The unemployed are punished with hunger - unemployment the worst crime

[Alan Ladd]

The propaganda works.

 

People watch the tripe the TV pushes down our throats and lap it up.

 

I grew up during the miners strikes and class opinion then was split with the lack of sympathy for striking miners from wealthier people.

Then others would rally round and help out, realising it could be them next.

 

Now it's easier to stick the boot in.

 

Don't kid yourself, the Miners were resented by he majority of the Trade Union movement. More Trade Union members voted for Thatcher than they did for Labour. Any sympathy for the miners ended with flying pickets, being denied a vote, and intimidating those who refused to strike without a vote.

 

---------- Post added 30-01-2015 at 17:51 ----------

 

You are so right in many respects, although I would argue that people in Britain will determine the outcome of the country. Do you mean in the next election?

 

Don't you agree that the country is only in the state it's in because of the failings of politicians, (all parties,) not because of the people, who by and large work hard and just get on with it.

 

The idea that we have a choice and can vote for what we want is hollow. Politicians come out with promises in their manifestos and then break every one of them. The things that really matter however, we never have any choice over - half of them we never even hear about until it's too late to do anything about.

 

Our governments are too secretive by half, and experts at propaganda and pulling the wool over the electorates eyes.

 

I don't see how you can blame the coalition. Labour created the mess we are in. Cameron and co have made a decent job out of trying to repair the damage. I just do not understand why he is resented, do you think he is incompetent? I hope that you are not one of the closet snobs that hate him because he comes from a privileged background and went to a good university.

[Anna B]

I agree, but I don't think they've failed. I think they've deliberately and successfully turned the country into one that's run for the rich, by the rich. Partly by convincing just enough people on £25,000 a year that their interests are the same as those of someone on £250,000 a year.

 

Yes, you have a point.

 

---------- Post added 30-01-2015 at 18:33 ----------

 

Don't kid yourself, the Miners were resented by he majority of the Trade Union movement. More Trade Union members voted for Thatcher than they did for Labour. Any sympathy for the miners ended with flying pickets, being denied a vote, and intimidating those who refused to strike without a vote.

 

---------- Post added 30-01-2015 at 17:51 ----------

 

 

I don't see how you can blame the coalition. Labour created the mess we are in. Cameron and co have made a decent job out of trying to repair the damage. I just do not understand why he is resented, do you think he is incompetent? I hope that you are not one of the closet snobs that hate him because he comes from a privileged background and went to a good university.

 

I sugest you stop reading the Daily Mail and believing everything you hear on the TV and start doing some of your own research.

Then you might understand why Labour did not create the mess we're in, (and believe me when I say I am certainly not a fan of Labour,) and why Cameron has most certainly not made a decent job out of anything, except perhaps feathering the nests of his friends and the super-rich.

[Alan Ladd]

Yes, you have a point.

 

---------- Post added 30-01-2015 at 18:33 ----------

 

 

I sugest you stop reading the Daily Mail and believing everything you hear on the TV and start doing some of your own research.

Then you might understand why Labour did not create the mess we're in, (and believe me when I say I am certainly not a fan of Labour,) and why Cameron has most certainly not made a decent job out of anything, except perhaps feathering the nests of his friends and the super-rich.

 

You jump to many conclusions. I have never read the Daily Mail, the Sun or any right wing newspaper. Nor do I read the Guardian, or the Mirror.

 

Labour were the government in power when the recession hit, they had sold all our gold reserves and had run up huge amounts of debt before the crisis hit. They had also pillaged the pensions many prudent people had built up.

 

You make sweeping statements about Cameron feathering the nests of his friends when the wealthy have never been so highly taxed.

 

I know its easy to generalize in the way you do but you are unfair.

[Alan Ladd]

Some of your criticisms of the (New) Labour administration are fair, but the national debt as a proportion of GDP was still smaller in 2008 (37%) than it was when they came to power in 1997 (42%). [Source]

 

Like Anna B, I'm no fan of (New) Labour.

 

How are you reckoning that "the wealthy have never been so highly taxed"? The top rate of income tax was 99.25% during the Second World War, and didn't go below 75% (more on investment income) until 1979. It's currently 45%.

 

Presumably you're talking about something other than just income tax? If so, you should note that according to the Office of National Statistics, in 2012/13 the richest fifth of the population paid 35.1% of their gross income in tax (direct and indirect), whereas the poorest fifth paid 37.4% [Source - which is well worth a look; it contains some figures you'll like, as well as some you won't].

 

I accept all you say. My point of difference with others is particularly the lady you mention, is that she gives no credit to the people who have picked up the poison chalice of New Labour/Socialism and done their best to get us out of the workhouse. I do not understand the venom which seems to follow any time the word Tory is used. No one owns my vote. If I thought the Tories were all she and others think they are I would not support them. However when I consider the alternative, after the chaos they caused on their watch I cannot understand why more Sheffielders do not support Cameron.

[Ellco]

People should understand that any harsh treatment of the unemployed will eventually filter its way up and low paid workers will suffer. Their security, terms and conditions will all be affected because of fear of becoming unemployed. Unscrupulous employers will have a birthday.

[Mister M]

People should understand that any harsh treatment of the unemployed will eventually filter its way up and low paid workers will suffer. Their security, terms and conditions will all be affected because of fear of becoming unemployed. Unscrupulous employers will have a birthday.

 

It's already happening.

 

What I want to know is that people on here *love* nothing more than to give those who they perceive as undeserving poor a good kicking. However the very same people say nothing about the undeserving rich. Why is that?

[Mecky]

Strange how we have a government that brought in numerous hate crimes since 2013 and yet whose supporters of the government spew their hatred in the media e.g. Daily Mail and Channel 5

[tinfoilhat]

Strange how we have a government that brought in numerous hate crimes since 2013 and yet whose supporters of the government spew their hatred in the media e.g. Daily Mail and Channel 5

 

Does anyone watch channel 5?

[Mecky]

Does anyone watch channel 5?

 

Apparently do because some people on here are bleating about certain programmes coming to Channel 5 a week before they are aired.

[Mister M]

Some of your criticisms of the (New) Labour administration are fair, but the national debt as a proportion of GDP was still smaller in 2008 (37%) than it was when they came to power in 1997 (42%). [Source]

 

Like Anna B, I'm no fan of (New) Labour.

 

How are you reckoning that "the wealthy have never been so highly taxed"? The top rate of income tax was 99.25% during the Second World War, and didn't go below 75% (more on investment income) until 1979. It's currently 45%.

 

Presumably you're talking about something other than just income tax? If so, you should note that according to the Office of National Statistics, in 2012/13 the richest fifth of the population paid 35.1% of their gross income in tax (direct and indirect), whereas the poorest fifth paid 37.4% [Source - which is well worth a look; it contains some figures you'll like, as well as some you won't].

 

I have no reason to doubt the veracity of what you say, but it makes me wonder why the Labour Party are not challenging the view pumped out by the media, that it was spending on the NHS and social security which rocketed out of control under Labour until 2008? And the bail out of the banks, which at the time, according to the National Audit Office, cost the country £955 billion, was the fault of either too much spending, or too much state interference.

Politically I can understand that the Conservatives, some of whom believe in a smaller state (though not for the banks), see this as an opportunity to try to reduce the size of the government spending on things like social security spending and Local Government. So the poorest people are having to pay for the mistakes of the richest: in effect the books are being balanced on the backs of the poor, in spite of David Cameron's explicit promise before the election that that wouldn't happen.

 

According to the BARB website, 1.5 million people watched "Benefits: Too Fat To Work" the week before last, compared to a circulation of about 1.7 million for the Daily Mail (though a lot more people will look at their web site, I guess, and an average of more than 1 person will look at any given copy of the paper itself).

 

Most popular programme on the channel is "Celebrity Big Brother", with 3.1 million viewers one day that week.

 

For me, these programmes that glut Channel 5, Channel 4's infamous 'benefit Street', and the BBC's execrable 'Saints and Scroungers', are nothing more than convenient justifications served up to the public for the decisions the Government have made.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Mister M