Preparedness for when

daz378

theres seems to be socio engineered type divide and conquer influence ...trying to pit sections of society against each each other...that tries to speak to innate prejudices in all of us......with society so divided it is unlikely you will see general strikes to improve standard
of living.... not that im advocating 70s style strikes... but against zero hour contracts, 20 hour contracts ....and in the future when technological advances could throw more people on the scrap heap....coincides with continuing reductions in welfare...... it is a worry how bad things could get.... but dont worry too much:)

nuatha

daz378 wrote: »

theres seems to be socio engineered type divide and conquer influence ...trying to pit sections of society against each each other...that tries to speak to innate prejudices in all of us......with society so divided it is unlikely you will see general strikes to improve standard
of living.... not that im advocating 70s style strikes... but against zero hour contracts, 20 hour contracts ....and in the future when technological advances could throw more people on the scrap heap....coincides with continuing reductions in welfare...... it is a worry how bad things could get.... but dont worry too much:)

Most of those 70's style strikes were against falls in living standards and the "progress" that led to a non unionised workforce and the 0 hour contract. Not that the media ever reported them that way. I doubt there's the political will in England to come anywhere near a real opposition to the current political direction. Scotland on the other hand - especially if the current failure to fulfil promises continues.

Frugalsod

MrsLurcherwalker wrote: »

Maybe George Orwell had the right of it?

Perhaps we'll be known in the future as homogenised britain?

I like everyone being a little different. It would be so dull if we all had the same lifestyle and experiences.

Frugalsod

nuatha wrote: »

Most of those 70's style strikes were against falls in living standards and the "progress" that led to a non unionised workforce and the 0 hour contract. Not that the media ever reported them that way. I doubt there's the political will in England to come anywhere near a real opposition to the current political direction. Scotland on the other hand - especially if the current failure to fulfil promises continues.

I actually expect the living standards for the majority to continue to decline because the three mainstream parties all have their snouts in the trough. It might only be a matter of time before new political parties are formed to change things. Though it might start with unions abandoning Labour to start a new political party to represent workers.

Interestingly I was listening to some BBC news podcasts and the Bank of England are now concerned about deflation here. They are a bit late. I warned many months ago that deflation was coming because of government policy hence my concentrating on clearing my debts before it became a problem, and incomes started to fall.

jk0

I thought you guys might enjoy this comment someone made to today's Slog post:

https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2015/02/14/eurocrisis-if-you-employ-cocks-like-jeroen-dijsselbloem-the-chickens-will-come-home-to-roost/#comment-605536

Frugalsod

jk0 wrote: »

I thought you guys might enjoy this comment someone made to today's Slog post:

https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2015/02/14/eurocrisis-if-you-employ-cocks-like-jeroen-dijsselbloem-the-chickens-will-come-home-to-roost/#comment-605536

The politicians decided long ago to abandon their voters and bail out the banks. Even back then it was a case of what was more important the euro or the banks? The banks won but the politicians do not realise that their cherished project is now probably fatally doomed by their past mistakes.

If they had allowed the banks to collapse then we would probably have a growing economy by now. The debts would have had to be written down and people would have had a fresh start. So what the academics learnt from the 1930's depression was to save the banks. Which was the wrong answer. What caused the problem back then with banks was the lack of deposit protection. So what do our stupid leaders do now. They effectively abolish deposit protection by calling it a bail in but really do not come clean over their failings. So while it might exist in name it does not exist in reality.

The other mistake that is repeatedly done by politicians and economists is curtail the recovery because they do not want to spend too much and be accused of being reckless. This happened in the 30's and in Japan in the 90's. That is why they have had a stagnant economy for decades.

Immediately after the crash of 1929, the banks were wiped out but their debts were eliminated as well. So there was a very rapid recovery of 8% a year for a couple of years. Though in Japan in the 90's they did not allow the banks to collapse and so the same problem we face now of big banks holding back the economy exists today. Only Iceland has actually learned anything.

Though I suspect that over the rest of the year we will be hearing of anti EU parties doing very well at the elections and change of some kind being forced on the politicians if they want to save their beloved project.

Frugalsod

This is very good.

https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/greek-crisis-high-noon-is-coming-are-you-for-the-miller-gang-or-gary-cooper/

Sums it all up pretty well.

moneyistooshorttomention

Frugalsod wrote: »

I actually expect the living standards for the majority to continue to decline because the three mainstream parties all have their snouts in the trough. It might only be a matter of time before new political parties are formed to change things. Though it might start with unions abandoning Labour to start a new political party to represent workers.

.

Actually it does rather look as if its now time for the Unions to abandon the Labour Party, as you said.

The thought hadn't particularly crossed my mind till you said that, but it would make perfect sense for them to do so and investigate a new political party to back instead (ie like the Labour Party used to be).

You can see how far things have shifted when a Labour spokesperson recently made calls for unemployment benefit to be limited to 2 years:eek::eek:. We all know there are people who are "trying it on" and with no intention of having jobs and the female contingent beneath menopause age have the perfect way (from their pov) of ensuring the fact by popping out another child every few years. But those of us who are male and/or more responsible could land up unemployed for over 2 years despite best efforts to get a job.

A couple of the spells of unemployment I had went on for months at a time and I was back in my 30s/it was the 1980s/I lived in a city (ie more jobs to apply for than a "tiny tumblewood town" would have had) and yet those spells of unemployment were quite lengthy.

I dread to think how long I would have been unemployed for if it had been earlier this century and me in my 50s by then. In fact I know the answer and it is "I would almost certainly never have got a job again" even though I still lived in that city - so it would have been entirely possible to be unemployed for over 2 years despite being a responsible person and genuinely trying to get a job. You can just see how much pressure there would be for even worse work conditions for employees if people were scared to death of being unemployed for a lengthy period of time because of the prospect of a time with no income at all. Really worrying to add that level of "Scare" on top of an economy where we already have minimal cost of living rises for most/zero hours contracts/standard hours workers being expected to work antisocial hours/etc.

So that call for a time limit on unemployment benefit horrified me and to see it coming from a major Labour Party spokesperson to me indicated that there is no difference worth mentioning now between the two major Parties. With that one comment its now made it a very feasible proposition to vote for a smaller party (which I was planning on anyway) and we might as well all decide which our main interest is to vote for - be it for the environment (make that Green Party), stop our permeable borders (make that UKIP) or nationalism.

Personally, I shant vote for one of the two Biggies ever again and will be doing my voting to vote against an issue that concerns me instead and I think there is going to be a LOT of splintering of voting from here on in.

Frugalsod

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Actually it does rather look as if its now time for the Unions to abandon the Labour Party, as you said.

The thought hadn't particularly crossed my mind till you said that, but it would make perfect sense for them to do so and investigate a new political party to back instead (ie like the Labour Party used to be).

You can see how far things have shifted when a Labour spokesperson recently made calls for unemployment benefit to be limited to 2 years:eek::eek:. We all know there are people who are "trying it on" and with no intention of having jobs and the female contingent beneath menopause age have the perfect way (from their pov) of ensuring the fact by popping out another child every few years. But those of us who are male and/or more responsible could land up unemployed for over 2 years despite best efforts to get a job.

A couple of the spells of unemployment I had went on for months at a time and I was back in my 30s/it was the 1980s/I lived in a city (ie more jobs to apply for than a "tiny tumblewood town" would have had) and yet those spells of unemployment were quite lengthy.

I dread to think how long I would have been unemployed for if it had been earlier this century and me in my 50s by then. In fact I know the answer and it is "I would almost certainly never have got a job again" even though I still lived in that city - so it would have been entirely possible to be unemployed for over 2 years despite being a responsible person and genuinely trying to get a job. You can just see how much pressure there would be for even worse work conditions for employees if people were scared to death of being unemployed for a lengthy period of time because of the prospect of a time with no income at all. Really worrying to add that level of "Scare" on top of an economy where we already have minimal cost of living rises for most/zero hours contracts/standard hours workers being expected to work antisocial hours/etc.

So that call for a time limit on unemployment benefit horrified me and to see it coming from a major Labour Party spokesperson to me indicated that there is no difference worth mentioning now between the two major Parties. With that one comment its now made it a very feasible proposition to vote for a smaller party (which I was planning on anyway) and we might as well all decide which our main interest is to vote for - be it for the environment (make that Green Party), stop our permeable borders (make that UKIP) or nationalism.

Personally, I shant vote for one of the two Biggies ever again and will be doing my voting to vote against an issue that concerns me instead and I think there is going to be a LOT of splintering of voting from here on in.

In the US they have a similar rule. They have to actually be looking for work to actually be counted as unemployed. If they have given up then they do not get counted as unemployed. This explains most of the fall in US unemployment.

While there are some who might play the system there are exceptionally few, and even the benefit office only admit that fraud is microscopically small yet if you were to believe the government that most of it is claimed without cause.

Spain also has a two year time limit on benefits and look how bad things are there. Things are continue to deteriorate there and the politicians are still too corrupt to care. No wonder the mainstream parties are losing support all over Europe. The only real concern is will nationalist parties win and will there be mass migration of refugees from some of them just like the 30's?

moneyistooshorttomention

I guess there's maybe nationalism and nationalism???? - a fact I think we are all aware of to some extent and I've been learning more about since moving across Britain (ie from England to Wales). Hence I now qualify my phrase "This country" by saying "This country - Britain".

So, when you say "nationalism", do you mean, for instance the rise to prominence of the Nazis in Germany in the 1930s? Possibly Italy of the 1930s as well? or applying the thought more widely...