4.1 million working poor in britain

[*_ash_* 88]

20 hours ago, truman said:

If poverty is given a definition like that it's never going to go away is it?

hooray for sensible posts!

[alandrea0 16]

4.1 Million working poor is nothing.

In another 5 years i can see that doubling to 8.2 million.

In another 10 years it could be 15 - 20 million.

With a capitalist system that allows the gap between rich and poor get wider every day, it's inevitable.

No government, whether Tory, Labour or Liberals will or can do anything to stop it.

 

 

[Anna B 1,401]

1 hour ago, alandrea0 said:

4.1 Million working poor is nothing.

In another 5 years i can see that doubling to 8.2 million.

In another 10 years it could be 15 - 20 million.

With a capitalist system that allows the gap between rich and poor get wider every day, it's inevitable.

No government, whether Tory, Labour or Liberals will or can do anything to stop it.

 

 

I agree.

 

But at least a Labour government is going to try to stop it.  See their manifesto.

 

The Capitalists will discover that the proles need money to buy their stuff, to keep the system going.

Otherwise the whole system tanks.

That might make them think again.

[gomgeg 10]

I must be missing something reading the link. I can't see where it says how many hours a week the working poor are actually working, I would suspect most are doing the minimum to retain benefits.

If that's  the case one answer is fairly simple, do more hours, after all we've virtually got full employment and with all the EU immigrants going home there'll be even more opportunities. It might also be an idea to just have as many kids as they can afford.

Also as it's been said already on the thread there will always be people 60 percent below the average unless we think everybody deserves the same wage regardless of ability or ambition, 

I suppose that is the ambition of the current  Labour Party to remove the incentive of improving ones lot in life.

[RollingJ 2,002]

8 minutes ago, gomgeg said:

I must be missing something reading the link. I can't see where it says how many hours a week the working poor are actually working, I would suspect most are doing the minimum to retain benefits.

If that's  the case one answer is fairly simple, do more hours, after all we've virtually got full employment and with all the EU immigrants going home there'll be even more opportunities. It might also be an idea to just have as many kids as they can afford.

Also as it's been said already on the thread there will always be people 60 percent below the average unless we think everybody deserves the same wage regardless of ability or ambition, 

I suppose that is the ambition of the current  Labour Party to remove the incentive of improving ones lot in life.

Careful, gomgeg - you're talking logic again and most (not all) of the rest have a completely different mindset - i.e 'it's all the fault of  someone else/big business/neoliberelism /anything else they don't like on the day

[gomgeg 10]

13 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Careful, gomgeg - you're talking logic again and most (not all) of the rest have a completely different mindset - i.e 'it's all the fault of  someone else/big business/neoliberelism /anything else they don't like on the day

I used to have some of that mindset myself, I voted Labour from the mid 60s until Gordon Brown became PM and I could see then that the government was well on the way to taking us down the road of making living on benefits a lifestyle choice.

I must say that I exclude anyone who is disabled from these comments.

[alandrea0 16]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

I agree.

 

But at least a Labour government is going to try to stop it.  See their manifesto.

 

The Capitalists will discover that the proles need money to buy their stuff, to keep the system going.

Otherwise the whole system tanks.

That might make them think again.

Labour have had many opportunities to stop it, and failed... 

Any political party who says they can prevent poverty and stop the growing gap between rich and poor getting ever wider are misleading the British public. Politicians in this country can't stop or prevent a problem that is a world wide problem.

 

[RollingJ 2,002]

21 minutes ago, gomgeg said:

I used to have some of that mindset myself, I voted Labour from the mid 60s until Gordon Brown became PM and I could see then that the government was well on the way to taking us down the road of making living on benefits a lifestyle choice.

I must say that I exclude anyone who is disabled from these comments.

Never voted Labour myself, although some of their Election manifestos used to make think 'maybe, just maybe'.  until I did a bit more digging. and I am not meaning to include the genuine disabled either - I have two very good friends who are  severely disabled, and I know how hard life is for them.

[Anna B 1,401]

1 hour ago, alandrea0 said:

Labour have had many opportunities to stop it, and failed... 

Any political party who says they can prevent poverty and stop the growing gap between rich and poor getting ever wider are misleading the British public. Politicians in this country can't stop or prevent a problem that is a world wide problem.

 

You're talking about  Labour run by Tony Blair,  better known as 'Blairite Labour,' 'New Labour,' or 'LabourLite' in other words a party that was Conservative in all but name.  Jeremy Corbyn stood for election as the new leader exactly because of that, and won. There is now a very discernable difference between Labour and Conservatives to give people a choice. 

 

All the things people grumble about down the pub and want something doing about, eg rampent Capitalism (ie. Neoliberalism,) will be tackled if Corbyn's Labour get in. That doesn't make him 'a Marxist' as the Establishment and Elite would like you to believe, simply a man who believes in fairness and a system that works for everyone, and that includes responsible Capitalism, (not the free-for-all,  Corporates take it all,  and  **** everybody else  kind we have now.

 

He doesn't get a fair hearing in the Media (run by the elite/ establishment crowd who have a vested interest in keeping things just the way they are thanks, suits me fine.) If you don't believe me go along to one of his meetings and see for yourself from the horses mouth.      

[Robin-H 11]

16 minutes ago, Anna B said:

You're talking about  Labour run by Tony Blair,  better known as 'Blairite Labour,' 'New Labour,' or 'LabourLite' in other words a party that was Conservative in all but name.  Jeremy Corbyn stood for election as the new leader exactly because of that, and won. There is now a very discernable difference between Labour and Conservatives to give people a choice. 

 

All the things people grumble about down the pub and want something doing about, eg rampent Capitalism (ie. Neoliberalism,) will be tackled if Corbyn's Labour get in. That doesn't make him 'a Marxist' as the Establishment and Elite would like you to believe, simply a man who believes in fairness and a system that works for everyone, and that includes responsible Capitalism, (not the free-for-all,  Corporates take it all,  and  **** everybody else  kind we have now.

 

He doesn't get a fair hearing in the Media (run by the elite/ establishment crowd who have a vested interest in keeping things just the way they are thanks, suits me fine.) If you don't believe me go along to one of his meetings and see for yourself from the horses mouth.      

Like Venezuela? 

[Albert smith 11]

3 hours ago, alandrea0 said:

Labour have had many opportunities to stop it, and failed... 

Any political party who says they can prevent poverty and stop the growing gap between rich and poor getting ever wider are misleading the British public. Politicians in this country can't stop or prevent a problem that is a world wide problem.

 

Many Labour M.P's are very rich , they just make the right noises so as to sound good working people , lots of are just con artists who are on the gravy train .

[Anna B 1,401]

4 hours ago, Albert smith said:

Many Labour M.P's are very rich , they just make the right noises so as to sound good working people , lots of are just con artists who are on the gravy train .

Jeremy Corbyn's Labour has purged a lot of the rich multi- millionaire old boys  from Blairite Labour, which is why there was such a cuffuffle at the start of his leadership with separate factions as the gravy train was brought to a halt.

 

Many of the new intake of Labour politicians are now relatively ordinary and with experience of the real world that we all inhabit.  Angela Raynor, Shadow secretary of state for Education, for example, comes from very humble beginnings as a hard up single mother, and worked as a carer, before working her way up through further education, and union work.

 

Many of the shadow cabinet in fact are 'normal' people. Sue Hayman (Shadow cabinet, Environmental and Rural affairs,) was a Social worker, Nia Griffiths (Sh Secretary of state for Wales) was a teacher, as was Margaret Greenwood (Sh sec of state Works and Pensions.) Dawn Butler worked for the GMB Union, and Rebecca Long Bailey worked in a pawn shop and a call centre before studying to become a solicitor. They are just a few I checked out. 

 

There are of course many others, from all walks of life, and any MP who has been an MP for any length of time is going to be relatively well off as the pay isn't bad what with expenses, perks, second jobs, directorships, public speaking events etc, but it is no longer the exclusive Domain of the OxBridge set as  it was with the Blair and current Conservative Governments.  Crikey, 4 of David Cameron's cabinet colleagues were even in the notorious Oxford University's exclusive Bullingdon club together. Then they wonder why the Tory cabinet is regarded as the Old Boy's Network.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Anna B