Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Reelya]

Conversely: being given dry "facts" without the context of how the changes will actually affect people's lives can be misleading in a different way.

but the article main thrust of the article, is actually about how the government and corporate media have colluded with fear tactics to turn segments of the working-class against each other, over the cuts. That's a real tangible thing, and not some emotional conspiracy-theory.

Blame the public sector workers, then turn on the unemployed, then blame immigrants. Common pattern in Australia under the "Liberal" party (tories) and also happening now in UK under the Conservatives.

[lordcooper]

Conversely: being given dry "facts" without the context of how the changes will actually affect people's lives can be misleading in a different way.

Perhaps, but that should always come afterwards and is often blatantly obvious.

E: It seems you have no interest in providing actual information, so I have little interest in discussion (and indeed, little to discuss.)

[Reelya]

The article is about how successive groups have been turned against each other and demonized. You're the one unwilling to discuss any of the actual issues.

if you have no interest, don't discuss at all. That's just trolling then. Nobody forced you to open your mouth. And you have google if you want to dispute what i linked.

[Gervassen]

It was horrifically biased, and you did skirt that issue. Baying, jeering, whooping, mugging the poor, not since 1931, gives babies cancer...

That is some florid purple prose doggerel, and I'd be ashamed to link it purely on overflown rhetorical grasping, regardless of which way it purports to blow.

[Reelya]

Well ... I'd hold that being a bit peeved is warranted given that the current and proposed changes (which kick in next week) will reduce the overall income of the poorest 10% of English households by a whopping 38%:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/27/benefit-cuts-poverty-stopped-experts

[MonkeyHead]

Thing is, the Conservatives are hated by a large section of UK society (quite rightly in some cases), and vitriolic attacks of the kind posted earlier are in some cases accurate and justified. Of course, in the case of that article, the manner in which it is written makes it seem that the whole point of the prose is less about what is being said, and more about how it is being said.

History shows that when in power they act to favour the well off at the expense of the poor. Thier corruent turn in governance is proving to be no different.

[Reelya]

From the Guardian:

The Poverty and Exclusion project reports that 33% of British households lacked at least three basic living necessities in 2012, compared with 14% in 1983. These include living in adequately heated homes, eating healthily, and owning basic clothing items such as properly fitting shoes.

• Roughly 4 million children and adults are not fed properly judged against what most people consider to be a minimally acceptable diet – meaning they do not eat three meals a day, including fresh fruit, meat, fish and vegetables. Over a quarter of all adults skimped on meals so others in their households could eat.

• One-third of all adults can't afford to pay unexpected costs of £500 (such as if a cooker breaks down), 31% can't afford to save at least £20 a month, and 1 million children can't afford to join sports training or drama clubs.

• About 11 million people cannot afford adequate housing conditions and nearly one in ten households are unable to afford to fully heat their home.

that 1 in 10 who can't afford heating, would likely be the same 10% who are about to get a 38% income cut, and the parents skipping meals so that children can eat, is in the actual experts report that came out, it's not just sensationalism. That shows that that part of the original article was all based on verified research.

Also, according to the Guardian article, the current government has been running demonization campaigns against the poor in the UK media, as well as against immigrant and other groups, using colourful ephihets and taunts, so the "baying and jeering" is right on the money.

[Owlbread]

In Scotland we've... sort of found our "third party" that we're comfortable electing without turning 100% against them within 3 years in the form of the SNP. The English don't seem to have such a party. I was thinking about it - I can't think of any party that would act as an alternative.

[Reelya]

Actually, i hear that the Conservatives are a joke in Scotland.

It's probably still a 2-party system in Scotland: except it's Labor vs SNP. What you lacked was a true second party, not a third.

[Owlbread]

Actually, i hear that the Conservatives are a joke in Scotland.

It's probably still a 2-party system in Scotland: except it's Labor vs SNP. What you lacked was a true second party, not a third.

The conservatives and lib dems basically come together to make a "second party". Lib dems are far more successful up here than the conservatives but there are still fairly strong conservative areas, helped by the fact that there are so many reasonably-well-off English people in the Highlands and Borders. They've started voting SNP though.

[Leafsnail]

I asked for a link to unbiased facts, not a link to information presented emotionally from the opposite perspective.

Emotively driven reporting is a scourge that needs to be stopped.  Being given plain facts is always preferable to having them interspersed with subjective opinions with little or no distinction between the two.  See: The Daily Mail, Fox News.

The main problem with The Daily Mail and Fox News is that they literally make things up in their supposedly "news" sections.  The article linked was clearly marked as a comment piece.

[Scoops Novel]

Speaking of third party's. A couple young friends of mine who have depressingly gotten to the point where they think UKIP, while not being perfect, is the best of the prominent options, we're arguing there's no time left for other party's in the next election. What's the precedent? Are other parties gaining significant motion?

[MonkeyHead]

UKIP are only likley to make ground in seats that are already pretty Tory, probably hurting Conservative performance by splitting the vote. If an area is die hard Labour, UKIP will either barely register or drag down the Conservative vote further.

[Leafsnail]

It's like karmic retribution for opposing the AV referendum and I love it.

[Scoops Novel]

Anyone care to answer the question?