Mumsnet Talk

I hate the way they make so make public sector workers redundant and then infer everyone is a scrounger when there are no jobs, penalise the disabled, destroy education, librarys etc. But do nothing about the bankers, the tax evaders, destroy the morale of teachers (who have a bloody hard job for very little pay). What would I do if I lose my job? I am a single parent (yes the devil incarnate) and work for a local authority, coming up to my 2nd review in 2 years. If I do, then I'd be a benefit scrounger.

I hate the way they penalise the poor, the disabled and do nothing about the bankers and the rich who avoid tax. I'm sick of hearing about scroungers when there are NO FUCKING JOBS.

It's frothers on websites, Milliband and the Daily Mail who go on about the 'undeserving poor'... not the government.

I felt that way about the last lot, especially their generosity with taxpayers cash; their PFI programme; their mismanagement of defence; and the constant changes to the curriculum and prescribing how one should teach. I particularly loathed the rewrite of one of the exam specs in my subject which dumbed the exam down, and then had a whole section on community cohesion which was basically a unit on propaganda for Labour.

I loathe the way that in the time they were in power PCness came to the fore, and every time someone expressed an opinion one was either racist/ homophobic/ a bully. I think their introduction of all the tax credits and the explosion in means tested benefits cynically created a client state. I loathed the steady creep in tax and the sleight of hand which bought more people into higher rate, and their removal of the 10% tax rate which hit the poorest the most. They rolled over on the EU; their target for people having degrees was wildly optimisitic; and they dumbed down education. They deliberately refused to give all state school kids the same funding, so rural non Labour areas like Cornwall lost out.

I don't like some of the coalition policies either, but at least I know what I'm getting with them.

wantanewname , I agree, THERE ARE NO JOBS

oh and tax credits have been around for a long time in one form or another

If your job's at risk it's normal to be anxious and to cast around looking for someone to blame. However, referring to yourself as a possible 'benefit scrounger' and describing your lone parent status as 'the devil incarnate' doesn't help. I'm also a lone parent and I don't see any hostility outside of certain low-brow newspapers. If you are made redundant you have certain rights to severance pay and you are entitled to seek help from the state.... into which you have paid tax for many years. You may think there are 'no fucking jobs' but have you actively been looking? Could you retrain? Take your career in a different direction?

Oh please! Yeah cos Labour before the coalition really screwed the rich didn't they? They all ran in fear of being taxed 'their fair share'. Actually no. They didn't.

In fact, wasn't it Mr Mandelson himself who once famously said that Labour were "...'intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich".

Since the coalition has come to power they've started to close down all manner of tax loopholes but those are not exactly front page news. They are not sexy headlines which sell newspapers. What is news are articles about tax avoidance by Vodafone, Barclays etc. Both which are taxes due during Labour's reign and when you dig into the facts are far from clear cut at all.

The whole benefit scrounger thing is mainly a press thing fuelled by the tabloids and the good old DM. Yes benefits are having to be cut but it's hardly a surprise given the state of the nation's finances. The £26k benefit cap is hated by the left wing but all indications are that the working majority actually support it.

In fact in the context of the most savage spending cuts since the war, it's actually damning of Labour's unpopularity that they are not flying high in the polls.

As for the old 'there's no jobs' attitude, that's just bullshit really. There are less jobs yes. Even in the height of the boom there was more unemployed than available jobs. That's just how it goes. There will always be people unemployed for a variety of reasons.

Plus just because there are LESS jobs, doesn't mean you should stop looking. I'm employed in IT at the moment but honestly if I had to, I'd go work in Mcdonalds if it meant I'd be better off than on the dole.

The biggest problem is that the previous govt made a huge benefits trap where it doesn't make sense for many to work.

If you want to hate someone, hate the previous lot. They've a lot to answer for.

Usualsuspect - tax credits I think were introduced initially iirc about 1996/97 (ds was born in 95) and I am 46, so I can remember quite far back. There was not the reliance on tax credits much before 1997, and the introduction of the convoluted system Brown initiated in 2003.

In 1986 I was on the dole for a while. To make ends meet I wiped bums in a residential home. Not the most fragrant of jobs, but it paid enough to feed me in conjunction with the benefit I got. I'd go back and do that again if I needed to, and that was a period where it was also claimed there were no jobs.

The precursor to tax credits (circa 2003) was I think called Family credit? This was aimed at very low income families. Certainly wasn't available to those earning £40k+ salaries which was what Gordon Brown managed to introduce.

Precisely NiceGuy, and thus my comment on the cynical creation of a client state.

It is sad and depressing that the public sector, which did not cause the worldwide economic crisis, has to suffer the brunt of its effects, but I think that would be what would inevitably happen under any government in the current situation. It is also ironic that whilst the government ably demonstrates that it has little or no control over the behaviour of multinational and other large businesses and banks, it is asking us to put more trust in such businesses to take over parts of our public sector and help run them. Meanwhile, whilst the government claims to be pro business, small and medium sized businesses are still struggling, and the money lenders are not willing to lend "difficult" money to enterprises that might actually produce something useful, because the amount of initial investment required and the time frame over which such businesses may become profitable is likely to be too long for their personal tastes in the current economic climate, so we are continuing to be dominated by an obsession with maximum profit at maximum speed ahead of any other gain, and excessive reliance on businesses that have no interest in the health of the UK economy, just in the health of their own profits and their chief executives' bonuses. And I do feel sorry if Stephen Hester feels particularly picked on, because so far as I'm concerned, the fact that the bank that he runs is largely state owned via its shares makes him more worthwhile than other bankers. I don't think he ought to need a huge bonus to realise that, though.

I think they should stop paying all the MP'S etc that aren't in power at the moment and cut some of their pay and perks, see how they like it. This Country is full of useless bags of wind that charge a fortune, which comes from our tax money....get rid of them I say!Most of them have other jobs anyway!!! I also hate how they do nothing to curb the increasing food prices, fuel prices and utility bills......to many back handers me thinks.
Why do we need so many politicians to run this country?

By MPs not in power, do you mean the opposition benches? All that would achieve is that many of them would have to step down because they don't have other sources of income. And the net effect would be that only the independently wealthy would stand for Parliament, excluding people from more ordinary or working-class backgrounds. 600-ish politicians to run a country of 60m people isn't a bad ratio....

Now, really, nannipigg. You know perfectly well that we will only get good MPs if they get good pay and perks. The same doesn't apply to teachers, NHS workers, council workers, etc., for obvious reasons. I just can't think what the obvious reasons are. Oh, I know - they can't decide on their own pay like MPs can.

wantanewname, I hate them too. They are spinning it rather well unfortunately.

@rabbitstew... not even a saintly public-sector worker would do their job for nothing - which is what nannipig was suggesting. Some people at the top of the teaching profession, civil service and councils are on six figure sums these days. Way in excess of the £65k that backbenchers receive.

I just think there is too many of them sucking this country dry, with their pay, posh cars and plenty of perks!
While us "Normal" workers struggle like hell, I understand that with the responsibility they have they need a reasonable pay, but they live the lives of Royalty compared to most of us....much like bankers!

Nanni, you'll probably find that those 'rich' MP's were already rich when they became an MP.

Despite what you think, MP's are not paid a huge amount when compared to an equivalent job.

*Cogito and 'niceguy'*-

> You may think there are 'no fucking jobs' but have you actively been looking? Could you retrain? Take your career in a different direction?

> As for the old 'there's no jobs' attitude, that's just bullshit really. There are less jobs yes. Even in the height of the boom there was more unemployed than available jobs. That's just how it goes. There will always be people unemployed for a variety of reasons.

Yes, that's it. Blame the victim. The giant pyramid and gambling scheme of the financiers goes bust, causing the worst crisis since the Great Depression, and you reactionary sociopaths blame the victims for not trying hard enough.

I don't think you quite understand the maths. When it is said 'there are not enough jobs', it means that:

If X = the number of jobs and

if Y = the number of people looking for jobs then

Y >> X (Y is much greater than X).

So no matter how much you blame the victim for being lazy or not trying hard enough, there will always be unemployed people. If one person happens to get lucky and nabs a job, it is at the expense of another person looking for a job -- who will remain unemployed.

It is irrelevant that there will always be unemployment - that is a function of Capitalism. There needs to be a pool of unemployed to promote 'job flexibility' and to keep down wages.

It's absolutely vile that you blame the unemployed for not being able to find work. It is not for every single unemployed person to retrain (assuming they can even afford to do this) every time there is a crisis not of their own making. It is the responsibility of the government to not allow disaster Capitalism to occur in the first place.

'It is the responsibility of the government to not allow disaster Capitalism to occur in the first place.'

Isn't that precisely why the public kicked Labour out and voted for change?

> Isn't that precisely why the public kicked Labour out and voted for change?

No. The public voted New Labour out for a whole number of reasons. New Labour didn't cause the financial crisis - it's a global phenomenon. They did contribute towards allowing it to happen by deregulating the banks, though this phenomenon - part of the plan of neo-liberalism - has been occurring in most Western Capitalist countries since the 1980s.

The UK suffered the worst because it has one of the largest financial sectors.

In any case, this is isn't about blaming the red team and rooting for the blue team. Stop campaigning.

I think we should be fair and give the current government some credit. They are trying to remedy the effects of "disaster capitalism" and "casino capitalism" that occurred on New Labour's watch.

It was New Labour that knighted Fred the Shred for his services to banking and this government that undid this. This government doesn't believe in "disaster capitalism", it believes in growth and a capitalism that gives people freedom and prosperity.

They have been left in a terrible hole by the last occupants who left a note saying "sorry, there's no money left". Let's be fair and give them some credit for trying to turn things around. It's not going to be easy, and none of us agree with everything that they are doing, but equally not everything that they are doing is bad.

<waves raises clenched fist salute to ttosca>
watch this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0&feature=share

<doesn't like the threatening revolutionary clenched fist of communism, prefers the friendly open handshake of capitalism>>

Yes, let's be fair and point out that we have no effective opposition, just more neo-liberal pro-marketeers with red instead of blue socks. The ones with green socks look better until they get any power (see Brighton & Hove council)