Why aren't the middle classes staging a revolution? (article)(21 Posts)
I guess it's the 'white collar-ness' of the 'crime', or maybe because it isn't considered criminal either legally or morally; that many actually envy the private equity fund owners for their ability to asset strip other companies? Maybe because so many who make the rules have fingers in such pies?
But really, what hope do we have for a genuinely civil society when private equity, off shore tax havens, unreformed bankers (though plenty of nasty public sector workers whom many now think caused the credit crunch with their 1% pay rises and pensions...) are still the norm? Where house price rises are The Measure of financial stability? Where The Young are being so thoroughly shafted but also seem to have bought into this skewed status quo?
I guess if they won't 'rise up', what hope of the comfortable MC home owners of The Shires doing so?
'Why aren’t the middle classes revolting?'
They are. They're voting UKIP. There wil be a landslide in Clacton and that is just the start.
'Labour opens new front in class war: Public sector staff to be asked what parents do for a living to cut number of middle class and privately educated staff'
No one stands up for us middle classes. The Tories are useless, they are so politically correct and progressive that they have abandoned the middle classes too as they compete with Labour over who is the most stupid. The middle classes will vote UKIP to put an end to the shower misruling us.
'Class war: Nick Clegg orders universities to lower entrance requirements - but only for poorer students'
"Middle class students face losing out on places at top universities as growing numbers of them adopt a scheme which prioritises disadvantaged pupils for places.
Top universities are signing up to a scheme that means disadvantaged teenagers don’t need to obtain the same grades as their better-off rivals to get a place.
Twelve universities including Birmingham, Warwick, King’s College and Bristol are already involved in the Realising Opportunities programme which involved them giving ‘alternative offers’ to disadvantaged students.
Top universities are signing up to a scheme that means disadvantaged teenagers don't need to obtain the same grades as their better-off rivals to get a place
And it has now been revealed that three more universities have entered the scheme - Goldsmiths, University of London; Sheffield and Sussex.
The Universities say the scheme promotes ‘fairer access’ and will increase the number of pupils from working-class families and poorly performing state schools going to university.
But critics say it is unfair to discriminate against hard-working pupils from middle class backgrounds, and say the scheme does nothing to solve the root cause of educational disadvantage."
The privileged elite from Westminster and Eton don't care about the middle classes because they never had to work hard in life. They never had to try.
Well said Claig !. The left wing Labour elite's idea of forcing people to disclose what their fathers and mothers did for a living, how much money they had and what schools they attended is just frightening. To think that in 7 months these people could be running the country. The idea is like some-thing Robert Mugabe would come up with when deciding who gets the spoils of power or land.
However, the real problem with this idea (being a gimmick for those of little intelligence). it does nothing in enabling bright kids from poorer backgrounds to reach the top . It just ponders to the political correct brigade and sounds good to the Unions and their class ridden sprouted nonsense. one way to enable bright disadvantaged children, is to get them in to Selective education, be that grammar schools or highly creative specialist schools that teach highly needed skills leading to a pathway to the best universities and careers.
You will not hear that from any of the parties. The labour party are frightened that if bright disadvantaged children were taken out of their surroundings and placed in academic environments with like minded bright pupils they would realise that Labour are a sham.
The Tory elite were very happy to go along with the destruction of selective education, for two reasons the first being it was what the "majority" wanted.
The second reason was it took away a threat to their positions of power and control.
I think over the next 6 or 7 months we are going to start hearing a load of specially worded quotes and statements from the Labour party targeting anyone who is not their target audience. Last week the crazy statement about cars, this week the Mugabe like nonsense from Gloria. What will they say next week I wonder.
You are exactly right, smokepole.
'You will not hear that from any of the parties. '
Except for UKIP.
We want a merotocracy, not a dumbing down dystopia where the Eton and Primrose Hill brigade rake off the cream while the rest of the country is forcibly dumbed down and bright middle class children are disadvantaged by the Etonian elite and the Labour luvvies.
'What will they say next week I wonder.'
I dread to think. But the more they open their mouths and express their true thoughts, the more votes they will lose.
I agree with Claig.
I don't want a UKIP government but I can easily understand and empathise with how/why we might end up with one.
Dismiss and ignore the concerns of the squeezed middle at your peril. The worm is turning.
I caught the front page of a paper stating that ukip plan to scrap inheritance tax, its going to be an interesting election if that's their starter for ten!
Sort of, yes.
I personally see no burning need for grammar schools, I think that children of all abilities and skill sets should be provided for equally and that their education (whatever form that may take) should be of comparable quality, and that can be done perfectly adequately with proper streaming in a true comprehensive system.
But on all the other stuff you and Claig said, yes I am agreeing.
I've mentioned the SNP and Ukip and the worst recession in 100-years in one post - and what happened in 1930's Italy and Germany, prior to the Scottish Referendum, this article last weekend explains the problem when bust governments can't keep offering 'the people' more sweeties every year;
From Glasgow to Barcelona, historian DOMINIC SANDBROOK fears Europe is returning to the crude nationalism that caused such misery
"The Westminster elite has long believed that the way to defeat nationalism is to keep on appeasing it, to offer concession after concession in the belief that one day the separatists will be so sated they will stop demanding more."
"But this has conspicuously failed. In fact, the only lasting way to defuse the Nationalist time-bomb is to rally ordinary Scots’ hearts and minds behind a positive image of a united Britain; not to keep offering bribe after bribe."
"The depressing truth, therefore, is that the spectre of nationalism is not going away."
"Separatism is the political equivalent of a cancer: once established, it is very hard to destroy."
"As we have seen throughout history, from Germany and Italy in the 1930s to the war-torn Yugoslavia in the 1990s, nationalism thrives as a panacea, offering glib solutions and easy scapegoats. But it also offers an immensely compelling appeal to people who feel stranded by economic change and abandoned by their privileged political masters."
"In that sense, strange as it may sound, it is obvious why so many Scottish voters fell for the vision propounded by the demagogues, cranks and zealots so prominent in the separatist campaign."
"The last few decades, after all, have not been good to Scotland."
"Understandably enough, many Scots feel betrayed by the collapse of their manufacturing industry, outraged by the flagrant corruption of their political representatives and alienated from the Westminster elite.
"They believed that Mr Salmond offered them something better: a magic wand that would transform their fortunes overnight."
*"Those sentiments are not going to vanish overnight.
In many ways, they are the mirror image of the alienation felt by millions of voters in England."*
"And in that respect, the rise of Scottish nationalism is not so different from the extraordinary surge in Ukip support south of the border, where Nigel Farage — another cheeky chap peddling simple solutions — plays the part of Mr Salmond."
The lessons of history shows the people get duped, so all the people can do in 2015 is vote for the SOLUTIONS in fixing a Deficit economy, rather than the party SOUNDBITES, with no substance - as they can make those deficits and cuts soooo much larger. IMO
I said I was wondering what the Labour Party was going to come out with next week?. We only had to wait 1 day The full implications of the Mansion Tax £11000 per year, this is brilliant for the Labour party as it only effects 1% or less of the population, and "gets all the loyalists going "Castro" over it ". It also plays to the stupid , who think by taxing "Rich people" they are some-how going to get that money . The Labour Party have raised a" Country Saving £1.2 Billion " at this rate Ed Milliband will need "1000 years to save the United Kingdom, not ten !.
Ed Balls is supposed to be a Bright and educated man, does her really think 1.2 billion is going to save the country ?. The other thing that he has not realised (though I think he does not care rather than not knowing?) is the way the "Rich" will pay these Mansion Taxes will come from reducing the hours of Gardeners/ Nanny's Cooks and other service staff. These are the very people who Labour say that the country is not working for. ( well it won't if their hours are cut in half, will it).
"Middle class" people likes of who are on here, who in principle like the Mansion Tax , should be very careful what they wish for, within 2 years of a Labour Government people living in £1 millon pound houses will be paying extra taxes "dubbed " something else. Then when they don't get enough money from them It will be the turn of those living in £500k houses to bear the brunt of the Labour Purge on success.
Exactly, they want to establish the principle, then they will eventually be able to squeeze the middle even more so that they can waste the money on windfarms or wars abroad.
smoke now I am completely agreeing with you!
Isitmebut, that was lazy and dirty journalism you quoted. It tries to lead readers down the garden path in so many ways: equating Alex Salmond and Nigel Farage as both being "cheeky chappies". Saying that Scottish nationalism is like a cancer. Comparing the SNP to Nazi Germany??? All of that is ridiculous.
As far as the middle classes revolting - I think things just haven't gotten bad enough for most people yet and the middle classes have an "I'm alright, Jack" attitude. Plus for those that can stomach it, they now how UKIP to vote for in the next election. For those that can't, I really don't see any viable way of making change. Scotland almost did last week, but the fearmongering of the political elite sadly put paid to that.
I'm middle class and I'd rather eat my own foot than vote UKIP or Tory.
Just because I'm "comfortable" doesn't mean I can't see the inequalities in our society and of course I want a more equal society. Mansion tax is a good idea, as is inheritance tax.
We've worked for our money and our DCs are working for theirs. Why should they benefit from something they haven't worked for? I'm happy to have death duties levied on what's left after we've "popped our clogs". There will still be something left for the DCs. We are enjoying our retirement and spending as fast as we can anyway.
Not all middle class people are selfish.
Sunna ....The decade between 1997 and 2007 was probably the most prosperous decade in 100-years to 'equalize' society, not just using the massive increases in tax receipts, but the government spending that exceeded those tax receipts.
Did a socialist government INCREASE the unemployment of the indigenous population as they subbed out the apparent 2.5 million new jobs within the UK?
Did a socialist government and left-wing teaching establishment dumb down education to the masses to raise 'standards' in league tables', which could be why there was just over 500,000 unemployed 16-24 year olds in 2004, and just over 900,000 in 2010 - who could not compete for British jobs?
Did a socialist government NOT use it's windfall taxes to build new homes to house the indigenous population and 2.5 million new citizens - that also allowed capitalist employers to diluted pay rates for the lower paid?
Does a socialist government that left in 2009/10 1.7 million families, 5 million people, needing social homes, increase their social mobility?
Now unless you think that SAME socialist party, with nearly the SAME cabinet minsters, can do better with a £75 billion annual overspend than they could with a near open cheque book - if I was you, I'd eat your foot if the party that got the economy/businesses/jobs growing again, are voted out.
Society can not afford even the western basic services without a healthy economy, never mind equalizing it and as socialist governments only know how to tax and state control and economy to death, not create a sustainable economy - I'd suggest the poor are better off with their life chances under the Conservatives, rather than Labour when the money/credit finally runs out. IMO.
I could ask a list of questions about Thatcher's record. But all that is in the past.
It's the future I'm concerned about and Cameron and the boy Gideon aren't it. I hope.
Sunna ….. regarding ‘the future’, so are you saying that it does not matter what a Labour Party does to ‘the people’ while in office, and what pee poor legacy they leave for the next government - the national past time of blaming the Conservatives for taking the ‘unpopular’ decisions for fixing the finances/economy/jobs, should only last for one parliament, and even that in coalition – before HANDING IT BACK to those who haven’t learned their lessons?
The 2010 country the Conservative coalition had to fix, bore no semblance to what they handed over to Labour in 1997, just look at the opening post on the ‘does Labour deserve power’ post – for a full list of the damage Labour did – and show me where the 2010 Labour solutions to their own mess were put forward to the electorate, as their were none in their 2010 General Election manifesto.
Tough to compare one party’s solutions with another, when the government of the day through political cowardice and selfish needs to limit their electoral damage, refuses to detail the ‘cut less, spend/tax more’ pre 2010 election intention – that was somehow meant to help ‘the cost of living’.
Re Thatcher, to address ‘folklaw’, ask as many questions as you like, but first know in 1979 the UK had around 20% interest rates, inflation and wage rises, millions of work days lost over strikes, as British companies in competition with the likes of Japan and Germany (with none of those negative business conditions) were competitively getting their arses kicked, shutting their doors forever - and manufacturing fell from around 29% of our economy in 1970 to 23% when she came in, but apparently it was all HER fault.
I suggest you read how bad it was politically in 1979 to even begin fixing the economic problems, but you seem to be Labour ‘blinkered’.
There's also a revolution brewing about what all three parties have done to the NHS. Starting with Thatcher, carried on by Major (PFIs), Blair (PFIs, competition), and the Coalition (Health and Social Care Act 2012).
There's a film that explains the whole NHS situation really clearly: www.selloff.org.uk (see a trailer there - the whole thing to be released on YouTube soon).
There are parties with far better healthcare policies than any of the main three/UKIP: eg. Greens, National Health Action Party nhap.org and I think they'll get a lot of votes for this reason.
Join the discussion
Please login first.