£100,000 per year

[d000hg]

So these people should give up everything they have until they have the same as the person who has the least.

If people want to call themselves socialists - It is a free country. What I have a problem with is that people who do so somehow think that they are in some way being "virtuous and considerate" of those less well off them themselves. They have the badge so they can go around armed with the sanctity of their moral saintliness sniping at those who do not. Usually "those" are the people and groups that are more successful than they are.

That's nonsense. They (mostly, of course there are people who match your description) genuinely believe in their cause as a way to help people. They might be right, they might be wrong, but they do mean it. I think you simply cannot comprehend the idea of believing that much in a cause of any sort, and assume therefore that anyone who professes to is doing it for their own gain.

its alright benefits will be uncapped

Jeremy Corbyn calls for UNLIMITED benefits after being cheered into TUC conference | Daily Mail Online

"UNLIMITED benefits" is such a crass piece of propaganda. The benefits cap is a very crude way of trying to control benefits spend, driven by tabloid PR - wanting to reduce very complicated and varied scenarios to a single headline number.

No, it just means outsourcing those professed ends to a government

Nice of you to tell people what they mean when they say something. I think your're imprinting your own views on others though.

[LondonManc]

So who exactly are you referring to in that article? The ex City Banker, The GP or David Cameron? I didn't see any other candidates for Socialist of the year in there

Or were you trying to get some sympathy for your poor Tory mates who are struggling to get by on only £100k a year? Life must be so hard.

Or were you, as usual, trying to spin it into another anti-social(ist) rant despite there not being a shred of actual evidence or facts available to back you up in the article you quoted?

BTW. Being a Socialist doesn't mean you can't do well for yourself, nor does it mean you can't look after your family. It does mean you give a tulip about those at the bottom of the ladder and do what you can to bring about equality and welfare for those in need. In Benn's case's through a life in politics spent fighting for just that.

That's not a political thing, it's just about being a nice person who gives a toss.

[d000hg]

That's not a political thing, it's just about being a nice person who gives a toss.

Yes, but part of caring yourself is seeking to have a government that endorses that view and treats whoever you deem worthy of care better.

[Jog On]

Typical left wing wail. What do you suggest is done? pay out more benefits to keep them at home? If these people had not had their aspirations killed off by poor public services (education especially) they would be independent of the state. This is my point which you illustrate so well. keep the plebs in poverty and you have your victims . This gives you cart blanche to wail. If housing was plentiful, education top notch, health and social care of the highest quality and a secure environment "these people" would not need the state, nor would they need to be patronised by the affluent middle classes as represented by your ilk.

I agree with this - what would you do about it if you were 'PM for a day'?

There is no single definition of what being a Socialist is. It's a broad church, from those who think capitalism has a role to play in generating wealth that can be used for the common good to out and out Communists / Marxists / Anarchists who want to see the capitalist system dismantled altogether.

Fundamantally, if you think that we as a society should be doing our best to ensure that everyone has an equial opportunity to do well, that those in need of help should get it and that those better off should do what they can to help others where they are able, you are probaly a socialist of some description.

I'm of the opinion that there is enough to go around so that everyone could have their basic needs met, a safe secure and healthy society with access to all the education/training they need to make the best of their talents. At the same time those who decide to strive for more, take risks and work harder/longer/smarter get to earn and acquire more.

I have a real problem seeing the amount of homeless people on the streets of London these days. There was a time when homeless people were just drunk tramps who had ended up that way. Now there are a lot of normal, young people who IMO should not be on the street. That tells me that the current system is broken and needs to be brought back into kilter. I believe our government are too compromised by corporate interests and the 'let them eat cake' approach while big business get away with massive tax avoidance while pushing us into war and environmental destruction - is unacceptable. Especially when the likes of us are being targeted to subsidise it

I got quite interested in libertarianism for a bit but couldn't be bothered to learn too much about it as I'm not that interested in politics unless there's something very interesting going on.

What does that make me? DA?

[LondonManc]

Yes, but part of caring yourself is seeking to have a government that endorses that view and treats whoever you deem worthy of care better.

It's swings and roundabouts. Everyone gives to different charities. If I feel a LibDem or Green or Tory or Labour or even UKIP government will do better for that one issue, would I vote for them purely on that ahead of all my other political beliefs and the party that is best matched to those? I doubt it. A political vote is more than that - there are more issues at stake than who is perceived to care the most. I won't be voting Bono or Geldof any time soon.

[DodgyAgent]

That's nonsense. They (mostly, of course there are people who match your description) genuinely believe in their cause as a way to help people. They might be right, they might be wrong, but they do mean it. I think you simply cannot comprehend the idea of believing that much in a cause of any sort, and assume therefore that anyone who professes to is doing it for their own gain.


Not only are you naive but you are also a "useful idiot". People like you who think this leave the very institutions (public services) unchallenged. You refuse to consider the practical effects of your precious ideology because you believe that outcomes are immaterial as long as the motives are sound. In other words this is all about you feeling better about yourself. If people like you, Benn and the array of vastly wealthy luvvies genuinely care about the poor you would :

1. Donate substantial amounts of your income to the poor
2. Challenge the effectiveness of public services
3. Champion activities that lift the poor out of poverty

To your ilk gestures are all that count.

[DodgyAgent]

I agree with this - what would you do about it if you were 'PM for a day'?


?

Run the public services like a business. Make everyone accountable and link outcomes to pay and conditions.

[PurpleGorilla]

Yes, but part of caring yourself is seeking to have a government that endorses that view and treats whoever you deem worthy of care better.

The baby boomers have been exceptionally good at that, in both generating and retaining wealth for themselves.

[DimPrawn]

The baby boomers have been exceptionally good at that, in both generating and retaining wealth for themselves.

Ah, you poor little victim you.

Komrade Korbyn make it all better.....

[PurpleGorilla]

Ah, you poor little victim you.

Komrade Korbyn make it all better.....

You can understand why all the grey hair votes for Torys with NO cuts to pensioner benefits whilst screwing the young and families.

So I want to vote for someone who will balance things out abit. [emoji383][emoji383][emoji383]