Am I right to say that blinglish assumption is based on the wrong theory of labour, that surplus can be generated from labour?

Obviously there is a point of diminishimg returns. Or as Sir Arthur Eddington once said “surplus is generated by exploiting the free energy stored in either stars, fossil fuels or fissile material.

If your theory clashes with the second law of thermodynamics, there is no hope for it, but the deepest humiliation.”

Add blinglish and socialisms theory of labour and it’s humiliating also

Vanessa
That is so bad for a developed country. How low can we go? I hate his use of the term bravery in this context.

Mike in Auckland- very useful post thank you

So true. One of the reasons we must have a comprehensive and generous tax credits system for families is that our PAYE is very hard on low incomes because of our flat tax structure and GST at 15% on nearly EVERYTHING is very very hard on low income people. Any one who says that WFF is just a subsidy for employers doesn’t understand tax

Totally agree, Kaye.

That gut-sick sense of terror whenever That Logo arrives on an envelope… (It never goes away, that fear.)

After Shipley and Co it was such a relief to feel some easing of the nightmare – but that’s all it was.

Remember how the pittance we were allowed to earn without loss didn’t change? Everything else went up just, not that. Punished for thriftiness and contribution. You couldn’t make it up.

Could he also be informed that it’s time he put in the hard yards and actually got the economy moving in the direction of the 21st century.

He may not have noticed that the traditional sponges for surplus labour – other people’s wars, factories, public works gangs with picks, shovels, and barrows – are as out of date as his attitudes.

Has he got the wit to see that rationing education and retraining through putting punishing prices on material that is already out of date is Not Helping?

Could he remember that government is there for ALL people – not the favoured few – and needs to make things fairer for people without money, clout, or high status, instead of backing the several who lie, cheat, bully, and leave the little people holding the debts they didn’t agree to?

He’s not even a decent conservative. Just a reactionary playing god-on-earth and failing dismally.

Labour’s been silent on welfare issues for the last 8 elections.

Labour tore a whole bunch of the social welfare system to bits during the Clark years, and even voted with the government in 2014 to criminalised partners of beneficiaries found to have committed “benefit fraud” if the “partner” ought to have known about the fraud. Without getting into how problematic all of those terms are, it was unbelievable you get get done criminally like that for something you didn’t even have to know about. And the same Bill that Labour voted for also got rid of Social Welfare’s power not to recover debts off beneficiaries. Now all debt that wasn’t paid in error has to be repaid regardless of whether it’s unfair or if the person’s really poor. If you’re talking about what Labour did the benefits this barely scratches the surface.

Something decides the point is the welfare state was also used to prevent communist revolution in the west. But after 5 years after the wall came down communism collapse. With out the threat of communism the welfare state must surely collapse. It’s taken 30 years for the empirical data to show up and it turns out superpowers precipitously collapse.

Translation: if the Soviet Union jumped out of a 5 story building and collapsed on the street, the west jumped out of the 35 floor and is still falling into collapse ever since.

I think if you want to fast forward your debate Susan you could propose a welfare system that fights gangs or some other invented threat.