What cost economic recovery

Ok going to bit of a long post so please bear with me. Main point of this thread is something i have become more and more aware of over the last couple of years mainly in our headlong rush to resolve the economic crisis are we creating a far more damaging crisis the destruction of our society. We seem to have a government that can only rule as long as society is divided and attacking itself. We have sections of society turning on each other as a contributor or cause to the economic mess we are in and allowing things to pass that we would never have tolerated twenty years ago. I have noticed a growing anger in people in how they relate to each other and how one section of society regards another both in person and mainly here on the internet and i have myself been guilty of it at times as well.

To put myself up and explain i am a lifelong conservative but not of the modern conservatism which i barely recognise from what i was bought up to believe. My conservatism was the one where government played no more of a part in the lives of people then it had too, an ideology where obstacles to personal progression were removed as much as was practical and the promoting that everyone who could did. It was also an ideoology that those who through no fault of their own would be taken care of by the state their basic needs met and support and help given where it was needed.

What we seem to have ended up with is very much a dog eat dog attitude in politicians today where they only care about the public long enough to get your vote and then quickly forget you once it has been cast. There is no local politician anymore getting elected by us to parliament we get what the parties send us not who we want. This government has attacked the vulnerable and poorest as well as the working and lower middle classes in our society in a constant way whilst also making them scapegoats for the country's ill's basically since they got in and on the surface seem to have support from some of the public. I'm not sure the policy's do have support though i think a lot of the public are very angry and frustrated at the mess we are in and are striking out at any target that is presented rather then venting towards the right targets because many of us don't know exactly who is to blame or even who we think is to blame.

Is this process we are in of resolving the economic mess will it in the process do more social damage then it was worth longterm will this country be a better place after this government then it was before and this government wants seven more years to complete the job can society afford to let them have those seven years or will the damage they do in that time be beyond repair. Is it even the fault of those in government or are they just a natural progression of the professional politician culture that has grown in this countrry since the mid 90's (thats when i became more aware of pro politicians not saying that was when it started) and we only have ourselves to blame for not saying stop sooner.

Is it time for us to completely revamp our political system removing the short termism from many areas of longterm concern such as training and education, major national infrastructure projects and health and welfare to name a few and get the debate going. Moving those areas out of government control and handing the planning to a commitee of people to come up with the best proposals free from political interference and when they have a plan or change or whatever it is sent to the commons to be voted on in a free vote where the only concern of individual mp's is "is this in the best national interest".

I may not have worded what i meant as well as i could but i hope i have done it enough for people to understand what i am getting at, that is it time for real change in this country and can we continue the imbalance of cuts and affect of the economic situation to continue regardless of the damage to our society. Although there are many facets of this debate such as welfare, education, health and things of that nature can we not get bogged down on any one issue as seems to happen a lot and also just to be clear this is not any sort of debate on religion soo please no religion based posts as that area never ends with a respectful attitude.

I would like this to be a pleasant debate where all views and opinions are not necessarily agreed with but we treat all with equal respect. Could i also ask people to give their ideas on how things are and where we can\could\should change things not just jump in with yes\no\don't know or other non contributing posts and above all no personal insults, trolling or stupidity. Some people on here i know use english as a second language and as such their wording may not always be perfect can we overlook that and recognise the point being made rather then get caught up on how they may have misworded something.

Finally i have started this topic in current affairs as i think the state of our society and a topic dealing with that as well as other issues belongs here but will understand if Moderators move it to somewhere they feel it fits better. Let the debate begin.

The whole strivers vs skivers language over the last few months is pretty divisive. There seems to be a lot of focus on benefit cheats, or more accurately those that the papers and the government say are benefit cheats. This is really quite a small amount of our budget and saves little but puts a massive amount of stress to the disabled and the vulnerable.

[peanut]

I have found (and quite strongly even on this site, but not all by any means), that it's a very 'I'm alright Jack, sod the rest of you' kind of attitude that a lot of people have now, twisted by the media etc. I believe those in power will continue with that line of thinking and things will just get worse as in divide and conquer situation.

I also find it pointless in a way to discuss these type of issues sometimes* as the powers that be will decide on whatever regardless and again there will be no logic and there will be less democracy, it's just what will be in it for themselves is that counts.

*(But not pointless to discuss amongst ourselves obviously).

I'm not good at these kind of questions because I've struggled to see the point, so I've kept it short.

Thanks for the responses guys it is quite telling that you both mention the media as they certainly have a hell of a lot to pay for with the division that is currently going on and the closeness of the media to our government perhaps explains things a bit. Yes i know technically the government and the press no longer have the cosy relationship of old but it is incredible how often they seem to think and say the same almost at the sametime. Obviously we cannot force anything to happen with just this topic it will require a movement far bigger and greater in scale but i think the foundations are setting for that to happen. Across the board you can see more and more people coming to the realisation that there is a divisive attiude in this government and the damage that could cause if it continues.

Peanut basically the point here is do you think\feel there is a growing division, do you think\feel government is harbouring\promoting this and what can be done about it now and in future to stop future governments playing the electorate off against each other in the way they are now.

[Osem]

To be fair, HMG isn't responsible for the deliberate misreporting, selective interpretation and sensationalism of the media or their political opponents. Yes times are tough and there are going to be losers amongst those claiming benefits (some justified, some not) but I don't see a grand plan to demonise claimants. You'd need to be pretty stupid to believe that all, or even a majority of, claimants are cynically milking the benefits system and those who might be inclined to are in a very small minority.

While claimant's are part of the group I feel are unfairly bearing the brunt they are not the only one's as I said the working class and lower middle class are also being disproportionately hit by this government. Having said that I disagree with you Osem I think much of the language that has come from various members of this government has been highly devisive and designed to create tension within society between those getting any form of welfare and the tax payer. As Damien said one of their recent terms was highly devisive and most of the government's arguments in the welfare area are not even supported by the ONS the government's own statistical body.

But this is not a thread purely for welfare it is about how in my opinion the people that contributed least to the economic mess are the one's paying the heaviest price for it not just financially but socially as well.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

But this is not a thread purely for welfare it is about how in my opinion the people that contributed least to the economic mess are the one's paying the heaviest price for it not just financially but socially as well.

I would normally agree with that, but some of the trouble started with money being loaned to people who could not pay it back.

So who really to blame?

The banks loaning, the borrowers who knew they would probably not be making repayments, or governments for not preventing banks from loaning and incurring toxic debt?

Coming from a fairly poor background, I was brought up not to get into debt, but to save for what I needed. I hope I have passed that onto our twins. You should not spend what you do not have.

[Osem]

Taff - Yes agree. It may be an inconvenient truth for some that many ordinary people played their part in inflating the credit/debt bubble by living well beyond their means.

Rizzy - I may have missed the statements you're referring to would be interested to see some links as I don't recall senior govt. figures saying anything that I would consider be divisive in the extreme and I speak as the parent of a child who'll sadly need to rely on benefits for his entire life. Yes, I have seen some of their words twisted by the media. In the final analysis, I guess it's up to the individual to decide what they believe is the true intent behind what's said and done.

[peanut]

Obviously if you're one of the one affected you're going to notice it (what is going on) more than those not affected.

It's more subtle than outright, but has the same effect, but it's been constant for quite a while. Take the latest benefit freeze, they make out like its unfair for someone on benefits to get 3% rise and not someone who is working. They make it out like it is totaly unfair yet they ignore the reality that 3% can be just £2 a week. Nowhere in the same league as 3% of a wage. But the spin always put a claimant in a bad light.

As a claimant it really is hard to see it in any other light especially when they ram the 'we're all in it together' horlicks down our throats constantly.

Also the 'strivers vs skivers' just taps into the populist perception that there is an 'us and them'. The people that work and pay taxes and the people who sit there on benefits. Also focusing the conversation on the people who abuse the system doesn't help, it's always about the 1%.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by peanut

...the reality that 3% can be just £2 a week. Nowhere in the same league as 3% of a wage.

Statistics can be made to make anything look good or bad, and politicians excel at bending numbers to their own will.

After much secrecy and "statistical number bending" one of France's major government ministers has openly admitted that France is bankrupt. I'm sorry mate, but the public have been well aware of that for years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-policies.html

[Osem]

Originally Posted by peanut

Obviously if you're one of the one affected you're going to notice it (what is going on) more than those not affected.

It's more subtle than outright, but has the same effect, but it's been constant for quite a while. Take the latest benefit freeze, they make out like its unfair for someone on benefits to get 3% rise and not someone who is working. They make it out like it is totaly unfair yet they ignore the reality that 3% can be just £2 a week. Nowhere in the same league as 3% of a wage. But the spin always put a claimant in a bad light.

As a claimant it really is hard to see it in any other light especially when they ram the 'we're all in it together' horlicks down our throats constantly.

Yes that's always the case. Having said that, directly and indirectly, as a carer for my son who's only 'income' is DLA, I'm very much one of those who could be affected by benefit changes and the public's attitude towards claimants.

[danielf]

Well, if it's any consolation: I don't object to paying in more than I take out. I can afford to contribute a bit more, so it's only fair that I do.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by danielf

Well, if it's any consolation: I don't object to paying in more than I take out. I can afford to contribute a bit more, so it's only fair that I do.

I have paypal if you're offering...

[danielf]

Originally Posted by peanut

I have paypal if you're offering...

I don't