[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Its hindering. The media treats those on benefits like the scum they think they are and every time they make an example of them, we get a large amount of collective thinkers, who go online, share the story further and find hundreds, sometimes thousands of people all giving their own condemning opinions. Looking down ones nose at the poor was bound to escalate with the power of the media and social networking groups.

I'm sure we've always had Hyacinth Buquet types. I mean, Britain is inherently snobby regardless of class.
Inverse snobbery seems to be a thing of the working class but I think its always gone on. In the past though, you just found pockets of snobbery...the foreman who looked down his nose at his labourers, the shop keeper who didn't want those dirty bagabonds in his shop and the mother who told her children not to play with that poor family down the street; but that's as far as it went.
The poor were aware of the snobs and because they couldn't then hide their poverty, they avoided those people. Today, people hide their poverty because they know they can't avoid snobbery.

Yep that's my view too but why, why is this image being purported? What purpose does it serve to create this kind of division in society, what is the bigger picture, the long term goal?

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Yep that's my view too but why, why is this image being purported? What purpose does it serve to create this kind of division in society, what is the bigger picture, the long term goal?

I'm going to go off at a tangent here Kizzy because I know you understand quite a lot of the neo-liberal philosphy. Just remind yourself, this was a long term goal, this was meant to happen.

Neo-liberalism hasn't only changed the fundamental nature of politics; its changed the fundamental thinking of people. It was always meant to do this because for neo-liberalism to survive it has to trend toward radical exclusion of the poor and greater inequality of the poor.

Go and remind yourself what Friedrich Von Hayeks philosophy was and then think on, every PM we have had since Thatcher have been Hayek scholars.

[user104658]

Kizzy: because if you keep people distracted and squabbling with each other over various things (race, class, gender) it makes easier for the real villains who are sucking the world dry to fly under the radar.

[Kizzy]

I know Yet if anyone dare speak out they are seized upon, why is it not obvious.. Are we as a nation that blinkered?
It for me seems to be taking an even more sinister turn than the neo liberalists vision of a laissez faire society cast adrift to make their own way in the world free of the 'nanny state' and yet today it's passed even that. I'd say the 'big society' is anyone who falls through the cracks in the splintering welfare system, and god help them there's precious little aid as the state won't help and many charities can't.

[jennyjuniper]

In the 1940's many people were poor. My family was one of them. We were often hungry, but never starved. One thing that is a major difference between then and now is that poor people had pride in working hard instead of accepting handouts. My mother had to accept charity on a few occasions, but hated it.
Now so many seem to feel entitled to sit back and be 'looked after' by the state. I'm not bashing those who are genuinely looking for work or who are vulnerable in other ways, but the personal pride and work ethic that I grew up with is sadly lacking in today's society.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jennyjuniper

In the 1940's many people were poor. My family was one of them. We were often hungry, but never starved. One thing that is a major difference between then and now is that poor people had pride in working hard instead of accepting handouts. My mother had to accept charity on a few occasions, but hated it.
Now so many seem to feel entitled to sit back and be 'looked after' by the state. I'm not bashing those who are genuinely looking for work or who are vulnerable in other ways, but the personal pride and work ethic that I grew up with is sadly lacking in today's society.

Is it though, how many do you know who love their hand to mouth existence?
Welfare was/is not charity, it was a hand up not a hand out.
The perception of this has changed, nobody is looked after by the state.
De-motivation I could see being a factor, lack of jobs in industry specific communities, contractual issues such as reduced hours, wages and job security.

Working people didn't used to still have to be reliant on welfare to top up wages when they worked, now poverty in work is the norm,which of course impacts on personal pride.
People were proud of the organisation they worked for or the industry they were raised with, what is there to be proud of now?

0hrs contracts, no holiday pay, no sick pay, no share scheme, no hospital fund, no social club, this is now the norm across all sectors. The state didn't look after you but your employer did with the help of unionisation. Employment has changed, not imo for the better for unskilled and semi-skilled workers. Is this taken into account when judging what are described as 'scroungers' in the media?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by jennyjuniper

In the 1940's many people were poor. My family was one of them. We were often hungry, but never starved. One thing that is a major difference between then and now is that poor people had pride in working hard instead of accepting handouts. My mother had to accept charity on a few occasions, but hated it.
Now so many seem to feel entitled to sit back and be 'looked after' by the state. I'm not bashing those who are genuinely looking for work or who are vulnerable in other ways, but the personal pride and work ethic that I grew up with is sadly lacking in today's society.

I agree with that. Too many people today expect an easy life - they sneer at the thought of working for not much more than they can get from the state as they have no dignity and self respect.

Taking pride in paying your way doesn't seem to count for much in today's society.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I agree with that. Too many people today expect an easy life - they sneer at the thought of working for not much more than they can get from the state as they have no dignity and self respect.

Taking pride in paying your way doesn't seem to count for much in today's society.

I recommend you read a book called 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist' by Robert Tressell You would laugh at how similar your words sound to the struggling working class characters in his book.

It was published in 1911

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I recommend you read a book called 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist' by Robert Tressell You would laugh at how similar your words sound to the struggling working class characters in his book.

It was published in 1911

Haha! I bought my daughter her own copy of that this Christmas.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Haha! I bought my daughter her own copy of that this Christmas.

Its a good book and one that makes you realize that the struggling mans attitude back then is no different than the struggling mans attitude today.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

I recommend you read a book called 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist' by Robert Tressell You would laugh at how similar your words sound to the struggling working class characters in his book.

It was published in 1911

Well they are worse today. Why would someone not want to work for the same money they get on benefits until they can get something better. People in work who can provide recent references are more like to get another, better Job than the long-term unemployed.

It's about thinking long-term and increasing your chances of getting the right job as well as pride - but too many don't think like that, they just Moan that they are not going to go to the effort of actually working for a living for the same money as they can get in hand-outs.

Pretty sad indictment of our Work-shy society today - because they have been spoilt with hand-outs.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Well they are worse today. Why would someone not want to work for the same money they get on benefits until they can get something better. People in work who can provide recent references are more like to get another, better Job than the long-term unemployed.

It's about thinking long-term and increasing your chances of getting the right job as well as pride - but too many don't think like that, they just Moan that they are not going to go to the effort of actually working for a living for the same money as they can get in hand-outs.

Pretty sad indictment of our Work-shy society today - because they have been spoilt with hand-outs.

And how do we drum up all those jobs... simply by wishing for them?. Are you aware that recruitment is still at an all time low? Me thinks you've been watching/reading too much 'poverty porn' which was invented for people like you.

I bet you love Jeremy Kyle

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I agree with that. Too many people today expect an easy life - they sneer at the thought of working for not much more than they can get from the state as they have no dignity and self respect.

Taking pride in paying your way doesn't seem to count for much in today's society.

That isn't the case though, working has always brought in much more than being on benefits.
I live on an estate in a large city, and can say that those on benefits I know have dignity and self respect, could I ask is your view from those you know or via the media?

[Kizzy]

Call it the “Benefits Street effect” – the popularity of widely held preconceptions about unemployed people. And one of the most prevalent is that jobless people are more likely to be overweight than those in work.

While television documentaries and newspapers can help perpetuate this belief, academic studies also reinforce it. A series of studies have suggested that employers are biased against larger candidates when hiring staff. As a result, slimmer people tend to be employed first, leaving the overweight in the pool of the unemployed for longer.

But a study in the journal Preventive Medicine produces evidence that unemployed people are far more likely to be significantly underweight than the average person. The study’s authors, Dr Amanda Hughes and Professor Meena Kumari from the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex, believe their findings provide a corrective to popular misconceptions about unemployed people and should alert health professionals to the heightened mortality risks that come from being underweight.


Now people can effectively be seen starving to death, is it right to say our perceptions have changed?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ght-than-obese

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Have attitudes to people in poverty changed over a lifetime? Bob Holman put this to Guardian readers a year ago. He referred to a report on urban poverty written in 1943 by eight members of the hygiene committee of the Women’s Group on Public Welfare. Our Towns: A Close-Up was commissioned to investigate complaints from people in rural England about families evacuated from inner cities. Children were reported as dirty, inadequately clothed and badly behaved, and their parents were blamed as lazy and incompetent. Politicians and media reports supported this analysis.

The authors visited poor neighbourhoods and put a spotlight on the conditions that made life tough for the people who lived there. Instead of fuelling the growing hostility, they challenged public attitudes. They showed how resilient and resourceful families had to be to survive circumstances that most people would find overwhelming. The report was debated in parliament and influenced the Beveridge reforms that shaped the postwar welfare state.


Today the infrastructure of welfare support is under attack. Social security is deemed too costly; the principles of mutual support and solidarity are being replaced by selfish individualism. People in poverty are labelled shirkers and feel ashamed to claim the welfare support they need. Negative attitudes are reinforced by sensationalist media and opportunistic politicians, and the nasty and divisive public rhetoric that has emerged demonises those living in poverty in ways that are reminiscent of the early 1940s. It was this comparison that led Holman to call for a modern-day Our Towns.


Is this true? Have we lost empathy for individualism, has the media and 'poverty porn' skewed the view of the poor?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...y-uk-bad-1940s

Here is a recent document 'Our Lives: Challenging attitudes to poverty in 2015.' It gives a really enlightening overview of how poverty and reforms are are affecting lives in the UK.

http://www.ryantunnardbrown.com/wp-c...-20-march1.pdf

Too many people using these services who shouldn't be as they have only taken out and not put in. Overwhelmed the system.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Too many people using these services who shouldn't be as they have only taken out and not put in. Overwhelmed the system.

So, if you are physically incapable of work what then, just die?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

So, if you are physically incapable of work what then, just die?

How many coming into are country are physically incapable or working. They should be forced to do menial work to earn their benefits and pay towards any medical care out of their benefits - that amount should be taken out of their benefits before they receive it.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

How many coming into are country are physically incapable or working. They should be forced to do menial work to earn their benefits and pay towards any medical care out of their benefits - that amount should be taken out of their benefits before they receive it.

I see you are steering the conversation toward immigration again, that is not the topic of the thread. If you could try not to deviate too far it would be appreciated.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I see you are steering the conversation toward immigration again, that is not the topic of the thread. If you could try not to deviate too far it would be appreciated.

If it relates, it relates.

[Denver]

Yet people still want us to put refugees before our own

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Adam.

Yet people still want us to put refugees before our own

We invited Jewish refugees in the 40s, do you feel that was wrong?

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

We invited Jewish refugees in the 40s, do you feel that was wrong?

Yes at when it puts our own in danger we should not be having people live in poverty in our country in 2017

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Adam.

Yes at when it puts our own in danger we should not be having people live in poverty in our country in 2017

It hasn't put our own in danger, again this isn't the topic of the thread is it?

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It hasn't put our own in danger, again this isn't the topic of the thread is it?

We send billions to help other countries rather then give to our own love

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

We invited Jewish refugees in the 40s, do you feel that was wrong?

They had to pay a fee to come, we didn't welcome with open arms


Although British immigration policy was liberalised after Kristallnacht - the pogrom launched by Goebbels in November 1939, in which dozens of Jews were killed and more than 1,000 synagogues burned down - London challenges the idea that prewar Britain was a haven for those fleeing Nazi brutality. "The myth was born that Britain did all it could for the Jews between 1933 and 1945. This comfortable view has proved remarkably durable, and is still adduced to support claims that Britain has always admitted genuine refugees, and that the latest harsh measures against asylum seekers are merely designed to exclude bogus applicants. . .We remember the touching photographs and newsreel footage of unaccompanied Jewish children arriving on the Kindertransports [ by July 1939, 7,700 had arrived, compared with 1,850 admitted into Holland, 800 into France, 700 into Belgium, and 250 into Sweden]. There are no such photographs of the Jewish parents left behind in Nazi Europe. . .The Jews excluded from entry to the United Kingdom are not part of the British experience, because Britain never saw them. . .Memories of the unsuccessful public campaign to persuade the government to rescue Jews from mass murder faded quickly."

What's more, those that were granted entry were admitted only because the Jewish community guaranteed that it would bear all the expenses of accommodation and maintenance, with no burden placed on the public purse. Elsewhere, Canada accommodated only 5,000 European Jews between 1933 and 1945, Australia 10,000, South Africa some 6,000. And the US's unyielding quota system meant that, between 1933 and 1937, only 33,000 German Jews were admitted (and only 124,000 between 1938 and 1941).