The Rich Get Richer 2

[Jim Graham]

...but by far the largest majority are there through no fault of their own. Mainly by being born into a low income, low aspiration, working class family, with few oportunities.

 

What sort of actions do you think contribute to 'finding yourself at the bottom of the pile'

 

One of the actions is definitely to keep blindly voting Labour without ever taking any interest in what they stand for or their track record.

 

Labour are the party of NO aspiration. That is what the current fight for the soul of the Labour Party is all about. The Blairites won power by offering their supporters opportunities through better education, owning your own home and being a safe pair of hands managing the economy. Sadly, they failed to deliver because they were undermined by the left of the party demanding more tax and spend policies and unlimited immigration.

 

Every Labour government, bar one short term, ended in higher unemployment. How does that lead to more opportunities? And how does undermining pay rates by rapidly increasing the number of people chasing each job translate into opportunities for the less well off? And your education chances in Labour are areas are almost non-existent as they all languish at the bottom of the education attainment tables. How is that providing opportunity?

 

The big question you need to ask yourself is "Are poor people voting Labour because it helps them, or are they poor BECAUSE they vote Labour?" All the evidence points to the latter being the case. The left have learned that well off people do not vote for them. So where is the incentive to make them better off? It's a strategy that has worked a treat in this city. And that is why Labour are in turmoil being deserted by those who want to get on.

[Mister M]

One of the actions is definitely to keep blindly voting Labour without ever taking any interest in what they stand for or their track record.

 

Labour are the party of NO aspiration. That is what the current fight for the soul of the Labour Party is all about. The Blairites won power by offering their supporters opportunities through better education, owning your own home and being a safe pair of hands managing the economy. Sadly, they failed to deliver because they were undermined by the left of the party demanding more tax and spend policies and unlimited immigration.

 

Every Labour government, bar one short term, ended in higher unemployment. How does that lead to more opportunities? And how does undermining pay rates by rapidly increasing the number of people chasing each job translate into opportunities for the less well off? And your education chances in Labour are areas are almost non-existent as they all languish at the bottom of the education attainment tables. How is that providing opportunity?

 

The big question you need to ask yourself is "Are poor people voting Labour because it helps them, or are they poor BECAUSE they vote Labour?" All the evidence points to the latter being the case. The left have learned that well off people do not vote for them. So where is the incentive to make them better off? It's a strategy that has worked a treat in this city. And that is why Labour are in turmoil being deserted by those who want to get on.

 

When you pose the question "Are poor people voting Labour because it helps them, or are they poor BECAUSE they vote Labour?" you're presupposing that 'the poor' are different from anybody and everybody else. No they are not. Same as rich people who sometimes get ill, become bereaved, become unemployed, get old. Some people who are wealthy have the luxury of savings to fall back on, but few question their values let alone their morals.

Yes there are some at the bottom who are feckless, but somehow you think that Labour exist to pander to them - that they are poor because of Labour. What about the many thousands of disabled people who in the last 10 years have died within 3 months of being kicked off benefits because they didn't satisfy some panel that they were disabled enough? They're no better off now the Tories are in power.

I'm no longer Labour, but I was in the past. Many of the people who have 'got on' in life have done so on the back of Labour proposals from the welfare state, to the NHS, the mass expansion of social housing in 1960s, the equality legislation in the 1970s and much more.

If, for example, the Tories are so interested in helping people get on why do the number of homeless increase under their tenure?

Sure many people have been offered better chances through owning their own home, or the state disposing of its assets - as in the right to buy. But that's not the only thing worth aspiring for. If any party represents the poverty of aspiration it's the Tories - a society underpinned by an attitude of I'm alright jack & stuff everybody else.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Mister M

[runningman1]

I disagree actually. Certainly a few have only themselves to blame, but by far the largest majority are there through no fault of their own. Mainly by being born into a low income, low aspiration, working class family, with few oportunities.

 

What sort of actions do you think contribute to 'finding yourself at the bottom of the pile'

 

Whilst these things are certainly hindrances, they are by know means complete barriers to achievement. I come from a family you describe, first person to have ever done A Levels, 1 unemployed drug dependant parent and 1 absent one. However I am doing well for myself because I took charge of my life.

 

People who tend to stay at the bottom are those that play the victim card.

[Anna B]

Whilst these things are certainly hindrances, they are by know means complete barriers to achievement. I come from a family you describe, first person to have ever done A Levels, 1 unemployed drug dependant parent and 1 absent one. However I am doing well for myself because I took charge of my life.

 

People who tend to stay at the bottom are those that play the victim card.

 

I'm glad to hear it Runningman. I too am from an ordinary working class family, although my parents and especially my grandparents were deeply involved in the Labour Party during its infancy, so politics, unions, the importance of work, etc. were always part of my childhood. My family were also intelligent and knew the benefit of a good education. (Which they didn't get) so were heavily into self improvement though largely self educated. (Books are a wonderful thing.) They never had the opportunity to go to University although I'm sure they would have done very well. My mother in particular always wanted to be a teacher, but couldn't afford to stay at school, her mother needed her wage coming in.

 

My generation was more fortunate. Many of the improvements following the development of the welfare state were there to give working people a leg up, but they are now being dismantled. Grammar schools being one. Free University education is another, Free/cheap night schools etc and further education. Do you remember the Worker's educational association? Probably disbanded now. Real apprenticeships, not the excuse for them that pass as 'apprenticeships' these days. Day release schemes. Proper, substantial and fully funded training, and also an ethos where you could start at the bottom and work your way right to the top. Training was good and there were proper, substantial jobs at the end of it.

When you talk of yourself, I bet you benefited from some of these. I know I did, and I thought that state of affairs would last forever. It never occurred to me that they would be dismantled, but in the last few years things have changed drastically.

 

Now the whole system seems to have gone mad along with most of the jobs, There are now pseudo jobs with grandiose titles, but not much money or 'commision only' pay, part time jobs, 0 hours jobs, short contract jobs, employment agencies with fake jobs and scams aplenty, Internships, ridiculous interviews which include working for a week without pay (of course you never get the job.) Computer only applications, (no computer? forget it - oh and the local library has probably closed as well, so no joy there either.) Minimum pay (which is nibbled away round the edges before you even get it,) is still not enough to live on if you're a young person having to start from scratch,

 

The government likes to call it a 'flexible workforce.' Well I'm sorry, but how can people plan their lives, budgets, families etc with no dependable income.

 

This isn't so much the case in professional jobs of course but they require a degree which entails mountains of debt and even then no guarantees of employment. I know many kids with good degrees who are still working in call centres after 2 years of looking. It's maybe easier if you have a parent with influence and/or good contacts in the better jobs, but most do not have these. And once these plum jobs are gone there's even less for the rest of us.

 

It's all a bit of a farce, and believe me I know a lot of kids who are very discouraged and not a little angry.

[Staunton]

When ordinary people lose their jobs they soon discover how harsh the policies that structure the so-called jobseeker's allowance really are, and they quickly find themselves scorned by government ministers and their tabloid chums as shirkers and scroungers. However when the rich and well-placed are laid off it seems that a three quarters of a million pound pay-off is not enough. 'Have another quarter of a million, just to tide you over, dear boy' says David Cameron to his friends.

 

Can we expect to see Cameron's former aides signing on? Might we notice them in the queue at the food bank? Are they likely to face benefit sanctions?

 

'We are all in this together' has been the tory mantra since 2010. However the latest shocking revelation of Cameron's double standards should serve as a call to ordinary people everywhere to see through the lies and recognise the fact that right-wing politicians are entirely focused on coddling the wealthy whilst simultaneously slashing jobs and cutting the support and services that ordinary people depend upon as they struggle to make ends meet.

[Penistone999]

One of David Cameron's final acts as Prime Minister was to overrule strongly worded civil service advice so that his advisers would get an extra £282,000 – or, an additional six months’ salary – in severance pay because of his resignation.

 

Mr Cameron's decision will take the severance pay bill for his closest allies from £747,045 to £1,029,938, and set a precedent across all Government departments which could lead to another 30 special advisers getting the same deal, a top civil servant warned.

 

Meanwhile millions of ordinary people are having to work in a 'flexible' labour market, with part-time, zero-hour, minimum-wage temporary contracts, and lay-offs before any employment rights or redundancy pay accrues.

 

This sickening contrast fully demonstrates the vicious hypocrisy at the core of neoliberalism!

 

Really ?

 

I just see the Green Eyed Monster in your post.

 

Im sure you would turn down the extra six months pay though

[Mister M]

Really ?

 

I just see the Green Eyed Monster in your post.

 

Im sure you would turn down the extra six months pay though

 

Well you would

[mafya]

One of David Cameron's final acts as Prime Minister was to overrule strongly worded civil service advice so that his advisers would get an extra £282,000 – or, an additional six months’ salary – in severance pay because of his resignation.

 

Mr Cameron's decision will take the severance pay bill for his closest allies from £747,045 to £1,029,938, and set a precedent across all Government departments which could lead to another 30 special advisers getting the same deal, a top civil servant warned.

 

Meanwhile millions of ordinary people are having to work in a 'flexible' labour market, with part-time, zero-hour, minimum-wage temporary contracts, and lay-offs before any employment rights or redundancy pay accrues.

 

This sickening contrast fully demonstrates the vicious hypocrisy at the core of neoliberalism!

 

Thanks for making people aware by posting this.

[Berberis]

So the people at the very top of their game, commanding a position at the heart of our government, doing a job that is near on impossible get a large pay out for losing their job because their boss resigned. Seems fair to me.

[Anna B]

So the people at the very top of their game, commanding a position at the heart of our government, doing a job that is near on impossible get a large pay out for losing their job because their boss resigned. Seems fair to me.

 

Yet ordinary people made redundant, especially those over 50, have far more need and get far less help.

Not only that, but as Staunton says, they are blamed, name-called and accused of being the author of their own misfortune.

 

 

Does that seem fair to you too?