post election blues

[aquarius moon]

No Loz, it wasn't. My first post was asking for opinions because I wanted some advice on who those people should vote for.

Like I said, some of us really don't know what to do for the best, so we read your posts and haven't a clue what you are talking about so are none the wiser.

I voted Labour as usual, never made a secret of it, yet some regulars on here say it's the worse thing to do ever.

And you know what? I still have no idea why.

Don't bother explaining. It's irrelevant now anyway. I can wait 5 years.

[miga]

Were you hoping this forum would help you decide how to vote?

[maxxi]

New Labour - New Degsy?

Tories licking their lips and Harriet quivering at the knees "Keep him out, keep him outttt!!"

[????]

This...

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/leader-labour-needs-be-more-just-repository-anger

[maxxi]

Exactly - and I'm sure a version is engraved on every new New-New Labour member's party book "Don't scare the middle classes" - end of tutorial.

Never mind Degsy - there's always UKIP/Respect/TUSC or look, the Lib Dems are lookiong a bit limp, worth a try?

[Loz]

When the most left wing candidate for Labour leader comes out with agreement further welfare cuts. including the new, lower cap on benefits, you can see the election result is really starting to hit home for Labour.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/29/labours-andy-burham-further-welfare-cuts-leader-business

[????]

...and this

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/29/labour-party-equality

[Loz]

Even the rather anti-Tory Mirror seems to be getting in on the benefits cap, in a quite extraordinary bile-filled piece.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/children-victims-tory-welfare-cap-5784476

[keekybreeks]

that is a followup to an earlier story, which has probabaly provoked the hateful envious nasty shit I have ever seen on a facebook post. will try to find a link somehow tor FB stuff .

thatcher really has left a legacy that she never really planned or considered as a result

[aquarius moon]

So if you're not a benefit scrounger? What if having 6 kids, not working, living with a man who doesn't work either is not the life for you.

What if you work full-time in a low paid job & struggle to manage on a single wage supporting one child. Alone.

Then what?

Just wondered. There doesn't seem to be a lot in between. There are benefits for the poor, big pay cheques for the rich and nothing for those stuck in the middle.

[keekybreeks]

shur

[Earl Aelfheah]

A lot of people have no idea about where the benefits bill is spent. The idea that it all goes on 'work shy layabouts' is nonsense. Mostly it goes to pensioners, private landlords and towards subsidising low pay employers.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The irony is that for all their talk of cuts the Tories won't touch pensions, continue to pursue policies with the effect if increasing house prices (and so the housing benefit bill) and further weaken employees rights or ability to organise (driving yet more low pay).

[Earl Aelfheah]

Tory policy is often nothing to do with reducing costs (even where it purports to be), it's about reducing the size of the state regardless of the bill. We've seen it over and over again - public services and assets privatised at either a loss of with increased cost to taxpayers. It's purely ideological and lacks any pragmatism or coherence.

[ratty]

Sadly I watch these cuts have effect on a daily basis. Not sure that many of you do. Homelessness going through the roof at the moment, with all support services cut to ribbons. People dying on the street (2 of mine this year so far). Support budget in my borough now cut from ?17m to under ?3m.

Can the Tory voters tell me how they defend this? I am genuinely interested because I cannot see how they can.

And the social cleansing that is now beginning in earnest in London is quite sinister I think.

I am conscious my opinions are based on what I do for a living, but I guess so are a bankers.

[lostcat]

Well said Rara and ratty!

[JohnL]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The irony is that for all their talk of cuts the

> Tories won't touch pensions, continue to pursue

> policies with the effect if increasing house

> prices (and so the housing benefit bill) and

> further weaken employees rights or ability to

> organise (driving yet more low pay).

I tend to agree with protecting pensions.

Most of us will grow old - and there's no coming

back from it.

[Otta]

ratty Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And the social cleansing that is now beginning in

> earnest in London is quite sinister I think.

Totally agree.

> I am conscious my opinions are based on what I do

> for a living, but I guess so are a bankers.

Me too. When you're trying to implement these cuts on a daily basis it makes you a bit sick seeing sensationalist stories about some layabout benefits scrounger who is not even remotely typical.

And in my area (currently SEN) what you see is the families that have money and resources using said resources to take a council to Court and end up being awarded unbelievable resources for their child who is no more needy than shed loads of other kids from families that don't have the money or knowledge to go that route.

Sick twisted society where money follows money and fuck the rest of them.

[Jeremy]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> it makes you a bit sick seeing

> sensationalist stories about some layabout

> benefits scrounger who is not even remotely typical.

Was thinking the same thing... bloody tabloid scapegoating nonsense. An extreme case which isn't even vaguely representative of anyone I've ever met.

ratty Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am conscious my opinions are based on what I do

> for a living, but I guess so are a bankers.

People have to realise that the majority of Tory voters are not bankers - or even particularly wealthy (left wing scapegoating nonsense!) Plenty of working class and lower-middle class Tories out there.

[Loz]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ratty Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > And the social cleansing that is now beginning in

> > earnest in London is quite sinister I think.

>

> Totally agree.

Is it really 'social cleansing' (which implies it is an actual purposeful policy) or is it just the fact that government after government (of all parties involved) have consistently failed to build enough housing to satisfy demand, and now we are seeing the result in that people are being priced out of London?

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you look at what's happening, for example, at the Heygate, then Social Cleansing doesn't seem that hyperbolic.

[Earl Aelfheah]

... but my main issue is the failure to see the bigger picture. You can't talk about reducing dependency on state intervention and at the same time pursue policies which increase house prices, depress wages and see public services delivered through more complex, less accountable and more expensive mechanisms.

[Otta]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you look at what's happening, for example, at

> the Heygate, then Social Cleansing doesn't seem

> that hyperbolic.

This is exactly what my response was going to be.

[Jeremy]

Wholesale demolition of social housing to be replaced with private housing sure sounds like social cleansing to me. I don't think the term really applies to ED/surrounding areas though.

[Otta]

Agreed, that is just housing issues. But when it's a local authority doing really shady deals, then yes.