :rofl:

1 Like

I am so honoured to be mentioned in the same breath with massive corruption of a foreign country.

Actually that’s capitalism in a nutshell, possibly a slightly unfair one, but capitalism all the same.

The basis of socialism is Marx’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

If you want to critique that then fair enough. There is plenty of evidence of why is can fall down, the main one being: hard work is for idiots.


Oh the irony.

Just getting warmed up for the upcoming fun and games.

No-one has any idea how many who are on benefits are happy to stay on them.
Apologies if this is pedantic, but that is just your opinion, and a guess at best.

I think you would have to restrict that to means-tested benefits as the inference is that people would rather live off benefits rather than become self-sufficient (at least as self-sufficient as anyone is in society).

Government does have some idea as to how attractive benefits are because they monitor the success of schemes to get people off them. That involves dealing with the underlying reason that people are unable to find employment. That could be training, health issues, social issues etc. I know what one of the main reasons that young people were stuck as NEETs (not in Employment, Education or Training) is actually because they were primary carers.

Ok, conceded that the government has more idea than a random forum user :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

I used to do the stats for them! I don’t know why journalists never report on these. We always had ministerial questions about them but I could never recall a FOI enquiry. Possibly it’s because the schemes were not particularly controversial.


What I’m consistently baffled about with you is that so much of your politics is framed by fear, and specifically the fear that the government is going to take away your money. You’ve worked really hard and here come the socialists who want to take it and give it all to people who don’t deserve it. I don’t agree with that, but I understand. What I don’t understand is how you consistently get the wrong target.

Notwithstanding the fact that the threat you perceive from the left is minuscule to the point of being non-existent (the idea that Labour are going to embark on Marxist Policies when is office is absurd), you routinely ignore that this Government has been many magnitudes more guilty of the things you are scared of than Labour ever would be.

This is only fag packet maths, but if you take that £100bn pounds of waste highlighted by Best for Britain, and divide by the 33m working age adults in the UK it comes out at about 3,000 pounds each. That’s three grand taken out of your pocket and handed over to ‘people who don’t deserve it.


Fear? I’ve managed to conquor my fear of spiders (and in typing this realised I now have a fear of spelling conquour) I’m scared to death of heights but challenge that every chance I can. But scared of a government? An utterly ridiculous notion.

Capitalism: Get up, goto work, work hard and thrive, succeed and live a grand life.

Socialism: fuck it, the guy above will do it for you.

Done. It’s not fear, it’s reality and unfortunately we’ll see it play out next year.

Unless you interview them all, on to one and then put the results on YouTube……

In all seriousness, we can speak about this with some confidence because we have reasonable data on the percentage of benefits claimed fraudulently - it’s somewhere in the region of 2-3% from memory. Small enough that to pursue it would cost a lot more than the amount we’d reclaim.

Then you have the people claiming benefits, but who we think could actually work if they really wanted to. This is where we need to be more careful, because this is always to some degree a subjective assessment to which we bring our own prejudice. It’s easy to say this person could really be working if they want to, but when you look deeper there are often other issues to bear in mind. @RedWhippet has already highlighted the phenomenal number of people trapped on benefits because of primary care responsibilities. Mental Health issues are also another factor.

There are a range of reason why people find themselves on benefits, and it’s very rarely a lifestyle choice. The solution is to attack the reasons why people get stuck on benefits, not the people themselves. But I suppose the former costs money, while the latter is free.


We are a long, long way from any kind of Socialism like that being applied to the UK. If that’s the kind of Government you are concerned about, then I’m happy to reassure you the Communist Party of Great Britain was officially disbanded in 1991.

Meanwhile the Tory party continue to funnel Billions of our money to their mates and backers in return for nothing. If your beef is with people living off other people’s hard work, the leeches that circle the Tory Party should be your number one concern, not single mums and the unemployed.

Remind me who made Mr Sainsburry Lord Sainsburry? Yep, only the tories who are corrupt bastards.

1 Like

What is your point? That Labour are also allowed to appoint peers?

Has Lord Sainsbury been guilty of fleecing the public purse like Tory peers have? Is this another example of your whataboutism

My whataboutism??? Every post you’ve made in our recent spat has been Ah yes Labour but look at the tories.

1 Like

Exhibit A m’lord.

When you are railing against a version of Labour Party that hasn’t existed since the seventies, pointing out that the behaviour you are worried about is the raison d’etre of the modern Tory party isn’t whataboutism.

But but but in 1997 Blair put Lord Sainsbury in the Lords!!! Come on…

1 Like

It feels like an outdated argument to me. There is a ton of private enterprise in the UK. The means of production is not with the government. It is not a socialist country.

With that said, it is a valid argument to talk about tax levels, and how much money the IR grabs, and how effectively the government uses it.

Is that money to be used to help those already at or near the top of the pile? The Tories tend toward that approach, and the large amount of waste and contracts awarded to friends is what Mascot is criticizing. Is the money to be used toward helping those at the bottom take steps to rise up? Traditionally Labour tends toward that approach, and the sense that it creates dependency and undermines good things like hard work and self-reliance is what Klopptimist is criticizing.

My tuppence is that most people would much rather earn and work their way toward the life they want. Of course they would. So what stops them from doing that? That is the question to tackle!

The poverty cycle has a way of making it very difficult for people to escape. Numerous factors go into that, and it is not as simple as saying work harder, get a better job, move to a better place…

To my mind, serious effort needs to go into breaking the poverty cycle. The government should play a big part, but socially conscious business can also do its part too. There is a relatively untapped resource and it is bad business to have an underclass not contributing as much as they might.

If people can get a shot at a better life, the vast majority will grab it with both hands. Unfortunately, when you are in poverty, the world you live in does not feel like it has much opportunity, and I don’t see government doing enough to change that, or indeed business.


That’s the irony of this debate. Hopefully Starmer’s Labour will be more competent than the Tory shitshow (can’t be any worse), but neoliberal capitalism will continue unabated. Everyone look after themselves- ‘get up, go to work etc etc …’ and fuck everyone that can’t