The assault on the poor and disabled

I reblogged this post in 'honour' of the Tory party conference and Ivan asked me to post it here, too. You can find the original post complete with links at: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Here are two true stories:

A friend of mine once picked up a hitch-hiker at a motorway service station. The bloke looked a bit down on his luck, so my friend asked what his story was. The guy said he’d been living in service stations, bathing in the shower facilities at lorry-driver stops, for several days as he tried to make his way from one end of the country to the other to where a hotel job was waiting for him if he could get there. He’d lost all his benefits and had no way to get the money to take a train or bus.

My friend gave this man all the money he had in his pocket, which was £60. The man seemed genuinely overwhelmed and grateful, seemingly unable to believe that someone would give him a fairly serious amount of money within minutes of meeting him, on the basis of the story he’d just related.

I asked my friend whether he thought the man had been genuine, or might he have been ripped off? His answer was that his gut instinct was that the man was for real – but that if he wasn’t, he’d rather be conned than be hard-hearted and risk ignoring someone in genuine need.

By contrast, the incredibly rich (some $287 billion in today’s money) industrialist Andrew Carnegie once famously said that it would be better for the world if a rich man threw his millions into the sea rather than give any to the ‘unworthy’. To be fair to Carnegie, he gave away a vast proportion of his wealth – but the rich and privileged have a long history of presuming that, from their pinnacle of wealth and comfort, they are able to decide who is ‘worthy’ and who isn’t. The concept of the ‘deserving poor‘, by denoting that some poor are by definition not deserving, has resulted in great suffering while allowing the wealthy to feel satisfied with their lack of concern or action.

The current crop of Tories are truly in line with their predecessors in this regard – except that they’re even worse. Even though they can’t possibly be ignorant of the consequences, they push this line in the most cynical way, with the aim of dividing the British public, fooling the undiscerning into allowing or even approving of policies aimed at stripping the vulnerable of crucial protections. And for the basest of reasons – for short-term political gain (persuading some people that the Tories are ‘at least doing something about something!’), and to release even more public funds that can be channelled into tax-cuts for the already-rich or even greater profits for private corporations.

With their limited moral imagination, the Tories really only know two tactics. Both are calculated to appeal to the baser instincts of the small-minded and thoughtless: fear and vilification. There may be different facets or manifestations – they might try to invoke suspicion, or envy, or to dehumanise or caricature one set of people to get another set to back their policies – but the roots are the same.

I’m working on a post about economic fear and the way that’s fostered by government spokespeople and tame media, but it’s proving to be quite a big project and I’m not going to be online much over the next few days, so it will be a little while in coming. But the other tactic – vilification or demonisation of the vulnerable or resistant – is so plain that this post almost writes itself. Whether explicitly or in the omission, the Tories are at it constantly.

Just in recent weeks, we’ve had:

• Iain Duncan-Smith accusing Britons of not working hard enough, while bare-facedly distorting figures on fraudulent claims for disability benefit (claiming a 30% fraud rate when in fact it’s bare over one percent) to gain public support for his hateful Welfare Reform Act.
  

• A smug Frances Maude announcing that the bottom 10% of civil servants has a year to improve or be fired – conveniently leaving out the fact that if everyone in the civil service was a workaholic genius, there would still be a bottom 10%. Being at the bottom doesn’t mean you’re incompetent or unproductive. He insists that this is not an ‘attack’ on the civil service, even though at the same time he’s making cuts of 25% in civil servant numbers and talking of removing any terms and conditions that are better than those of the private sector that the Tories and their pals have already robbed.
  

• Andrew Lansley calling on doctors not to take industrial action and having his department and tame journalists conduct an orchestrated propaganda campaign to persuade the public that doctors are rich, privileged, selfish and uncaring of their patients (‘After all’, he might as well say, ‘we’ve robbed the rest of the public sector, why should doctors be any different?’) This in spite of the fact that the doctors’ pension scheme is not in shortfall and that the Health Secretary, having specifically abdicated his legal responsibility for healthcare provision in his new Health & Social Care Act, is really not entitled to comment one way or the other, let alone to impose new pension terms.
  

• David Cameron underlining again that the Tories are on the side of ‘strivers’, thereby saying that they’re not on the side of anyone who can’t strive, or who simply wants to live a decent, balanced life.
  

• Iain Duncan-Smith (again!) announcing plans to remove benefits from anyone who dares strike against the removal of pay, pensions, conditions and protection that is now the norm for the treatment of ordinary working people.
  

• Claims by Communities Minister Eric Pickles, vocally supported by Housing Minister Grant Shapps and many others, and by the right-wing press, that the UK has 120,000 ‘problem families’ who cause 80% of societal problems, even though not one of the criteria used to decide who is a ‘problem family’ relates to criminality, but instead refer to poverty and physical or mental illness.
  

• Endlessly repeated soundbites about ‘benefit scroungers’ to justify capping housing benefit, even though the vast majority of people receiving this benefit are working, but can’t afford outrageous rents.
  

• Cameron and others vilifying transport workers for daring to plan industrial action during the Olympic Games money-making exercise, even though industrial action is really their only negotiating weapon and it’s perfectly sensible for them to aim it at the periods when it will be most effective. The Tories really do want a workforce that’s powerless to stand up for itself.
  

I could go on, but I want to keep this post to a readable length.

The aim of all these policies and pronouncements is very clear: persuading whichever sections of the public that are not affected by a particular measure that those who are affected are not worthy of support, and definitely not worthy of help.

The consequences of these and other Tory measures are not hard to imagine – and they’re already being played out. Disabled, ill or mentally ill people spend their days in fear at the prospect of having their benefits stopped because they’re ludicrously assessed as fit for work, while some even attempt or commit suicide. People are forced to accept part-time ‘work’ that offers few (or even zero!) hours while the government crows that it has reduced unemployment; jobless people are forced to work for free and sleep under bridges by companies who ruthlessly exploit them to maximise profit. And so on.

In this context, it’s patently clear that the Tories’ policies, attitudes, sleaze, self-enrichment and their unholy alliance with powerful corporate and media interests show that they are not fit to judge a vegetable show, let alone judge whether a vulnerable person is ‘worthy’ of help.

Fortunately, we get to choose whether we believe them. To choose whether we agree with the kind of approach to life that says that, while no system is perfect, it’s much better to err on the side of goodness than of suspicion and selfishness, that it’s better to set up or protect systems that protect the genuine many than one which might prevent a very few ‘playing the system’ but that also strands people in genuine need in a situation of despair. We have the privilege of deciding what kind of society we want to be.

From everything I’ve written, you’ll probably have guessed that I absolutely agree with my friend, rather than with Carnegie, about which side it’s better to err on. But Mr Carnegie did say something that I agree with very much:

‘A man who dies rich dies disgraced’

In our current government, and in the people who support and fund them, we have a lot of walking ‘disgraces in the making’. Let’s think for ourselves, see them for what they are, and not make it easy for them to become even bigger disgraces than they already are.

Excellent post, skwalker.

Skywalker I would not believe them in a Million years, they are well practiced LIARS, I can only watch them for a few minutes otherwise my foot would go through my TV there lies are so obvious, but they are still trying to drive a wedge between the ones that still have low paid work and the ones THEY flung on the Dole queue. Great post skywalker.

Great post Skywalker! I'd be very interested to hear Blues opinion of your post. I know 99% of people who post on here will agree with every word you've written, it's the truth afterall. I really want hear why Tories see it so differently. Come on Blue or any other Tory for that matter!

I don't think we need be surprised to find that Bandits operate like thieves, even when smartly dressed.

oftenwrong wrote:I don't think we need be surprised to find that Bandits operate like thieves, even when smartly dressed.

Very true OW, my father told me its not only the man with the muffler that are the thieves the majority are suited with collar and tie, as we know all the tories are is a bunch of "BLOODY BANDITS".

Spot on skwalker

Excellent post skywalker, though why you quote an American is beyond me, personally I like to think my attitude would be closer to your friends. My question is "do you really believe that Labour would do differently?" Remember the top rate of tax was set at 40% by labour and only put up to 50% just before they were turfed out due to their incompetence. Whilst Labour were governing over a buoyant market for many years, did they ever think of saving for the hard times, or did they really think it would last for ever?

If we want to survive in the global market it cannot be achieved by reliance on the state, the days of plenty have gone and it's now time to look after those that genuinely need it (means testing) and push those that have abused the system back into the reality of life as lived by a working man.

tlttf wrote:Excellent post skywalker, though why you quote an American is beyond me, personally I like to think my attitude would be closer to your friends. My question is "do you really believe that Labour would do differently?" Remember the top rate of tax was set at 40% by labour and only put up to 50% just before they were turfed out due to their incompetence. Whilst Labour were governing over a buoyant market for many years, did they ever think of saving for the hard times, or did they really think it would last for ever?

If we want to survive in the global market it cannot be achieved by reliance on the state, the days of plenty have gone and it's now time to look after those that genuinely need it (means testing) and push those that have abused the system back into the reality of life as lived by a working man.

To answer your question "would Labour do it differently" yes they would have taken two terms of Parliament so that growth was still happening and the treasury was still getting people paying there taxes and NI, instead of kill the public sector and if it moves "sell it" which is the way the tories are doing and look what has happened over 2.5 Million unemployed no growth and 2.5 Million people not paying tax or NI. As for Labour not putting by when times where good they where putting that money into the NHS Education Police and the armed forces so that we could deal with any threat that came our way, and the other reason for not putting by money for hard times could be they where not expecting the Greedy bankers to take our savings and mortgage money and have a wild night at the CASINO.

tlttf wrote:Excellent post skywalker, though why you quote an American is beyond me, personally I like to think my attitude would be closer to your friends. My question is "do you really believe that Labour would do differently?" Remember the top rate of tax was set at 40% by labour and only put up to 50% just before they were turfed out due to their incompetence. Whilst Labour were governing over a buoyant market for many years, did they ever think of saving for the hard times, or did they really think it would last for ever?

If we want to survive in the global market it cannot be achieved by reliance on the state, the days of plenty have gone and it's now time to look after those that genuinely need it (means testing) and push those that have abused the system back into the reality of life as lived by a working man.

Er, Andrew Carnegie was a Scot who made his money in America.

As for days of plenty, there's as much money around as there ever was - more in fact. It's just concentrated unhelpfully.

It's all very well the Tories declaring they're behind ambitious hardworking go-getters, etc; but if the the working classes end up left with next to zero spending power, and can't afford to purchase goods, what will happen?

Cameron declared, in his speech, 'we just get behind people who want to get on in life. The doers. The risk takers. The young people who dream of their first pay-cheque, their first car, their first home – and are ready and willing to work hard to get those things. While the intellectuals of other parties sneer at people who want to get on in life, we here salute you. They call us the party of the better-off – no: we are the party of the want to be better-off, those who strive to make a better life for themselves and their families'. All very well, but the entire working population can't be like that. A lot of people just want a steady job with reasonable pay - and we will always need a large section of workforce willing to do the mundane tasks - cleaners, factory workers, labourers, shopworkers, etc......all essential tasks that keep things ticking over so the go-getters don't need to worry about the menial stuff. Do the people doing this work not figure on the tory radar? If they all downed tools we'd soon notice - and maybe appreciate their value to our system/society a little more. What about a living wage? Wouldn't that dramatically reduce the housing benefit/welfare bill?

I wonder how many businesses will go bust next year when the cuts begin to kick in and people have nothing to spend after being fleeced by landlords, gas/electric companies, transport costs, etc.

And then we'll have even more unemployment. Is that what the tories really want? I believe it is. The weaker we are, the easier it is to coerce us, remove our rights still further, etc.

I would not be surprised to see unemployment approaching 4million within 5yrs.

There is no honour among thieves. New financial regulations coming in soon will have put a stop to "Financial Advisors" giving bad advice to get the maximum commission from a deal. Brokers will now have to obtain their income from fees charged to the client.

Some Insurance and Pensions companies have recently begun to pay a handsome "retention bonus" to their best introducers of new business. But that isn't Commission. No, no, of course not. Think of it as Christmas come early.

sickchip wrote:It's all very well the Tories declaring they're behind ambitious hardworking go-getters, etc; but if the the working classes end up left with next to zero spending power, and can't afford to purchase goods, what will happen?

Cameron declared, in his speech, 'we just get behind people who want to get on in life. The doers. The risk takers. The young people who dream of their first pay-cheque, their first car, their first home – and are ready and willing to work hard to get those things. While the intellectuals of other parties sneer at people who want to get on in life, we here salute you. They call us the party of the better-off – no: we are the party of the want to be better-off, those who strive to make a better life for themselves and their families'. All very well, but the entire working population can't be like that. A lot of people just want a steady job with reasonable pay - and we will always need a large section of workforce willing to do the mundane tasks - cleaners, factory workers, labourers, shopworkers, etc......all essential tasks that keep things ticking over so the go-getters don't need to worry about the menial stuff. Do the people doing this work not figure on the tory radar? If they all downed tools we'd soon notice - and maybe appreciate their value to our system/society a little more. What about a living wage? Wouldn't that dramatically reduce the housing benefit/welfare bill?

I wonder how many businesses will go bust next year when the cuts begin to kick in and people have nothing to spend after being fleeced by landlords, gas/electric companies, transport costs, etc.

And then we'll have even more unemployment. Is that what the tories really want? I believe it is. The weaker we are, the easier it is to coerce us, remove our rights still further, etc.

I would not be surprised to see unemployment approaching 4million within 5yrs.

I have been expecting the minimum wage to go for quite some time now sickchip, once I heard about the Beecroft report and the severe cuts come into effect in April 2013 that is when (I hope) the people of the UK will wake up and smell the coffee. I agree with you on unemployment figures hitting the 4 Million the tory party are good at saying the private sector have created 1 Million jobs, but will not tell you how many of those jobs are part-time and what good are part-tome wages to a man with a wife and child to support part-time wages are of no use to a single person with every day item prices hitting the roof. If you can remember the Maggots gov't they said "Unemployment was a price worth Paying" and it just goes to prove where Scam..er..on is getting his ideas for gov't, he has been into the Maggots papers from her reign of TERROR.

I do a monthly analysis on my blog of the employment figures that goes into detail such as part-time vs full-time, impact on disabled people, impact on women etc. Numbers of full-time jobs are down - and there's rarely any real good news behind whatever figure the spin doctors and news media decide to highlight.

As for minimum wage, it'll go the moment they think they can get away with it. For now, they're going the indirect route - attacking benefits on the basis that it's 'unfair' for an unemployed family to receive more than a working one, and attacking public-sector pay & pensions on the basis that the private sector has it worse, when they've already pillaged private sector benefits. Once the public sector and the unemployed are worse off, they'll use that as an excuse to attack the private sector benefits again...

skwalker1964 wrote:I do a monthly analysis on my blog of the employment figures that goes into detail such as part-time vs full-time, impact on disabled people, impact on women etc. Numbers of full-time jobs are down - and there's rarely any real good news behind whatever figure the spin doctors and news media decide to highlight.

As for minimum wage, it'll go the moment they think they can get away with it. For now, they're going the indirect route - attacking benefits on the basis that it's 'unfair' for an unemployed family to receive more than a working one, and attacking public-sector pay & pensions on the basis that the private sector has it worse, when they've already pillaged private sector benefits. Once the public sector and the unemployed are worse off, they'll use that as an excuse to attack the private sector benefits again...

Thank you skywalker for that information on the unemployment real figures, I knew the minimum wage would go as soon as the tories took power in May 2010.

A slightly academic discussion in view of the authorities' disinclination to prosecute employers who pay less than minimum wage.

A Law which is not enforced is voluntary.

I can't remember now which thread I wrote it on here but I made some comment somewhere about the on-message message that Cameron fools the country with being 'loyalty'.

Cameron's 'we're all in this together' may well have referred to his dinner party guests who could all look to gaining a generous windfall in gratitude for their Tory Party sponsorship. He sticks by his friends, and hates to see them chucked out of his cabinet for lies and hypocrisy.

On Sky News the other night they were looking at 'tomorrow's papers' and the commentator commented that David Cameron was 'a man who would lay down his country for his friends'.

Nicely put, I thought.......................

But anyway, back to the future, how else is Britain going to develop 'growth' except by growing profitable industry?

A few nationalised industries might be a quicker route to solvency, and maybe a decent nationalised bank to put the money away tidy, with no wastage on gambling. Funds for loans and funds for start-up grants could even begin with an imaginary quantitative easing pot, like dear Vince plans to introduce. After all if the world bank can make a fortune in this way then a miniature in-house version just might work.

I would like to see a Lib-Lab government sooner rather than later. I think Vince and Clegg will have learned a lot by the time this present 3 legged race runs its course. Both of them still have a moral compass, unlike the Bullingdon Boys. And saint Millipede the Fine would value their experience to guide him in his trips and stumbles, when the time comes.

There's no chance that Labour will go into coalition with the Lib Dems, after all that the Lib Dems have allowed the Tories to do in the last two and a half years. If necessary, Labour would rule as a minority government, but all the indications are that they will have a majority of over 100 at the next election. Two-thirds of those who voted Lib Dem in 2010, thinking they were voting for a left-wing party, have already switched their allegiance to Labour.

Anyway, how on earth could the Lib Dems join a coalition with Labour? Labour is committed to repealing the bill which has, in effect, privatised the NHS. The Lib Dems voted in favour of that bill; are we now supposed to believe they might vote to repeal it as well??

The reality is that after the next election, the Lib Dems won't have enough MPs to matter, and they may well have difficulty filling a minibus with them. No ruling party since 1974 has increased its share of the vote in a subsequent election, and I can't see anyone falling for Cameron's lies next time if they didn't do so in 2010. All Ed Miliband has to do is play a straight bat and Labour will be home and dry.

Methought sais: I would like to see a Lib-Lab government sooner rather than later. I think Vince and Clegg will have learned a lot by the time this present 3 legged race runs its course. Both of them still have a moral compass, unlike the Bullingdon Boys. And saint Millipede the Fine would value their experience to guide him in his trips and stumbles, when the time comes.
Hello Methought. I really dont know if your posting is tongue in cheek, or if you actually believe what you are saying.

You seem to forget, it was the Clegg Kid who was steering his to be defunked party, when the despicable Tories wanted to make their cuts, and to privatise the NHS.

All of the Coalition cuts and attacks on the poor and needy could and would not have happened without the Liar’s Clegg and Cable supporting them, not only them two but every other Lib-Dem MP who stood shoulder to shoulder with Herr Cameron’s cohorts. They even perpetuated the now proven falsehood "the mess left by the previous Government"

In my mind the Lib-Dems are worse than any Tory, as what the Tories have done is simply be true to themselves and have done nothing we didn’t expect them to do. But as for the Lib-Dems they have totally gone against all of the principles they once had by Joining the Tories, and all but giving them free rein with their policies, and what have they got in return, back-pedalling and another U Turn on a PR referendum and a kick in the Teeth by Herr Cameron over Cables much spoken about Mansion Tax.

As for Ed Miliband valuing Clegg and Cable’s input. I really think not, as Labour will not be taken in by Herr Cameron, Clegg and Cable stand no chance of impressing any one other than their fellow Lib-Dems, who‘s numbers have drastically reduced, I think it would take people who still have credibility and not a pair of closet Tories to impress Ed Miliband, and I’m afraid no Lib-Dem fits that bill.

They are a spent force now, and have very little chance of surviving as a political Party, let alone forming a Government, either sooner or later.

The only trip and stumble for Ed Miliband would be to join up with liars such as Glegg, and if he did I along with many other Labour members and supporters would leave in their droves, and of course Ed Miliband knows that, so do you think he would be prepared to lose true labour supporters for a bunch of spineless Lib-Dems “ I think not”

bobby wrote:Methought sais: I would like to see a Lib-Lab government sooner rather than later. I think Vince and Clegg will have learned a lot by the time this present 3 legged race runs its course. Both of them still have a moral compass, unlike the Bullingdon Boys. And saint Millipede the Fine would value their experience to guide him in his trips and stumbles, when the time comes.
Hello Methought. I really dont know if your posting is tongue in cheek, or if you actually believe what you are saying.

You seem to forget, it was the Clegg Kid who was steering his to be defunked party, when the despicable Tories wanted to make their cuts, and to privatise the NHS.

All of the Coalition cuts and attacks on the poor and needy could and would not have happened without the Liar’s Clegg and Cable supporting them, not only them two but every other Lib-Dem MP who stood shoulder to shoulder with Herr Cameron’s cohorts. They even perpetuated the now proven falsehood "the mess left by the previous Government"

In my mind the Lib-Dems are worse than any Tory, as what the Tories have done is simply be true to themselves and have done nothing we didn’t expect them to do. But as for the Lib-Dems they have totally gone against all of the principles they once had by Joining the Tories, and all but giving them free rein with their policies, and what have they got in return, back-pedalling and another U Turn on a PR referendum and a kick in the Teeth by Herr Cameron over Cables much spoken about Mansion Tax.

As for Ed Miliband valuing Clegg and Cable’s input. I really think not, as Labour will not be taken in by Herr Cameron, Clegg and Cable stand no chance of impressing any one other than their fellow Lib-Dems, who‘s numbers have drastically reduced, I think it would take people who still have credibility and not a pair of closet Tories to impress Ed Miliband, and I’m afraid no Lib-Dem fits that bill.

They are a spent force now, and have very little chance of surviving as a political Party, let alone forming a Government, either sooner or later.

The only trip and stumble for Ed Miliband would be to join up with liars such as Glegg, and if he did I along with many other Labour members and supporters would leave in their droves, and of course Ed Miliband knows that, so do you think he would be prepared to lose true labour supporters for a bunch of spineless Lib-Dems “ I think not”

Hi Ivan
I cannot agree more with your post and too me the L/D are living inside a political bubble that is not of this world. As they are guilty of adding and abetting at Tory Government in some most vile cut in political History. They have supported a Government that won power on the back of a political economic lie.

The fact of the matter is that many people are starting to question this economic lie and the truth of this governments actions will be seen for what they are. Clegg is little more than a Tory party Quisling and a betrayer of his own party gain power at any cost. Clegg will get the same fate that happened to Vidkum Quisling come 2015

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Ivan wrote:There's no chance that Labour will go into coalition with the Lib Dems, after all that the Lib Dems have allowed the Tories to do in the last two and a half years. If necessary, Labour would rule as a minority government, but all the indications are that they will have a majority of over 100 at the next election. Two-thirds of those who voted Lib Dem in 2010, thinking they were voting for a left-wing party, have already switched their allegiance to Labour.

Anyway, how on earth could the Lib Dems join a coalition with Labour? Labour is committed to repealing the bill which has, in effect, privatised the NHS. The Lib Dems voted in favour of that bill; are we now supposed to believe they might vote to repeal it as well??

The reality is that after the next election, the Lib Dems won't have enough MPs to matter, and they may well have difficulty filling a minibus with them. No ruling party since 1974 has increased its share of the vote in a subsequent election, and I can't see anyone falling for Cameron's lies next time if they didn't do so in 2010. All Ed Miliband has to do is play a straight bat and Labour will be home and dry.

Ivan how can the L/Ds go into power with the Labour party to get into the H.O.C you must win your seat and out of 57 they have at the moment how many will they win in 2015? IMHO they will be lucky if they get ONE.

I don't have a crystal ball to predict the future but if Labour get a clear majority I will be happy with that. It is only if they don't that I think Clegg would step down, and Vince would feel the relief and confidence of the Lib Dem rank and file all-round good guys.

I know they wanted a Lib-Lab coalition, but GB couldn't bring himself to step aside and let Harriet stand in as leader. He made himself deeply unpopular as an individual, and for all that he didn't get the country into its current mess - the bankers did - he couldn't be seen as a leader, going into the election.

It was sweet to hear that Ed Milliband had been writing Harriet's speeches for her. She could have done well if GB had just let go of the reins voluntarily instead of waiting for them to be forced from his hand by this sorry bunch of charlatans.

Partisan politics tend to swing for and against ideologies. Meeting the needs of private business employees and state funded workers is an area where methinks the Lib-Dems can work with both aspects fairly.

methought wrote:I don't have a crystal ball to predict the future but if Labour get a clear majority I will be happy with that. It is only if they don't that I think Clegg would step down, and Vince would feel the relief and confidence of the Lib Dem rank and file all-round good guys.

I know they wanted a Lib-Lab coalition, but GB couldn't bring himself to step aside and let Harriet stand in as leader. He made himself deeply unpopular as an individual, and for all that he didn't get the country into its current mess - the bankers did - he couldn't be seen as a leader, going into the election.

It was sweet to hear that Ed Milliband had been writing Harriet's speeches for her. She could have done well if GB had just let go of the reins voluntarily instead of waiting for them to be forced from his hand by this sorry bunch of charlatans.

I watched the five days it took to form the coalition and Gordon Brown did step down, because the L/Ds said that was the only way they would talk to the Labour party as far as I'm concerned Clegg USED the Labour party as a lever to get more out of the Tories and for that I will never forgive them, so here is hoping that Labour get a clear majority at the next G.E.

Just chiming a bit of discord here, since I don't know the words to the Red Flag, anyway. A representative government has to pull a lot of strings to achieve its objectives.

Watch out for the one which has bells on it.

methought wrote:Just chiming a bit of discord here, since I don't know the words to the Red Flag, anyway. A representative government has to pull a lot of strings to achieve its objectives.

Watch out for the one which has bells on it.

That is a shame methought, my grandfather sang the "REDFLAG" to me after he came back from the British Legeon after a few pints.

Those were the days, my friend

methought wrote:Those were the days, my friend

Yes they where, that is why I picked the name redflag as my board name.

Extracts from an article by Owen Jones:-

“That a gang of multimillionaire class warriors is intentionally attempting to turn poor people against each other for political advantage is as shameful as the often grubby world of politics gets. When even the mildest suggestion is floated that Britain’s booming wealthy elite should cough up a bit more, the Tories slap it down as ‘the politics of envy’, and yet they shamelessly attempt to direct the resentment of struggling low-paid workers towards the supposedly luxurious conditions of their unemployed neighbours. Has there even been such a concerted, deliberate attempt by a postwar government to turn large chunks of the electorate against each other? Thatcher would blush.

Just look at what this ideologically crazed cabal has done to our economy. According to Citibank, further large revenue shortfalls will drive the government’s debt-to-GDP ratio close to 100% of GDP, up from 43% before the crisis unfolded. The underlying deficit is growing, despite attempts to massage figures with raids on the Bank of England’s quantitative easing coupons and the gifting of assets from the Royal Mail’s pension funds.

Osborne is borrowing £100 billion more than expected. We are in the most protracted economic crisis in modern times; the economy is still 3.1% below the pre-Lehman Brothers crash peak, and analysts warn that an unprecedented triple-dip recession is approaching. A ‘lost decade’ is upon us. As the catastrophe unleashed by this government worsens, so the campaign to redirect anger to our neighbours must intensify.”

For the full article:-
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Ivan wrote:Extracts from an article by Owen Jones:-

“That a gang of multimillionaire class warriors is intentionally attempting to turn poor people against each other for political advantage is as shameful as the often grubby world of politics gets. When even the mildest suggestion is floated that Britain’s booming wealthy elite should cough up a bit more, the Tories slap it down as ‘the politics of envy’, and yet they shamelessly attempt to direct the resentment of struggling low-paid workers towards the supposedly luxurious conditions of their unemployed neighbours. Has there even been such a concerted, deliberate attempt by a postwar government to turn large chunks of the electorate against each other? Thatcher would blush.

Just look at what this ideologically crazed cabal has done to our economy. According to Citibank, further large revenue shortfalls will drive the government’s debt-to-GDP ratio close to 100% of GDP, up from 43% before the crisis unfolded. The underlying deficit is growing, despite attempts to massage figures with raids on the Bank of England’s quantitative easing coupons and the gifting of assets from the Royal Mail’s pension funds.

Osborne is borrowing £100 billion more than expected. We are in the most protracted economic crisis in modern times; the economy is still 3.1% below the pre-Lehman Brothers crash peak, and analysts warn that an unprecedented triple-dip recession is approaching. A ‘lost decade’ is upon us. As the catastrophe unleashed by this government worsens, so the campaign to redirect anger to our neighbours must intensify.”

For the full article:-
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Wonderful analysis.

One thing I hate this government for as much as anything is forcing me almost to hope that we don't see an economic recovery for the next 2.5 years. If we do, it will be despite them and not because of them - but it might just be enough to fool just enough people into voting for them to keep them in power or lead to a hung Parliament. Bitter medicine for the next couple of years is better in the long run than a moderate upturn now and 5 more years of Tory control/influence to dismantle what's good in our country.

That's a topic that people are likely to re-examine when they receive their pay-slips next April. Some of Gideon's best efforts come into legal effect then.

Ouch!

oftenwrong wrote:That's a topic that people are likely to re-examine when they receive their pay-slips next April. Some of Gideon's best efforts come into legal effect then.

Ouch!

That is when the people will discover the bloody lies the Tories have been telling more so the people that will not be getting there working tax credits, instead according to the Tories they will be better off because of the extra personal tax allowance they will receive £235.00 per year and if you divide that by 12 and then by 4 it comes out at around a BIG £4.75 per week and that is meant to replace the amount they received in working tax credits.

Ivan wrote:Extracts from an article by Owen Jones:-

....

For the full article:-
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Interestingly, in the same (Monday) edition of The Independent there is a report of a paper issued by the TUC which lays the blame for the increased separation within British Society firmly on the City of London. Since the 1980s the rise in corporate bonuses corresponds to the roughly equal fall in the general level of wages by £7,000 a year each.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

oftenwrong wrote:

Ivan wrote:Extracts from an article by Owen Jones:-

....

For the full article:-
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Interestingly, in the same (Monday) edition of The Independent there is a report of a paper issued by the TUC which lays the blame for the increased separation within British Society firmly on the City of London. Since the 1980s the rise in corporate bonuses corresponds to the roughly equal fall in the general level of wages by £7,000 a year each.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This does not supprise me OW, I remember what the fcuking banks and the City did in 2008 and the reason was the Maggot de-regulated them while she was in power but they same ones do not like it when we tell the truth about there night at the Casino with our savings and mortgages and about how much it is costing the normal man/women in the UK.

Extracts from an article by Owen Jones

I wouldn't believe a single word that comes out of that poisonous mans' mouth

Haven't you noticed blue, there's been very little that red tinted crowd have been able to say of late. Remember the individual tax code is going up taking more people out of having to pay tax.
Equality, considering benefits have risen by approx 9% whilst working people have had nothing, a slow down has been a long time coming. Though considering the red tinted obsession with shipping in immigrants to load the votes against all indigenous people, perhaps it's too little too late.

blueturando wrote:

Extracts from an article by Owen Jones

I wouldn't believe a single word that comes out of that poisonous mans' mouth

He will have to go a long way to beat the Tories for telling lies blue, plus the problem now is they actually believe there own lies which is dangerous.

Speaking of lies red, has Ed changed his mind "again" on any subject?

tlttf wrote:Speaking of lies red, has Ed changed his mind "again" on any subject?

How many U-Turns have the Tories HAD to do in two half years ? or how many times have they made a blunder and HAD to change tack?. I thought Scam..er..on was cleaning up the expenses so how come Maria Miller threatened the newspapers with statue law if they print the story.