The Nasty party run a vile, nasty advertising campaign trying to divide the public(75 Posts)
The Conservatives brand the unemployed as 'shirkers'
The Conservative Party has adopted an aggressive set of campaign advertisements targeted at 60 constituencies contrasting "hard working families" and "people who don't work". This divisive advertising represents once again their attempt to label the unemployed as lazy 'benefit scroungers'. It also demonstrates how little they understand unemployment and poverty. The notion that there are 'hard working families' and 'people who don't work' assumes these groups exist as separate social groups. One result of recession is that hard working families are affected. Company failures, factory closures and lay-offs don't just impact on 'scroungers'. This is why the results of austerity are so devastating. It is indiscriminate in its effect. It is also why austerity doesn't work. It drives families, hard working families into poverty.
Unemployment is a key driver of poverty. Two-thirds of working age adults in families where one or more of the adults are unemployed are poor. Unemployment, particularly long term unemployment, grinds away devastatingly on families creating poor housing, poor diet and ill-health. It leads to a cycle of debt and targets for loan sharks. It leads to homelessness, eviction, repossession. It destroys lives. It leads to a loss of dignity and well being. This is why it is unethical of the government to target those most affected by austerity, brand them as work-shy scroungers and attempt to turn those better off against them. Mr Cameron once said 'we are all in this together'. Now the unemployed and those receiving benefits have become the government's scapegoats for the failure of their economic policies.
In the aftermath of the riots of August 2011, the Prime Minister said "this is a country of good people". Now it seems he is saying this is a country of 'good' and 'bad' people; the haves are 'good'; the have nots are 'bad'; 'strivers' and 'shirkers'. It is a disgraceful turnaround and he knows this is not true. It is cynical politics at its worst.
I've tried to submit my answers, but without success - maybe if you give answers they don't want, their system simply refuses to accept your submission, thus ensuring that they can say that 100% of people agreed with them? This is what I tried to submit:
"Ridiculous questions, as taken out of context - an insult to be asked such biased and misleading questions. I therefore have no choice but to answer them in the affirmative.
Increase benefits in line with inflation - benefits cover the basics of life only, so it is essential to increase them in line with inflation.
Pay more to those who need more - for instance those with more children or with special needs. Average family earnings are irrelevant - benefits should be needs based, that is the whole point of them."
Wow those two questions have to be the most stupidly slanted ones I have ever seen.
It's like asking people if it should be legal for people to shoot your children.
Ofourse your going to say no.
I feel dirty and grubby It's their website - ugh!
Thank you ttosca - Ooh this should be fun and challenging - how to say it all in 300 words
The ads are a bit strange - the "hardworking family" seem to be in paradise already, so don't need help, and the man at home on sofa looks pretty depressed...
The conservatives are doing this because it has worked for them so far - a lot of people are in favour of the bashing of people on benefits. Apparently the Labour party was thought to be hesitant about speaking out against the 1% annual rise in benefits limit, as a reduction in real term benefits is very popular at the moment.
it's part of the campaign, I think, Tyga
someone linked to it on Twitter yesterday
will try and find it tomorrow
Really? Has he checked the website? dwp.gov.uk I usually arm myself with what is said on there than listen to job centre staff. They are usually mis-informed ime!
My brother is great thanks Little tyga. He has started doing night classes because apparently if he went to collage fulltime he wouldn't be entitle to any benefits? weird if you ask me.
He's still at the job centre everyday though the poor sod.
I do hope you've all completed their fascinating questionnaire about what to do with regard to benefits
I had a lovely time doing it
bring back rent controls to take ££££££s off the Housing Benefit bill
ensure employers pay a proper living wage so that the taxpayer doesn't have to sub them for tax credits
the govt to assume responsibility for unemployment and stop blaming the victims
ensure the wealthy pay their taxes
I had loads more but they only give you 300 characters, the tight sods
I am eagerly waiting for their response. They're probs going to make me a special advisor, or something
Oh chickens I hope your brother is fit and well now? Its shameful how ex- servicemen are treated when they leave. Could he go to college and learn a trade? become self employed as an electrician or web designer, fitness trainer, did he have a trade in the army?
Its going to be chaos and devastating for many families when UC comes in
My brother came out of the army last year and since then he has been looking for work. He's in that job centre 3-4 times a week. He's always firing off his cv's and will do anything.
The job centre actually stopped his jsa because he had to go into hospital because his had internal bleeding. He was in for over a month.
Now he has to reapply which takes ages to come through and he's not entitled to any disability.
This country is going to the dogs.
I wonder who costs the country more, unemployed on JSA, circa £5k a year, or 'hard working families' on government subsidised wages (working tax credits) - average claim circa £10k a year...
Well both get stiffed big style by the uc starting next year and both will get treated like scroungers
This country has become so complacent - we should have done what the Icelanders did - Jail the bankers, boot out the politicians and bail out the people!
Cameron has said that, since his father was disabled and managed to be a successful stockbroker, he reckons all disabled people should be fine. He seems to have forgotten that his father was already well-off: the family has a long history in finance and much inherited real estate.
He also broke his promise never to use Ivan's disability as a political point.
"Compassionate Conservative" hypocrisy, Huff Post
Family of David Cameron, Wikipedia
Cameron's family fortune in offshore tax dodging funds, Daily Mail
I've heard the lot now............beyond awful!
...and perhaps if they had any sort of conscience they would have said - we won't claim because we don't need it. But conscience seems a bit thin on the ground these days in the political class.
Yes they claimed DLA which they were entitled to do.
Ooh...did I just say "entitled"?
What pisses me off is that they are seeking to deny this benefit to others. I have no issue with their claiming a benefit they were entitled to have.... despite their wealth meaning they could have managed without it .
After all, didn't he, himself, utilise Disability Living Allowance for his own child? And yet both he and his wife Samantha, independently wealthy, would not need it in the same way as the millions who do. Pity it wasn't means-tested.
Cameron claimed DLA!!!
Good! Then don't vote for them the next election!
My point is that I can see the reasoning of people who don't care about politics. It's just one side in power and the other side moaning for 5 years. Then either reverse or go on for another 5 years. It just seems so pointless.
Are you suggesting that the problem is people "moaning" rather than having an opinion about the particular orientation of the govt in power and what will inform their policies, and effect the lives of us all. I'm not sure what your point is really.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.