Bolitics The New Condem Government

[ender4]

But then when you compare those "in poverty" in this country to the wealthy in this country, the discrepancies are huge, and they are impoverished when compared to the relatively well off, and the uber rich.

That gap should be narrrowed, and the last labour govt shamefully did not do that, they just made everyone a bit richer, but the wealthy disproportionately more so.

Shame on them.

However, this savage govt will stretch that gap even more. Shame on them too.

see i think that everyone should have the opportunity to get themselves out of poverty (with good education, etc)... but then its each persons choice whether they want to.

so i agree shame on both govts, but only in not providing enough of an opportunity to improve, rather than just closing the gap with redistribution.

[snowychap]

everyone gets the same percentage (say 5%) which would be fair.

That would be even - not necessarily (and I would argue most definitely not) fair.

its the benefits costl which is where the explosion in govt spending has been over the past decade

Who told you that?

[peterms]

see i think that everyone should have the opportunity to get themselves out of poverty (with good education, etc)... but then its each persons choice whether they want to.

so i agree shame on both govts, but only in not providing enough of an opportunity to improve, rather than just closing the gap with redistribution.

Educational attainment is helped by nutrition, which is an important part of the thinking behind feeding kids who would otherwise be undernourished, lacking attention etc.

And education is harmed by enforced moves, when families are evicted for rent arrears and placed in temporary accommodation before being relocated to cheaper areas away from family, friends and support networks.

If we want to tackle poverty through education, it helps to look at the impact of a range of policies together, and the impact of these two government policies will be harmful to the educational prospects of poorer children.

[TrentVilla]

Nail firmly on the head there Peterms and there not the only ones. The previous government was really pushing sport and sporting activities in Primary schools with a requirement for 5 hours + a week, guess what has just been cut???

[blandy]

when you compare those "in poverty" in this country to the wealthy in this country, the discrepancies are huge, and they are impoverished when compared to the relatively well off, and the uber rich.

That gap should be narrrowed

Aye, more even societies are generally happier societies, there's less crime, less unrest and more general feeling of contentment.

Where you get places where it's "scroungers" and "greedy rich" it leads to divisions based on selfishness - "why should they get that - they don't deserve it" from both directions, and it does no one any good.

There are very few people, relatively speaking, in real poverty in this nation (there should be none), but there's a vast divide between "the excluded" and the "included", and that's just wrong.

There's far too much of a situation where people are rewarded for luck, for where they grew up, for greed, for having access to various services, when others are denied the same things through accident of birth.

The bankers thing at the moment really highlights the divide, not just between havenots and the rest of us, but between most of us and a relative few obscenely "rewarded" people in a few "industries". And then you look deeper and you see the way bosses pay and bonuses across the field bear little relevance to their abilities and work and a great deal to a "boys club" of the executive merry-go-round.

This division, which is a natural Tory thing - something a fair part of that party is enthusiastic about is perversely damaging to the Tories and is why they are still seen as "toxic" and "nasty". Labour shamefully jumped in and went the same way, pandering to the interests of the super rich at the expense of the rest.

[C4rvillan]

It is 2hrs a week curriculum time by law with an offer of upto 5hrs including out of school activity. The 2hrs is still going to be in effect but the support structure (which some might argue is an expensive waste of money) is being lost.

[peterms]

...The bankers thing at the moment really highlights the divide, not just between havenots and the rest of us, but between most of us and a relative few obscenely "rewarded" people in a few "industries". And then you look deeper and you see the way bosses pay and bonuses across the field bear little relevance to their abilities and work and a great deal to a "boys club" of the executive merry-go-round...

As an illustration of this,

The FTSE 100 index stands 19% lower than it did at the turn of the century, but the average FTSE 100 executive is now collecting 160% more.

[TheDon]

Dunno why everyone's so worried about the economy when we have anonymous groups wanting to give us £5bn.

[Jon]

when you compare those "in poverty" in this country to the wealthy in this country, the discrepancies are huge, and they are impoverished when compared to the relatively well off, and the uber rich.

That gap should be narrrowed

Aye, more even societies are generally happier societies, there's less crime, less unrest and more general feeling of contentment.

Where you get places where it's "scroungers" and "greedy rich" it leads to divisions based on selfishness - "why should they get that - they don't deserve it" from both directions, and it does no one any good.

There are very few people, relatively speaking, in real poverty in this nation (there should be none), but there's a vast divide between "the excluded" and the "included", and that's just wrong.

There's far too much of a situation where people are rewarded for luck, for where they grew up, for greed, for having access to various services, when others are denied the same things through accident of birth.

The bankers thing at the moment really highlights the divide, not just between havenots and the rest of us, but between most of us and a relative few obscenely "rewarded" people in a few "industries". And then you look deeper and you see the way bosses pay and bonuses across the field bear little relevance to their abilities and work and a great deal to a "boys club" of the executive merry-go-round.

This division, which is a natural Tory thing - something a fair part of that party is enthusiastic about is perversely damaging to the Tories and is why they are still seen as "toxic" and "nasty". Labour shamefully jumped in and went the same way, pandering to the interests of the super rich at the expense of the rest.

Agree with every single word of that, Mr B!!

Blandshire will be the start of our new utopia. :nod:

[Jon]

...The bankers thing at the moment really highlights the divide, not just between havenots and the rest of us, but between most of us and a relative few obscenely "rewarded" people in a few "industries". And then you look deeper and you see the way bosses pay and bonuses across the field bear little relevance to their abilities and work and a great deal to a "boys club" of the executive merry-go-round...

As an illustration of this,

The FTSE 100 index stands 19% lower than it did at the turn of the century, but the average FTSE 100 executive is now collecting 160% more.

and in a nutshell, Peter highlights the problem there.

it's not warranted or deserved. It's obscene, and a disgrace, and Labour did not simply not do anything about the poverty gap, they actually made it worse. That made me sad, and made me not vote for them. So I voted Lib Dem, and then they went and .............

[snowychap]

It's all your fault, Jon.

[PauloBarnesi]

Aye, more even societies are generally happier societies, there's less crime, less unrest and more general feeling of contentment.

I would have thought that was the case, but countries where you expect that to happen; places like Holland or Sweden seem to be having problems just like us. I am not sure any system or society can say its get the balance perfect.

[peterms]

Aye, more even societies are generally happier societies, there's less crime, less unrest and more general feeling of contentment.

I would have thought that was the case, but countries where you expect that to happen; places like Holland or Sweden seem to be having problems just like us. I am not sure any system or society can say its get the balance perfect.

Those countries do have problems, it's true. Maybe someone viewing Bergman's films would see Sweden as a pretty depressing place.

Hard to distinguish the various causes of discontent, but having a relatively equal society doesn't mean everyone's happy, it just means one potential source of unhappiness is reduced.

Maybe in Sweden they are happy that they are relatively less unequal than some other countries, but still upset that they have to trudge through the Arctic cold and dark to the cinema, where they get to see a Bergman number about someone slowly dying of cancer. And they can't even get a drink after.

My son went to Malawi last year. The one thing above all which had an impact on him was the coexistence of severe objective levels of poverty with a general level of happiness which seemed far higher than that experienced by his materially well supplied friends. I don't imagine poverty creates happiness (some ascetics might disagree), and I think it's more about the lack of visible signs of extremes of wealth.

[PauloBarnesi]

I think the notion of a strong divide between ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ has always existed in Britain; maybe it seemed to ‘disappear’ during the 19th c/20th c, with the decline of the landed gentry (to be replaced by those enriched by industry). If you read Michael Wood’s excellent new book The Story of England you will see this as a recurring theme. What has disappeared and is perhaps more worrying is the lack of togetherness/society; this isn’t just something that occurred under Thatcher, but the general trend of urbanization. In the old days in a village, the poor were taken seriously and it was taken as a duty to help them (perhaps also something to do with religion?). Now I think, we think the government should deal with this; both as those who aren’t poor and those who who are. In a sense this abstracts the poor to people we don’t know.

I am not sure what we can do; in an way the idea of a big society is an attempt to deal with this; that we all have some responsibility for our society. But as something instead of Government it just seems penny pinching and misguided.

Whatever the solution is, as I ve said earlier this country is in a pickle

[TrentVilla]

A good post that Paulo.

Some 20 odd years later I can't help thinking about Thatcher's statement about society and how it almost fits the world of today. It is a result of modernity, of the increasingly secular state we live in and the ever increasing distance between people as we all live closer and closer together although I'm not entirely sure how seriously the poor were taken especially by religion in the days gone bye as they lived in squaller and the church amased huge amounts of wealth, land and property.

Personally I have no idea what this or any government can do about the change in the fabric of the world we live in, if society as a active function is no more or is declining then how can that be reversed?

As for the Conservative idea of 'big society' as a means of dealing with this, for me it simply lacks credibility as a means of trying to repair or reunite society because it is impossible for me to see this as a social project, as an attempt to change the way we live our lives it isn't a socialist policy or created due to socialist beliefs. It is for me nothing but a rather cynical attempt to put a nice friendly sounding name to a general ideological politcal approach of this government (or at least the end holding the business end of the dog lead) to spending cuts, a smaller state and changes which will result in my view of wider division rather social unity.

Its not about them wanting us to take responsibility for society its about them not wanting to.

[LondonLax]

Aye, more even societies are generally happier societies, there's less crime, less unrest and more general feeling of contentment.

I would have thought that was the case, but countries where you expect that to happen; places like Holland or Sweden seem to be having problems just like us. I am not sure any system or society can say its get the balance perfect.

Those countries do have problems, it's true. Maybe someone viewing Bergman's films would see Sweden as a pretty depressing place.

Hard to distinguish the various causes of discontent, but having a relatively equal society doesn't mean everyone's happy, it just means one potential source of unhappiness is reduced.

Maybe in Sweden they are happy that they are relatively less unequal than some other countries, but still upset that they have to trudge through the Arctic cold and dark to the cinema, where they get to see a Bergman number about someone slowly dying of cancer. And they can't even get a drink after.

My son went to Malawi last year. The one thing above all which had an impact on him was the coexistence of severe objective levels of poverty with a general level of happiness which seemed far higher than that experienced by his materially well supplied friends. I don't imagine poverty creates happiness (some ascetics might disagree), and I think it's more about the lack of visible signs of extremes of wealth.

My girlfriend is Swedish and so I have met a lot of Swedes.

A lot of young ambitious Swedes find the country frustrating and stifling leading to a brain drain where many move abroad to the US or UK or other countries. They have a phrase where they deride many Swedes who are just happy to accept a boring mediocrity of the Volvo and 2 kids life in the suburbs.

Still, if everyone is pretty equal then at least there is less reason to feel resentment towards your neighbour I guess.

There is however a growing resentment towards immigrants who are seen as coming to the country and taking advantage of the wealth distribution the government offers. There is currently a gunman on the loose in Malmo who has been shooting immigrants and the Swedish equivalent of the BNP got massive support at the last election putting them in a position of influence within the government.

It is also worth mentioning that Sweden’s famously high taxes are high to most but not all. If you earn enough to be in the super rich then your tax rate actually drops substantially. It is an attempt to keep the rich from fleeing the country to other more friendly tax environments but it does seem a bit unfair on the rest of the population.

[Awol]

I think the notion of a strong divide between ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ has always existed in Britain; maybe it seemed to ‘disappear’ during the 19th c/20th c, with the decline of the landed gentry (to be replaced by those enriched by industry). If you read Michael Wood’s excellent new book The Story of England you will see this as a recurring theme. What has disappeared and is perhaps more worrying is the lack of togetherness/society; this isn’t just something that occurred under Thatcher, but the general trend of urbanization. In the old days in a village, the poor were taken seriously and it was taken as a duty to help them (perhaps also something to do with religion?). Now I think, we think the government should deal with this; both as those who aren’t poor and those who who are. In a sense this abstracts the poor to people we don’t know.

I agree with all of this - particularly the references to urbanization and loss of religion in the break down of a community ethos - but I think successive governments also bears a large slice of the responsibility for the situation. The Tories have identified the former and the 'big society' idea is about encouraging people to feel ownership of their communities. I would suggest it hasn't gone anywhere near far enough though, and the solution is tied up with governance and devolving more and more power down to the local level.

The difficulty with that theory is the extent to which people have become increasingly accustomed to government doing things for them, telling people it's officialdoms job to do x, y and z, backed up by a legal system that at times seems to hand out judgements that are utterly divorced from the wishes of normal people. "Don't get involved, it's not your responsibility" seems to have been the maxim of the last 20 years.

Gradually a whole generation has lost the spirit of social inclusion and self reliance, growing used to abdicating responsibility for themselves and their communities. The really remarkable thing is that this change in outlook has occured over so short a period of time - 25 years at the outside.

Changing that mindset will be a generational task and may be impossible given that the other main party will come back into power during that period, championing their big government and infantilizing agenda. To have any chance creating irreversable change, the government would need to do one big thing that couldn't easily be undone without public consent.

My suggestion would be to change the electoral system. Not to some poncey version of 'AV-light' but by legislating to create open primaries combined with the right of recall for MP's and the removal of deselection powers from the parliamentary parties (resting instead with the constituency party). You remove the malign influence of party lists, get candidates for election that the constituents actually want and emasculate the party whips, making MP's directly accountable to the people they represent. I think such a system would have ensured that our Iraq adventure would never of happened, for example.

If people can start to feel ownership of the political process then the rest of the stuff that needs to happen should flow from there. It wouldn't happen overnight, but I do think it would put us on the right road and move us towards the 'fairness' agenda that seems so fashionable at the moment.

I don't expect any government to go through with a plan like that because it means voluntarily giving up a large chunk of their power, but it's what I would do.

[PauloBarnesi]

although I'm not entirely sure how seriously the poor were taken especially by religion in the days gone bye as they lived in squaller and the church amased huge amounts of wealth, land and property.

I think one has to separate high church from the church of people’s everyday lives, or rather religion on a daily basis. People genuinely thought about the actions on earth and how that would affect the afterlife. To donate money during and at the end of life to worthy causes; church, poor, schools, alms houses, etc seemed the thing to do...

[ender4]

some great posts in the last 2 pages about society as a whole.

i pretty much agree with them.

[peterms]

I think the notion of a strong divide between ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ has always existed in Britain; maybe it seemed to ‘disappear’ during the 19th c/20th c, with the decline of the landed gentry (to be replaced by those enriched by industry). If you read Michael Wood’s excellent new book The Story of England you will see this as a recurring theme. What has disappeared and is perhaps more worrying is the lack of togetherness/society; this isn’t just something that occurred under Thatcher, but the general trend of urbanization. In the old days in a village, the poor were taken seriously and it was taken as a duty to help them (perhaps also something to do with religion?). Now I think, we think the government should deal with this; both as those who aren’t poor and those who who are. In a sense this abstracts the poor to people we don’t know.

I agree with all of this - particularly the references to urbanization and loss of religion in the break down of a community ethos - but I think successive governments also bears a large slice of the responsibility for the situation. The Tories have identified the former and the 'big society' idea is about encouraging people to feel ownership of their communities.

One of the strongest expressions of community we have seen in the last 25 or so years was the miners' strike. These communities had grown up around one specific form of employment (a pretty unpleasant one) and often had a very strong sense of identity and cohesion. (They were also mostly urbanised and as far as I know not religious).

They were smashed as a deliberate act of the state, a planned action involving the stockpiling of coal supplies for months before engaging in behaviour aimed at escalating a strike; the active use of MI5 etc to try to infiltrate the strikers, intercept communications, conduct illegal wiretaps and so on; the payment of large sums to the police as "overtime" in return for physical confrontation to break the strike; and of course relentless use of the lapdog press as a propaganda tool. During the strike, we saw one of the strongest expressions of the power and resilience of community that I can remember. In the end, though, these communities were crushed.

When I hear the present government, so closely allied in ideology and networks to their recent predecessors, talk about the "big society" and "building communities", I think of this.