UK Moving Backwards: Half a Century of Social Progress Reversed in Last Decade

reply to post by Freeborn

I'd suggest a good dose of Dickens for those who wish to see what the future might have in store for this country.

Ah yes. Those who do not know history are doomed...

Aloysius the Gaul - F&S

and now to cap it all the goverment has knocked back £2.5 billion from the e.u for the 500.000 people in food poverty they will get 2.3 million instead ?

reply to post by geobro

The money from the e.u does not reach the people its meant to. My area recieved 79 million pounds from the e.u. All they did were knock the estate down,and built housing association properties instead. All that money to line the pockets of the corrupt.

symptomoftheuniverse
Only the white british are labled scrounging chavs but immigrants are double plus good.
All the ills on this thread just happen to occur with the influx of immigrants. Foodbank charities are already advertising on T.V.
Why and who are they doing this to us,because whoever it is ,they are not British.

Its amazing but this thread looks like a "what's happening to the US" thread. Just change a few terms around having to do with names of this and that.

When the credit bubble burst and the bail out talk began, it started in the UK. I read a UK economic blog and what was being said perfectly mirrored what was going on in the state. We had the fall guys, the games, the cutoffs, same issues.

Its clear......the same interests run both and its running deep.

Painterz

symptomoftheuniverse
Only the white british are labled scrounging chavs but immigrants are double plus good.
All the ills on this thread just happen to occur with the influx of immigrants. Foodbank charities are already advertising on T.V.
Why and who are they doing this to us,because whoever it is ,they are not British.

To be honest I think I disagree with that. The portrayal of immigrants in the media is pretty awful, you'd think they were a legion of Hitlers coming to Steal Our Women from what the papers all say about the evil layabout immigrants coming here to sponge off our benefits.

I think the truth of the matter is, and there's pretty solid economic data to back this up, that immigration actually nets a positive effect into the governments coffers. Most immigrants come here, work, pay taxes, and as a result immigrants pay more into the system than they take out.

Research has shown there is no net benefit in terms of tax revenue. The newcomers use as many social services as they pay taxes for. Most of their jobs are minimum wage which wouldn't require the payment of income tax. Sometimes they even pay money to get a six month internship which pushes down salaries. The only benefits are that they push up property prices which boosts house prices and council tax revenue, but this forces the native population onto the dole because salaries no longer pay the cost of private rent.

reply to post by Logarock


It's probably the same people orchestrating on both sides of the pond.
The same few people, families, companies run it all man.

This relates to a U.S. trend I've noticed. Many working class people have negative views of unions, now. Especially the new right. I don't understand as unions were organized precisely to combat the elite's excesses and bad treatment of their employees.

There has been graft and corruption in unions, sure, and over zealous benefits are a legitimate gripe... but really, they only exist to give the powerless average worker a little equality.

The PR memes work on people even when the ideas are directly detrimental to their well being.

Baddogma
This relates to a U.S. trend I've noticed. Many working class people have negative views of unions, now. Especially the new right. I don't understand as unions were organized precisely to combat the elite's excesses and bad treatment of their employees.

In Brtain, a least, this is because most people finally realise that the Union leaders (Unionistas) are just rich elite who have no interest at in all in workers and simply use them as a weapon in an undemocratic power struggle with legitimately elected politicians.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

An interesting article - it concentrates on eth role of unions as a check against the power of large companies, and points out that they have been pretty much the only way "the ordinary people" have had of effectively conducting any oversight of large corporations

Insufficuent pensions (as mentioned in article) are due to increased lifespan. Houseprices have rocketed. Although this article blames the emasculation of unions, there are multiple factors at play. I think property prices are THE killer issue, as is the removal of so much cheap public housing.

Antigod
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

An interesting article - it concentrates on eth role of unions as a check against the power of large companies, and points out that they have been pretty much the only way "the ordinary people" have had of effectively conducting any oversight of large corporations

Insufficuent pensions (as mentioned in article) are due to increased lifespan. Houseprices have rocketed. Although this article blames the emasculation of unions, there are multiple factors at play. I think property prices are THE killer issue, as is the removal of so much cheap public housing.

The reason I have no pension is because I spend a considerable part of my income paying for the pensions of those who earn more than me (in the public sector) ...... so I can't afford one

The reason I have no pension is because I spend a considerable part of my income paying for the pensions of those who earn more than me (in the public sector) ...... so I can't afford one

is that not because your employer hasn't provided you with one or doesn't pay you enough money? i don't fully understand where you are coming from on this but i feel your situation (and mine) is the consequence of irresponsible employers not responsible ones.

symptomoftheuniverse
Only the white british are labled scrounging chavs but immigrants are double plus good.
All the ills on this thread just happen to occur with the influx of immigrants. Foodbank charities are already advertising on T.V.
Why and who are they doing this to us,because whoever it is ,they are not British.

yeah keep on mithering on about them foreigns

keeps your mind occupied and away from thinking about who is actually screwing you.

Baddogma
This relates to a U.S. trend I've noticed. Many working class people have negative views of unions, now. Especially the new right. I don't understand as unions were organized precisely to combat the elite's excesses and bad treatment of their employees.

There has been graft and corruption in unions, sure, and over zealous benefits are a legitimate gripe... but really, they only exist to give the powerless average worker a little equality.

The PR memes work on people even when the ideas are directly detrimental to their well being.

The unions became unpopular in the UK because militant leaders and shop stewards took over and would just call out sudden strikes when anything displeased them. You can see this documented in old 1970's news reports and documentaries as well as comedies like "The Rag Trade", "On The Buses", "Are You Being Served", "Only When I Laugh" and "Duty Free" If it wasn't the air traffic controllers, the ground technicians union, the freight transport union, the metalworkers union, it was always somebody else. Maggie Thatcher put an end to this by forcing the union leaders to get a 75% vote on a strike ballot, and making union membership optional, ending "closed shop" agreements.

The problem with unions in Canada and the USA was that they were reputed to have been infiltrated by the mafia, who would cause all sorts of trouble if their members didn't get regular pay-rises. This extended to customer relations where they would harass customers complaining of poor quality "being sold a lemon" rather than actually fixing the problem. My neighbor told me how he was going to work one day, drove into the entrance, saw some people standing around, rolled down his window, and some union honcho immediately shoved his head through the window and shouted "Where the **** do you think you're going?" My neighbor had accidentally crossed a picket line and quickly reversed back out and drove home.

Antigod
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
Insufficuent pensions (as mentioned in article) are due to increased lifespan. Houseprices have rocketed. Although this article blames the emasculation of unions, there are multiple factors at play. I think property prices are THE killer issue, as is the removal of so much cheap public housing.

Emasculation of unions is only one of the factors in play - if you had read the article you would have realised that, since it mentions.....REMOVAL OF PUBLIC HOUSING as another, for example...



!!

Antigod
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

An interesting article - it concentrates on eth role of unions as a check against the power of large companies, and points out that they have been pretty much the only way "the ordinary people" have had of effectively conducting any oversight of large corporations

Insufficuent pensions (as mentioned in article) are due to increased lifespan. Houseprices have rocketed. Although this article blames the emasculation of unions, there are multiple factors at play. I think property prices are THE killer issue, as is the removal of so much cheap public housing.

Up until the 1990's, all UK private pension schemes were healthy and there was no shortfall in funding. It was only when the stock market went through a boom cycle, that all the pension funds started having large surpluses. Seeing all this excess cash, the shareholders just couldn't help themselves and grabbed the money, with the cute expression "skimming off pension fund surpluses". What they didn't realize was that once the stock market cooled down, all these pension funds were now actually running at a loss and had to be refunded.

Then when things got back into shape, Gordon Brown decided to do bit of "wealth distribution" and took away tax credits at around £17,000 year/per pension. That once again put the private pension funds back into a loss. Then the companies had had enough and canceled the final salary schemes altogether.

www.thisismoney.co.uk...

reply to post by stormcell


I don't think anyone can deny that certain Unions and their officials gained too much power.
But as usual it was a case of punishing the majority for the failings of the minority.

Thatcher smashed the unions using any means possible to help bring about their demise. She manipulated situations, used the police force as a union bashing force, (during the Miners Strike of 84-85 police officers were illegally used as agent provocateurs to deliberately agitate and initiate violence) and manipulated MSM to portray the image of unions being out of control and under the influence of Militant Tendency.
Thatcher wanted to prove that she had bigger balls than any man and chose the Unions as an opportunity to show this.
She claimed UK coal was too heavily subsidised and to prove this she bought coal from Poland, a communist country at the time, an ideology she was allegedly vehemently opposed to, and thus quite hypocritically from a source that was 100% state subsidised.

She supported dubious characters like Eddie Shah in his fight against the unions. Shah was allowed to deploy police in full riot gear to repeatedly charge and assault members of printers union the National Graphical Association whilst all the while MSM, who obviously had a vested interest in union busting in that industry, constantly incorrectly portrayed the strikers as the aggressors.

There are numerous instances of this sort of behaviour around this time and it all led to even more restrictions on union activity and powers.
As I said earlier, no-one can deny some unions were abusing their power and reform was necessary but what ensued was one of the greatest crimes ever committed against the ordinary working man whose employment rights and relative earnings have consistently deteriorated ever since. Every single administration since has systematically gone about stripping workers rights. And quite obviously none of this has been of any benefit whatsoever to the British economy or the British people.

So I think its fair and reasonable to ask just who benefits from these reforms?

symptomoftheuniverse
reply to post by Freeborn

 

its directly propotional to immigration. The poor pay for the immigrants,the rich profit. Number of immigrants is directly propotional to 1,loss of benefits,2,breakdown of the community,social cohesion,3,destruction of unions,4 the taking away of free speech.5,the state of social housing ,6,house prices and unaffordable rents!,7,Tuition fees.
To name a few.

This assumes immigrants are a net drain on the economy. Research released only last month, from the University of London I think, shows it's the other way around.

stormcell


Research has shown there is no net benefit in terms of tax revenue. The newcomers use as many social services as they pay taxes for. Most of their jobs are minimum wage which wouldn't require the payment of income tax. Sometimes they even pay money to get a six month internship which pushes down salaries. The only benefits are that they push up property prices which boosts house prices and council tax revenue, but this forces the native population onto the dole because salaries no longer pay the cost of private rent.

What research?

Whodathunkdatcheese

stormcell


Research has shown there is no net benefit in terms of tax revenue. The newcomers use as many social services as they pay taxes for. Most of their jobs are minimum wage which wouldn't require the payment of income tax. Sometimes they even pay money to get a six month internship which pushes down salaries. The only benefits are that they push up property prices which boosts house prices and council tax revenue, but this forces the native population onto the dole because salaries no longer pay the cost of private rent.

What research?

economistsview.typepad.com...

New research from the OECD indicates that ... across OECD countries, the amount that immigrants pay to the state in the form of taxes is more or less balanced by what they get back in benefits. Even where immigrants do have an impact on the public purse – a “fiscal impact” – it amounts to more than 0.5% of GDP in only ten OECD countries, and in those it’s more likely to be positive than negative. In sum, says the report, when it comes to their fiscal impact, “immigrants are pretty much like the rest of the population”.

Though being international economists, they are trying to spin it one way with the "fiscal impact" bit, and not stating which 10 OECD contries it has a negative effect.

reply to post by stormcell


Across OECD countries is one thing.

In the UK is another, as the Financial Times shows.