• therealguyfaux

    Owen Jones is a satiric Hugh Laurie comedy bit from the 1980′s, gone “kayfabe.” (Google it.) If he did not exist, he would need to have been invented.

  • Lulu

    In fairness, social inequality is greater now than ever. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing. I think there are Govt. stats somewhere to back this. It came up in my MEd course last week. Perhaps this is what he meant by less equal? Never heard of the chap though so he could have meant something else entirely!

    • Daniel Jackson

      The gap between rich and poor only moves perceptibly at one side. The rich side. The poor are always in much the same situation, and always will be, or they wouldn’t be ‘the poor’. The only thing that helps poor people is the opportunity for individuals to better themselves. I believe that these opportunities are removed by the policies that people like Owen Jones pursue. Whereas for example, the right-to-buy scheme made homeowners of social housing tenants.

      • sophiecooke

        That may have been the idea, but it doesn’t seem to have worked out that way in practice. Right-to-buy, like many of Maggie’s policies, redistributed resources from the poor to the rich. 80s felt like a boom because the rich were getting so much richer – but they weren’t generating wealth, so much as gaining it from the state whether through benefitting from right-to-buy or from the privatisation of state assets. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/right-to-buy-housing-shame-third-ex-council-1743338

        • Daniel Jackson

          Some social housing tenants were given the opportunity to buy a house, which many of them would never have achieved otherwise. So regardless of what happened afterwards it did work that way in practice. Some of (perhaps most of) them sold their houses for a profit, and that profit filtered into the rest of the economy in one way or another. The fact that one man bought forty of those houses doesn’t take that away.

          Having worked briefly for a local authority I find the abuse of public finances quite sickening. I agree with privatisation in principal. If only the process was more transparent and less open to corruption and cronyism.

  • http://twitter.com/DanielPryorr Daniel Pryor

    “She was on the right side of the arguments, and the electorate voted accordingly. It was the free market in action.” I hope the author isn’t equating democracy with individual liberty. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

    • Daniel Jackson

      You can’t have democracy without some degree of individual liberty. I don’t believe in absolute libertarianism.

      • Ghandi

        A little bit of violence/threats/coercion is OKAY ! Makes you sound like you think a little bit of rapeyness is OK?! How about being robbed (with just the one punch in the face) and the robber lets you keep more than 50pct of your money? I mean being absolutely against one person being violent against another is a bit fucking extreme isn’t it. Cock.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Christopher-Gage/542432209 Christopher Gage

    Bravo.

  • http://twitter.com/StRemeze Ashley Perks

    Asked by me to respond to this provocative article, Owen replied

    Owen Jones ‏@OwenJones8422h

    @StRemeze Ha – not going to dignify this gibberish with a response I’m afraid.
    That was short and to the point, then!

  • http://twitter.com/Battsby Battersby
  • ! Owen Jones

    @owenjones1917 has not blocked you. His account has been suspended, but will hopefully be back soon.

  • http://twitter.com/SunshineYeIlow Florence

    “Individuals suffered under Thatcherism, undoubtedly.”

    Individuals? Don’t you mean most of the Northern part of the country and Scotland?

    It’s all very well criticising Owen Jones but I think you’ve forgotten to take off your rose-tinted Thatcherite spectacles.

    “before Thatcherism we were all less prosperous together.” correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t wealth measured by how much money you have compared to others? I’d rather we were all less prosperous together, instead of what we have now – billionaires receiving tax breaks while the disabled, the elderly and the unemployed are thrown to the wolves.

    • M C K Triggs

      No, I don’t think wealth isn’t ‘measured by how much money you have compared to others.’ Who is richer: the man who can only eat three days a week or he who eats bacon for breakfast, a Pret sandwich for lunch and a cooked meal for dinner?

      Do you mean it when you say you’d rather we were all equally less prosperous? If so, how much less prosperous ought we to be? Should we only eat three days a week? Or is £10K a year sufficient? £20K?

      Despising income inequality isn’t a great reason to kick the absolute level of wealth out of the equation altogether. If I can so suggest, it might even be preferable to tolerate inequality if it affords the poor and those on middle incomes a better standard of living.

      • M C K Triggs

        * My first paragraph doesn’t actually do a great job of explaining why wealth isn’t necessarily relative, so let me reshape it.

        Imagine the richest man in the world. He currently has £1Z. Giving him an extra pound leaves him, still, the richest man in the world but he now has £1Z and £1. Although his relative ranking remains the same, he is absolutely (£1) richer.

      • http://twitter.com/SunshineYeIlow Florence

        You kinda just proved my point there though.

        The man who can only eat 3 days a week is substantially less wealthier than the man who can eat “bacon for breakfast, a Pret sandwich for lunch and a cooked meal for dinner.”

        What I meant was that income inequality is the problem, because it means that some people get hardly anything whereas others get too much.
        If some people were made less prosperous, their wealth could be used to make others more prosperous… I may have not made that clear in my first comment, apologies…

        I am not opposed to there being some level of inequality because some people in my eyes deserve more than others but it became far too extreme under Thatcher and led to ridiculously large gaps between the most wealthy and the least.

    • David McNeilage

      You’d rather the poor were poorer, as long as the rich were a little less rich.

      Consider who gives employment to the poor, and the effect on that employment, should companies be toppled in the name of “fairness”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/gina.loxam Gina Loxam

    I can only comment on what I experienced being under a Thatcher Government. There were jobs aplenty, people were buying their own homes easily without fear of loosing their jobs and loosing their homes, the Country was prosperous and the economy booming. There was a future and hope for EVERYONE. If you were willing to work everything was there for the taking, holidays, leisure interests (we had a boat on Windermere), etc. Look at the comparison NOW. If you are willing to work and can find a job you will barely earn enough to survive because of the minimum wage, which was a brill idea for those in low paid jobs like washer uppers, cleaners, etc., but everyone is being paid it now if the company can get away with it. God help those who can’t find a job. What a contrast!!!!