The rich are getting richer

[Chris_Sleeps]

Funny how we get the first Labour government in 1924 and by 1926 the entire country is on strike. Coincidence?

Maybe, maybe not. It is worthy to note that the Labour government opposed the general strike. The era was also at a time when Russia had stopped fighting a civil war and the radical left was trying to spread a revolutionary message.

 

Even more relevant, I think; this was a generation of men that had fought in WW1. They'd served their country, and came home to see their jobs and wages being undercut by the countries that had put their effort into avoiding a conflict, or had fought against them.

 

Still ... if you want to blame the Labour party alone, I'm sure you will.

[Jim Graham]

Maybe, maybe not. It is worthy to note that the Labour government opposed the general strike. The era was also at a time when Russia had stopped fighting a civil war and the radical left was trying to spread a revolutionary message.

 

Even more relevant, I think; this was a generation of men that had fought in WW1. They'd served their country, and came home to see their jobs and wages being undercut by the countries that had put their effort into avoiding a conflict, or had fought against them.

 

Still ... if you want to blame the Labour party alone, I'm sure you will.

 

Of course, as with all things, there is a complex historical context but the Left as a movement has actually done very little for the working man. It is, however, very good at propaganda and taking credit for things it hasn't done whilst conveniently forgetting things that it did that didn't work out well.

 

The point I routinely make is that without the detrimental influence of the Left over the years the working man would probably still be working albeit with less social programmes. What we have now is the worst of all worlds which is ruinously expensive social programmes and high unemployment. And THAT is almost entirely down to Leftist policies.

[Chris_Sleeps]

the Left as a movement has actually done very little for the working man.

Of course. Those factory owners that used to employ children had a sudden attack of conscience. Those factory owners that used to squeeze a 14-16 hour working day out of the staff, or they'd import more desperate irish peasants - they suddenly let everyone clock off at 5.30 just on a whim.

 

It is, however, very good at propaganda

One man's propoganda is another man's truth. Your ideal of a benevolent class of mine owners is equally as off with what I'd call true.

 

without the detrimental influence of the Left over the years the working man would probably still be working albeit with less social programmes.

What social programmes?

 

What we have now is the worst of all worlds which is ruinously expensive social programmes and high unemployment. And THAT is almost entirely down to Leftist policies.

Capitalism is built on series of crises. Absolutely true. Marx's criticism of it is that is built on boom and bust. Supply and demand has its advantages, but it is equally as awful when it is shrinking.

 

I always find it odd how you can blame everything, every fault, purely and squarely at the feet of "the left", or "socialists", or "the Labour party". It's eternally a black and white answer to complex issues that you deliver.

[Anna B]

"The Poor Will Always Be With Us". I've heard that before but not sure where. The problem is that nobody really knows what to do about it. Labour not only failed miserably but actually made matters worse. Their problem is that they use "helping the poor" as a lever to help them get votes but in reality they are ideologically opposed to the actions that might actually help the poor such as a decent education and their stupid taxation policies. You only have to look at our own fair city to see just how Labour's policies fail year on year after billions of tax payers money have been thrown wastefully around.

 

The people who obsess about the poor tend to be lefties who cannot and will not accept that they have created a double and even triple dependancy culture that gives employment to lots of people who would not have cushy tax payer funded jobs if the problem of the poor was solved.

 

"The poor will always be with us" is actually a quote from the Bible. Jesus said it when someone objected to money being 'wasted' on oil to annoint his feet when it could have been used to help the poor. His point was that the poor would always be with us, while he would not, so honour him while you had the chance.

 

What to do? Well I think as far as the third world is concerned, they need to put a decent infrastructure in place. They could do this if they weren't compelled to pay off enormous third world debts to a relatively very well off Western world. It worries me greatly when I hear people who think that dismantling our own welfare system is a good idea. It's a safety net we might all need at some point.

 

As for this country what we need is jobs. Proper jobs, not temporary or part time jobs, but ones that give people enough security to build a decent worthwhile lives, and we need proper long term careers for youngsters.

[Jim Graham]

[quote=Anna B;8946187 It's a safety net we might all need at some point.

 

 

 

That is exactly the sort of propaganda I am talking about. The idea that £500bn a year is spent on a safety net is laughable. You would have us believe that if we work hard, pay our punishing taxes and live honestly the state will provide us with a safety net when and if we fall on hard times. It's an absolute shameless lie. You could not be more dishonest in peddling that myth.

 

If there is a safety net I've missed it every time I have needed it and so has everyone in my family and everyone I know. When we have fallen on some very hard times we have been abused, neglected, lied to and ignored by the very people who are paid vast amounts of tax payers money to provide some very basic needs. The unpleasant reality is that all that money is actually being used to give a lot of very undeserving and very undesirable, bone idle shirkers a living far better than they could ever have by working with the limited education and skills they have chosen to have.

[Anna B]

That is exactly the sort of propaganda I am talking about. The idea that £500bn a year is spent on a safety net is laughable. You would have us believe that if we work hard, pay our punishing taxes and live honestly the state will provide us with a safety net when and if we fall on hard times. It's an absolute shameless lie. You could not be more dishonest in peddling that myth.

 

If there is a safety net I've missed it every time I have needed it and so has everyone in my family and everyone I know. When we have fallen on some very hard times we have been abused, neglected, lied to and ignored by the very people who are paid vast amounts of tax payers money to provide some very basic needs. The unpleasant reality is that all that money is actually being used to give a lot of very undeserving and very undesirable, bone idle shirkers a living far better than they could ever have by working with the limited education and skills they have chosen to have.

 

And your proof is...?

 

You don't want to believe everything you read in the Daily Mail.

Look to your own experience. Similar to mine and nearly everyone I've known.

 

It's not that easy getting benefits, or living on them. It's the exceptions that get into the papers, not the rule. And of course it's played up and reported in such a way as to make everyone think it's happening far more than it is. That's the propaganda. Designed to deflect attention from where it should be, and set ordinary people against each other.

 

What the 'bone idle shirkers' need are regular jobs that pay better than benefits - and that doesn't mean benefits are too high, but that wages are too low. How can £60 a week to pay bills, buy food, pay for transport and everything else a person needs, be considered too much? They don't have a choice in this.

[Jim Graham]

 

 

What social programmes?

 

 

Capitalism is built on series of crises. Absolutely true. Marx's criticism of it is that is built on boom and bust. Supply and demand has its advantages, but it is equally as awful when it is shrinking.

 

 

 

Surely Marx's ideals were relevant to the 19th century when there was a bigger gap between rich and poor. The whole Leftist movement is based on taking from the rich and giving to the poor to balance things out a bit. Of course you give some extreme examples of greedy industrialists and, of course, I would cite examples of industrialists who built houses and schools for their employees.

 

Marxism does not work today, it never really did work, because the rich do not have enough wealth to pay for the ruinously expensive welfare state (£400bn a year) the Left have created. So to pay for it even the poorest people have to pay tax. It is absolutely absurd that the low paid, the elderly, the young, the unemployed and the disabled have to be taxed to keep finding cash to pour into expensive, inefficient public services that fail time after time.

 

What the Left has won with one hand has been taken away with the other hand. The Left may have won a welfare state but the workers are taxed into poverty and servitude to pay for it. Wages have to be so high to pay the taxes to pay for the welfare state that employment has gone elsewhere in the world. AND the punishing taxes we have today only pay 75% of the cost of the welfare state. We have to borrow the rest. It is beyond me how anyone thinks this a good idea.

[Mister M]

"The Poor Will Always Be With Us". I've heard that before but not sure where. The problem is that nobody really knows what to do about it. Labour not only failed miserably but actually made matters worse. Their problem is that they use "helping the poor" as a lever to help them get votes but in reality they are ideologically opposed to the actions that might actually help the poor such as a decent education and their stupid taxation policies. You only have to look at our own fair city to see just how Labour's policies fail year on year after billions of tax payers money have been thrown wastefully around.

 

The people who obsess about the poor tend to be lefties who cannot and will not accept that they have created a double and even triple dependancy culture that gives employment to lots of people who would not have cushy tax payer funded jobs if the problem of the poor was solved.

 

According to the Channel 4 News 'Fact Check' child poverty went down under Labour, not up.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/did-child-poverty-go-up-under-labour/3807

[Jim Graham]

Look to your own experience.

 

 

What the 'bone idle shirkers' need............. .

 

 

My experience is that the bone idle shirkers are working for Sheffield City Council, the NHS, HMRC, the DWP and many many more.

[Jim Graham]

According to the Channel 4 News 'Fact Check' child poverty went down under Labour, not up.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/did-child-poverty-go-up-under-labour/3807

 

That says it it went down but not by much. That's only child poverty, not poverty as a whole. What it doesn't say is how much of the £170bn a year Labour were borrowing at the time was being thrown at the problem to make it go down by not much. I think even I could solve child poverty with that sort of money.