English Socialism at Work

[Bud Struggle]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=560939&in_page_id=1770
A "why bother?" economy has been created in Britain which has left thousands with no motivation to work, a report published today concludes.

Successive governments have encouraged a welfare culture that has left every family facing a £1,300 bill because the poor stay poor, it claims.

[Demogorgon]

I wouldn't pay much attention to the Daily Mail. This is the paper for journalists who were fired from Holocaust Denial Today for being too intolerant.

Large numbers of people remaining poor in Britain might be more to do with the continuing effects of Thatchers extreme free market policies than just about the worst welfare state in Europe.

Your link is broken BTW.

[RedAnarchist]

1. It's not "English", its "British" when you're talking about the UK.

2. Socialism? Labour are not socialists. They may have had some socialistic policies a long time ago, but they are certainly not socialist.

[Herman]

The fact that you call it "English socialism" makes you fail.

[Kami]

I suppose the mail is telling you that removing benefits is going to inspire the poor to jump into well payed (and, as a british job-seeker, I can confidently say non-existant) jobs, rather than send them crashing below the poverty line?

[Lord Testicles]

That link doesn't work.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I dont mean to be a horrible person and I respect you posts even if you are a capi freak

BUT IF YOU EVER , EVER SITE THE DAILY MAIL AS A SOURCE AGAIN I WILL TRACK YOU DOWN AND STAB YOU IN THE FACE

[Jazzratt]

I'd be more impressed if the Daily Heil didn't run this pretty much every year. It's a stupid tactic because it takes the appealingly high unemployment figures caused by the "progressive" (haha) march of the free market and ascribes it to "laziness" created by the meagre net created for those out of work.

I would bet you money that you would be hard pressed to find someone who would rather live on 45 quid a week than get a job (considering even part time work pays better.).

[Bud Struggle]

I fixed the link and it is indeed Britain not England (for whatever reason.)

[Forward Union]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=560939&in_page_id=1770
A "why bother?" economy has been created in Britain which has left thousands with no motivation to work, a report published today concludes.

Successive governments have encouraged a welfare culture that has left every family facing a £1,300 bill because the poor stay poor, it claims.

The daily mail is a paper that was set up by the British Union of Fascists and compared Hitler to Admiral Nelson as a British hero...

[Lord Testicles]

Yeah....that article is bullshit. I agree with Jazzratt, I think most people would rather a job than trying to live on £45 a week, I know I would.

[Bud Struggle]

The daily mail is a paper that was set up by the British Union of Fascists and compared Hitler to Admiral Nelson as a British hero...

Oh. I'm not British. If that's the case that the paper is a Fascist Propaganda sheet--I apologize for the thread.

[pusher robot]

Related article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=541598&in_page_id=1770

[Jazzratt]

Related article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=541598&in_page_id=1770

Typical of the Mail. Shabbily written, but then again they only have to convince their thousands of Reich minded readers of the sweeping generalisations they use - such as the idea that a single family constitute a loafer culture). They turn a fact that could on one hand be contributed to the appalling job market in Britain and instead appeal to the base instincts of their knuckle-dragging readers blaming the idea that people are struggling and can only live on state benefits on problems with those people. This whole fucking thing is ridiculous and reeks of the pisspoor journalism we've all grown to expect from the Daily Heil.

[Bud Struggle]

From Wiki:

The Daily Mail considers itself to be the voice of Middle England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_England) speaking up for "small-c" conservative[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#cite_note-10) values against what it sees as a liberal establishment. It generally takes an anti-EU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroscepticism), anti-mass immigration, anti-abortion view, based around what it describes as "traditional values", and is correspondingly pro-family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_values), pro-capitalism (though not always supportive of its aftereffects), and pro-monarchy, as well as, in some cases, advocating stricter punishments for crime. It also often calls for lower levels of taxation.

Some old time fascist ties--A HUGELY read newspaper. A little right of middle of the road--seems an OK source (if a little downmarket) to quote.

[Lord Testicles]

http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/dictionary/dict_h1.php#hurrah

"A famous example of the Daily Mail (http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/dictionary/dict_d1.php#dailymail)'s longstanding commitment to impeccably balanced and unbiased coverage of controversial political events. This headline appeared on the front page of the 8 July 1934 edition, and accompanied a piece on Sir Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists that read, in part: "If the Blackshirts movement had any need of justification, the Red Hooligans who savagely and systematically tried to wreck Sir Oswald Mosley's huge and magnificently successful meeting at Olympia last night would have supplied it."

The Uncuclopedia article probably has more realism in it than the wiki article.

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

[Bud Struggle]

I guess the Daily Mail is to the right what the Guardian is to the Left.

[Demogorgon]

I guess the Daily Mail is to the right what the Guardian is to the Left.

No because the Guardian is a quality paper and the Daily Mail is just a tabloid rag that sells itself on sex scandals have the time.

Look, to borrow another members phrase about that, I wouldn't even trust the page numbering in that paper. It wouldn't know accuracy if it danced naked in front of them.

I mean take the story Pusher Robot linked to (and apparently bought). What that story actually states in plain English is that due to not bothering to work, a family of ten is squashed into a council house (the lap of luxuary) and living on three grand a year (about fifty quid a week) each. But the way the paper tells it, you would think they were living in a mansion with servants. And what precisely does the entire thing have to do with News anyway?

The only time that paper drops its racism for even a minute is when a non-white person says something homophobic. The paper publishes every lie imaginable about Europe, attempting to portray anyone on the continent as enemies. And indeed it has a particularly good time belittling the non-English parts of Britain.

Only a fool would trust a single word in that paper.

[Bud Struggle]

I guess I believe you--not to say we don't have wacky news papers in the US, but here they usually also carry pictures of space aliens babies, etc.

[Dean]

I guess I believe you--not to say we don't have wacky news papers in the US, but here they usually also carry pictures of space aliens babies, etc.

Not really. The entirety of popular U.S. media suffers from an abhorrent refusal to speak straight about the rest of the world - notably Israel, the Middle East, Africa and Asia. I was, to say the least, stunned when I first read the BBC and AlJazeera because the quality of the news was so much better. I had though all media was like that because it was based on capital. Turns out that some of them still have principles, just not many in the U.S.

[pusher robot]

living on three grand a year (about fifty quid a week) each. But the way the paper tells it, you would think they were living in a mansion with servants. And what precisely does the entire thing have to do with News anyway.

Maybe I misinterpreted the article:


All ten members of the clan share a council house and live off benefits amounting to around £32,000 a year.


Now, I'm no maths professor, and I'm definitely no Briton, around here a "grand" is a "thousand," so it seems to me that would be about 32 grand a year (is about 600 quids a week?) For my USian brethren, I believe that exchanges to around $63,000/year. With $80 rent no less!

Now, perhaps the article is all lies and none of it is real. Maybe there is no such report by the MP's, and maybe the family's greedy attitude of entitlement is completely made up. But if it is real, it's disgusting.

[Kami]

Now, I'm no maths professor, and I'm definitely no Briton, around here a "grand" is a "thousand," so it seems to me that would be about 32 grand a year (is about 600 quids a week?) For my USian brethren, I believe that exchanges to around $63,000/year. With $80 rent no less!

You're certainly no mathmatician. You forgot to divide by 10.; that's £3,200 each a year, making it around £62 a week. And don't try to pluralise "quid" to "quids", it makes my eyes bleed.

[Dean]

Maybe I misinterpreted the article:


Now, I'm no maths professor, and I'm definitely no Briton, around here a "grand" is a "thousand," so it seems to me that would be about 32 grand a year (is about 600 quids a week?) For my USian brethren, I believe that exchanges to around $63,000/year. With $80 rent no less!

I would be in debt if I only had 6.3k a year to live off of.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You're certainly no mathmatician. You forgot to divide by 10.; that's £3,200 each a year, making it around £62 a week. And don't try to pluralise "quid" to "quids", it makes my eyes bleed.

Oh boy.

To think you guys would cite a source less reliable than Fox News. Did you even read the article, Robot? Anyone who has taken basic journalism can spot a rat:
Of course they do, poor lambs. What a damning verdict on our claim-it-all society, a grotesque mirror of the dark television drama Shameless.

This is passed off as news?

On a side note, capital-infested news is just a shill to the advertisers and whimsical tabloid fetishism. BBC, C-Span, and Al Jazeera are much better.

[Bud Struggle]

OK, OK, so the Daily Mail isn't quite the Daily Worker in RevLeft eyes.

But the point still remains that people that don't have to work often scrimp by living in or near poverty than actually getting off their butts and going to work.

If that behavior happens in enough people "after the revolution" we all may be in trouble.

[Demogorgon]

Maybe I misinterpreted the article:


Now, I'm no maths professor, and I'm definitely no Briton, around here a "grand" is a "thousand," so it seems to me that would be about 32 grand a year (is about 600 quids a week?) For my USian brethren, I believe that exchanges to around $63,000/year. With $80 rent no less!

Now, perhaps the article is all lies and none of it is real. Maybe there is no such report by the MP's, and maybe the family's greedy attitude of entitlement is completely made up. But if it is real, it's disgusting.

They are living on an average of three thousand a year each. The fact there is ten of them cramped into that house does not mean that they are any richer for it.

Now perhaps being crammed into a house with nine other people and living on a tenth or so of the average person's annual pay strikes you as great living, but I am not sure everyone would agree.

Those with small enough minds to be fooled by cheap tabloid journalism can easily get mixed up though, wouldn't you agree?

[RGacky3]

The Walfare State and Socialism are 2 different things.