|
|
Post by busman on Mar 4, 2021 13:14:54 GMT
I think he has a point as well. If some people are vulnerable enough to not work through drug use or alcohol abuse then throwing money at them doesn’t help. They should be monitoring people with a history of substance abuse to ensure they are maintaining their sobriety to have access to the proposed UBI. If they are going to meetings or having regular counselling they should be included if not they are just adding fuel to the fire. There is a huge public debate to be had on UBI (Universal Basic Income). There is also a huge (but separate) debate to be had on drug use which encompasses possible decriminalisation of possession and use, regulation of supply, and availability and efficacy of support services. To conflate the two issues as Shaun Bailey has done here is unhelpful and divisive. I don’t think he was conflating the two issues and wasn’t implying any cause and effect relationship. It looks like he was merely pointing out that people might not always use the money in the way it was intended and questioning whether or not people in receipt of such a scheme are truly being cared for. It is easy for some middle class well to do people in local government to say “give poor people money!!” and assume the recipients will use the money in the same way they might. I completely agree with the suggestion of @busenthusiast56 that there should be a link to someone receiving support for addictions and money management. However that opens up another debate. How does the state check whether UBI is being spent wisely? How comfortable are we in allowing the state that deep into our personal finances? UBI by definition is provided with no questions asked. Rather than UBI, would it be better to tackle gaps in financial education, helping people beat costly addictions, and make adjustments to Universal Credit? Surely worth debating and not all divisive. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2021 13:32:57 GMT
There is a huge public debate to be had on UBI (Universal Basic Income). There is also a huge (but separate) debate to be had on drug use which encompasses possible decriminalisation of possession and use, regulation of supply, and availability and efficacy of support services. To conflate the two issues as Shaun Bailey has done here is unhelpful and divisive. I don’t think he was conflating the two issues and wasn’t implying any cause and effect relationship. It looks like he was merely pointing out that people might not always use the money in the way it was intended and questioning whether or not people in receipt of such a scheme are truly being cared for. It is easy for some middle class well to do people in local government to say “give poor people money!!” and assume the recipients will use the money in the same way they might. I completely agree with the suggestion of @busenthusiast56 that there should be a link to someone receiving support for addictions and money management. However that opens up another debate. How does the state check whether UBI is being spent wisely? How comfortable are we in allowing the state that deep into our personal finances? UBI by definition is provided with no questions asked. Rather than UBI, would it be better to tackle gaps in financial education, helping people beat costly addictions, and make adjustments to Universal Credit? Surely worth debating and not all divisive. Just off the top of my head I would think anyone who has ever been involved with the police for drug abuse or doctors for alcohol abuse, something like that. They could then be identified as needing additional support or sobriety tests before they could access a full UBI. Whilst this method wouldn’t capture everyone it would go some way to offering something. |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Mar 4, 2021 15:06:29 GMT
I don’t think he was conflating the two issues and wasn’t implying any cause and effect relationship. It looks like he was merely pointing out that people might not always use the money in the way it was intended and questioning whether or not people in receipt of such a scheme are truly being cared for. It is easy for some middle class well to do people in local government to say “give poor people money!!” and assume the recipients will use the money in the same way they might. I completely agree with the suggestion of @busenthusiast56 that there should be a link to someone receiving support for addictions and money management. However that opens up another debate. How does the state check whether UBI is being spent wisely? How comfortable are we in allowing the state that deep into our personal finances? UBI by definition is provided with no questions asked. Rather than UBI, would it be better to tackle gaps in financial education, helping people beat costly addictions, and make adjustments to Universal Credit? Surely worth debating and not all divisive. Just off the top of my head I would think anyone who has ever been involved with the police for drug abuse or doctors for alcohol abuse, something like that. They could then be identified as needing additional support or sobriety tests before they could access a full UBI. Whilst this method wouldn’t capture everyone it would go some way to offering something. That would mean the state collecting personal data on individuals from health and police records. Then how recent does an incident need to be for someone to qualify. Also does the state even have the right to tell you how you spend your money? Are we comfortable with increased state control and surveillance of our lives in a way that would disproportionately impact the poorest members of society? On reflection, I think UBI would never get off the ground if it is linked with such checks. UBI is given without questions asked, which enables it to avoid some of these ethical questions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2021 17:06:13 GMT
Just off the top of my head I would think anyone who has ever been involved with the police for drug abuse or doctors for alcohol abuse, something like that. They could then be identified as needing additional support or sobriety tests before they could access a full UBI. Whilst this method wouldn’t capture everyone it would go some way to offering something. That would mean the state collecting personal data on individuals from health and police records. Then how recent does an incident need to be for someone to qualify. Also does the state even have the right to tell you how you spend your money? Are we comfortable with increased state control and surveillance of our lives in a way that would disproportionately impact the poorest members of society? On reflection, I think UBI would never get off the ground if it is linked with such checks. UBI is given without questions asked, which enables it to avoid some of these ethical questions. The state effectively already holds this information, if it’s recorded they can access it. Yes, if you are relying on the state to support you the absolutely they can tell you that support will be removed if you abuse it. I have no problem with those who genuinely need support like the disabled or chronically ill need benefits like UBI but I think people who abuse drugs, alcohol or anything similar should be seen to be getting support in other forms other than financial aid. Having more money will just increase the temptation to continue substance abuse which in turn would lead them to put pressure on medical services provided by the NHS when really counselling services would be better for them. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 4, 2021 23:32:56 GMT
I would say labour loving Evening Standard. Both them and the Metro are Labour lickers. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 4, 2021 23:35:41 GMT
Like to say people in his own camp isn't snorting crack in those buildings but anyways let him continue to hang himself with that rope of foolishness. I haven’t seen the actual footage of the exchange, but look at what the article quotes from Shaun Bailey compared to what others accuse him of saying: : "I know some people who would absolutely fly if you gave them a lump sum every week. I know some people that would buy lots of drugs. He added: "So where is the care for the person? How do you get past just universally giving people money?" Taking this excerpt alone, I think Bailey has a fair point. You can’t just throw money at people and think that is enough. Financial education is lacking in schools and among adults, and the human condition is indeed complex. Looking at the root causes as to why people become addicted to drugs and alcohol and helping them to overcome those demons is also important. I’m not Bailey’s biggest fan, but I think the debate should be had on whether UBI will succeed within UK society/culture and what it will achieve. Also if the pilot goes ahead, perhaps they should conduct in depth interviews with participants to understand what makes some people fly vs. not spending wisely. Ok when I read it as you have put it, it does not sound as bad. Trouble is many here would be a hypocrite for saying he should nto say that, but say similar things in their everyday life. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 4, 2021 23:42:18 GMT
Good, it is about time people let him have it, he does not realise the implications these LTN's and mini hellands are doing. London Mayoral campaign: Sadiq Khan forced to hole-up inside coffee shop after protesters turn up at launchMr Khan called for a 1945-style programme to rebuild the economy and promised to focus on ‘jobs, jobs, jobs’www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/sadiq-khan-cafe-london-mayoral-race-launch-shaun-bailey-b922137.htmlbahahaha, seriously, after the many hundreds that is going to be lost due to the pandemic, then ULEZ and many of his other schemes; pathetic London mayoral election 2021: Sadiq Khan to promise more jobs for LondonersSadiq Khan will put employment at the heart of his campaign to be re-elected as London mayor.www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56273287 |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 5, 2021 0:02:28 GMT
Good, it is about time people let him have it, he does not realise the implications these LTN's and mini hellands are doing. London Mayoral campaign: Sadiq Khan forced to hole-up inside coffee shop after protesters turn up at launchMr Khan called for a 1945-style programme to rebuild the economy and promised to focus on ‘jobs, jobs, jobs’www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/sadiq-khan-cafe-london-mayoral-race-launch-shaun-bailey-b922137.htmlbahahaha, seriously, after the many hundreds that is going to be lost due to the pandemic, then ULEZ and many of his other schemes; pathetic London mayoral election 2021: Sadiq Khan to promise more jobs for LondonersSadiq Khan will put employment at the heart of his campaign to be re-elected as London mayor.www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56273287The hypocrite walked away from the LTN protestors and got in his Range Rover. Total wanchor. How can anyone vote for or trust this man! |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Mar 5, 2021 1:14:43 GMT
I would say labour loving Evening Standard. Both them and the Metro are Labour lickers. The standard is more of a Tory newspaper than a Labour one hence why they keep attacking Labour candidates. |
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Mar 5, 2021 8:01:32 GMT
I would say labour loving Evening Standard. Both them and the Metro are Labour lickers. George Osborne was literally the editor of the Evening Standard for 3 years (then editor-in-chief). I highly doubt they are 'Labour lickers'... |
|
|
|
Post by busman on Mar 5, 2021 10:38:04 GMT
Good, it is about time people let him have it, he does not realise the implications these LTN's and mini hellands are doing. London Mayoral campaign: Sadiq Khan forced to hole-up inside coffee shop after protesters turn up at launchMr Khan called for a 1945-style programme to rebuild the economy and promised to focus on ‘jobs, jobs, jobs’www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/sadiq-khan-cafe-london-mayoral-race-launch-shaun-bailey-b922137.htmlbahahaha, seriously, after the many hundreds that is going to be lost due to the pandemic, then ULEZ and many of his other schemes; pathetic London mayoral election 2021: Sadiq Khan to promise more jobs for LondonersSadiq Khan will put employment at the heart of his campaign to be re-elected as London mayor.www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56273287The hypocrite walked away from the LTN protestors and got in his Range Rover. Total wanchor. How can anyone vote for or trust this man! I wonder if undemocratic enforcement of LTNs across London could be a campaigning battering ram for Bailey? He has certainly advocated a more sensible approach to roll out of LTNs than Khan. www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18825701.london-mayor-candidate-shaun-bailey-promises-ban-crystal-palace-road-blocks/I also like his commitment to re-opening 38 police stations and youth work. Does anyone know if the candidates will produce more detailed manifestos before the election? Going on the top line commitments, I’m favouring Bailey vs. Khan at the moment. I certainly won’t vote for Khan, but I could see myself either voting for Bailey or not voting at all. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 5, 2021 10:49:50 GMT
The hypocrite walked away from the LTN protestors and got in his Range Rover. Total wanchor. How can anyone vote for or trust this man! I wonder if undemocratic enforcement of LTNs across London could be a campaigning battering ram for Bailey? He has certainly advocated a more sensible approach to roll out of LTNs than Khan. www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18825701.london-mayor-candidate-shaun-bailey-promises-ban-crystal-palace-road-blocks/I also like his commitment to re-opening 38 police stations and youth work. Does anyone know if the candidates will produce more detailed manifestos before the election? Going on the top line commitments, I’m favouring Bailey vs. Khan at the moment. I certainly won’t vote for Khan, but I could see myself either voting for Bailey or not voting at all. Unfortunately I am unsure of Shaun Bailey's views on LTNs as his comments seem to flip flop depending on who the audience is at the time. Also Sadiq spending an hour in a cafe, is that not breaking COVID regulations. Hope he gets fined for that seeing as he loves seeing everyday Londoners get fined. Does this man have any integrity? |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Mar 5, 2021 10:53:00 GMT
I would say labour loving Evening Standard. Both them and the Metro are Labour lickers. George Osborne was literally the editor of the Evening Standard for 3 years (then editor-in-chief). I highly doubt they are 'Labour lickers'... Isn't he still the editor of the Evening Standard? The Standard has been Tory since at least 2010 ever since they supported Cameron in the General election and since then haven't turned around. If Bailey was going to get any positive limelight at all within London, it should have been through the evening standard which pretty much every Londoner comes across but if that's not supporting him then he pretty much has no hope. |
|
|
|
Post by 725DYE on Mar 5, 2021 16:44:07 GMT
I would say labour loving Evening Standard. Both them and the Metro are Labour lickers. George Osborne was literally the editor of the Evening Standard for 3 years (then editor-in-chief). I highly doubt they are 'Labour lickers'... By admission of many in his party Osborne was never a proper Tory and if that was the case then he certainly wouldn't be one now given its more recent populist agenda shift. Osborne was quite liberal on many issues* and it came under public light that he considered voting LD in the last election. Whether that actually happened remains unknown
* In the run up to the 2015 election he suggested fielding Tory candidates in their own seats and LD ones in their respective ones to create a sort of double ticket , proposing a centre to very moderate right government.
|
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Mar 6, 2021 0:07:21 GMT
The hypocrite walked away from the LTN protestors and got in his Range Rover. Total wanchor. How can anyone vote for or trust this man! I wonder if undemocratic enforcement of LTNs across London could be a campaigning battering ram for Bailey? He has certainly advocated a more sensible approach to roll out of LTNs than Khan. www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18825701.london-mayor-candidate-shaun-bailey-promises-ban-crystal-palace-road-blocks/I also like his commitment to re-opening 38 police stations and youth work. Does anyone know if the candidates will produce more detailed manifestos before the election? Going on the top line commitments, I’m favouring Bailey vs. Khan at the moment. I certainly won’t vote for Khan, but I could see myself either voting for Bailey or not voting at all. I cant see reopening police stations making any difference, or even as Khan also wants thousands more police on the streets. A lot of these high profile incidents is down to society and police are not goign to stop 90%| of those things sadly. |
|
