The Rich Get Richer 2

[Staunton 18]

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!

[Mister M 1,606]

It is sickening I agree. Though somehow I'm not entirely surprised.

Irrespective of his party allegiance, I'd read a few interviews with David Cameron shortly after he entered No 10 as PM; and I thought that he seemed decent, and genuinely interested in the lives of people with not very much money.

 

I've no doubt that at the moment, Theresa May is sincere when she says that she wants to promote social justice. How long before she becomes jaded, cynical and interested in helping those in her inner circle?

[Anna B 1,401]

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!

 

I agree with you, but you're wasting your time on here.

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

" The Rich Get Richer 2 "

 

As it was, as it is, as it always will be.

 

No good posting on here, it will not change owt.

 

How to alter the system would be a better title. I don't think ANY Government will alter the currant situation, I'm alright Jack applies here I think.

 

Maybe we need a revolution or one of Fawks's relatives to finish the job he started. (Joke).

 

Angel1.

[Mister M 1,606]

" The Rich Get Richer 2 "

 

As it was, as it is, as it always will be.

 

No good posting on here, it will not change owt.

How to alter the system would be a better title. I don't think ANY Government will alter the currant situation, I'm alright Jack applies here I think.

 

Maybe we need a revolution or one of Fawks's relatives to finish the job he started. (Joke).

 

Angel1.

 

Well quite. But it doesn't stop people posting on here when they want to pour vitriol over folk who find themselves at the bottom of the pile. And the pleasure they take in doing so is horrible.

[Anna B 1,401]

Well quite. But it doesn't stop people posting on here when they want to pour vitriol over folk who find themselves at the bottom of the pile. And the pleasure they take in doing so is horrible.

 

I agree again.

 

They'll find the original post quite acceptable, but give an unemployed person tuppence ha'penny and they're down on them like a ton of bricks.

[Brian Equato 10]

" The Rich Get Richer 2 "

 

 

 

Maybe we need a revolution or one of Fawks's relatives to finish the job he started. (Joke).

 

Angel1.

 

Well Robert Catesby was the main plotter but I suppose Robert Catesby night and asking for a penny for the Robert sounded a bit rubbish.

[runningman1 12]

Well quite. But it doesn't stop people posting on here when they want to pour vitriol over folk who find themselves at the bottom of the pile. And the pleasure they take in doing so is horrible.

 

Most at the bottom of the pile didn't "find themselves" there, they got their through their own actions. A significant number didn't and are there through no fault of their own, but a larger number contributed heavily to their position in society.

 

Does anyone have a link to more information about Cameron's action please? I'd like to understand it more.

[Anna B 1,401]

Most at the bottom of the pile didn't "find themselves" there, they got their through their own actions. A significant number didn't and are there through no fault of their own, but a larger number contributed heavily to their position in society.

 

Does anyone have a link to more information about Cameron's action please? I'd like to understand it more.

 

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'

[dutch 68]

It is rather normal and part of an ongoing ancient process that goes back thousands of years.

Its like a clock ticking, there comes a moment it goes tick and rich get richer, then it goes tock and it all collapses again. Then it happens again, and again.

If you recognise the futility of it and stop using money to measure status quo they can pay themselves what they want, let it go fast and high, who care's.

[Jim Graham 10]

...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 1,606]

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