Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

'Broken Britain'


Sir Tokyo Sexwale

Recommended Posts

LONG article from the Economist

 

some bits I picked out:

 

IT IS hard to believe that such appalling crimes could have been committed by anyone so young. Two boys in the north of England were subjected to a sadistic attack that caused parents across the country to shudder. The anguish of the children was awful enough. But in a grotesque twist, their tormentor was also a child, not yet even a teenager. The attacks had been carried out “solely for the pleasure and excitement” of it, the judge in the case said. What has society come to when such evil is found in those so young?

 

That was in 1968. Mary Bell, the daughter of a Tyneside prostitute and supposedly the victim of repeated abuse herself, became Britain’s most famous child-killer when, just 11 years old, she was convicted of strangling two young boys. Now, a similar case is causing people to wonder again whether society has gone to the dogs. Two brothers from the South Yorkshire village of Edlington, aged ten and 11, were convicted on January 22nd of torturing and sexually abusing two younger boys in an ordeal that left one of them close to death.

 

The case was highlighted by David Cameron, the leader of the opposition, who on the day the boys were sentenced launched a chapter of his Conservative Party’s election manifesto dedicated to dealing with what he calls Britain’s “broken society”. The Edlington case was not “just some isolated incident of evil”, Mr Cameron said. Connecting it to four other infamous examples of callous brutality, he declared that it raised “deep questions about what is going wrong in our society”. Britain is experiencing a social recession to match the economic one, he reckons.

 

Chief among people’s worries is their security. Under Labour, fear of crime climbed until by 2007 it had become the issue that pollsters identified as the main complaint among voters. (Since then worries about the economy have eclipsed all else.) The heightened fears are a puzzle to criminologists, who point out that over the past 15 years Britain has experienced a steady, deep fall in crime. The statistics are notoriously hard to interpret, but according to the British Crime Survey, the Home Office’s most reliable measure though still far from perfect, crime overall has dropped by 45% since its peak in 1995. A big chunk of that fall is owing to reductions in vehicle theft and domestic burglary, for which alarm manufacturers and increased householder vigilance probably deserve as much credit as the police. But violent crime has fallen too. It is now almost half what it was in 1995, and no higher than in 1981

 

Gun crime has in fact been pretty flat nationwide. Data on knife crime are poor, but some doctors say that they are dealing with more stabbings, and the number of murders involving “sharp instruments” (bottles as well as knives) has risen slightly. Murders using guns increased alarmingly during the first few years of Labour’s time in office, but have since dropped back down. Indeed, the day before Mr Cameron made his “broken society” pitch it was announced that the total number of homicides recorded by the police was at its lowest in 19 years.

 

The number of killings of under-15s has “collapsed” since the 1970s, according to Colin Pritchard of Bournemouth University. Professor Pritchard calculates that in 1974 Britain was the third-biggest killer of children in the rich world. By his reckoning it is now 17th, following a 70% drop in child homicides. To be on the safe side, he did the analysis again, including cases where the cause of death was undetermined; even then the number of cases had halved. He credits closer co-operation between police and social services, which kicked off in a big way in 1979.

 

Less crime, less killing, fewer teenage mums, far fewer fags, perhaps a bit less drink and drugs: why is it that the idea of “broken Britain” rings true with so many, when it seems far from reality? Partly, it is because people’s ideas about the state of society are simply inaccurate: the average voter reckons that four out of ten teenagers have children, for instance, whereas in fact perhaps three in a hundred do. Official statistics to the contrary are viewed with suspicion after successive governments have relentlessly massaged them.

 

Another reason is that other countries sometimes seem to be dealing with their problems more quickly than Britain. It is galling to see Italy, say, cutting back fast on the booze. In America, too, voices of right-wing doom who once urged the righteous to set up firewalls against contagion from the Sodom and Gomorrah around them are now seeing heartening signs there of social “re-norming”.

 

 

 

 

 

there's lots more, if you're interested

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

he's a shameless opportunist c***. and is going to be the next prime minister.

 

goes on a bit but still worth a look.

 

 

A broken society, yes. But broken by Thatcher

 

Cameron is right: society is broken. Labour have failed to fix it, but acute inequality is a Tory legacy

Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett

guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 January 2010 22.00 GMT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/29/social-mobility-inequality-conservative-thatcher

 

David Cameron is right to point to Britain's "broken society" as an election issue. In his Hugo Young ­lecture at the end of last year, the Conservative leader cited in support of his thesis our research that found, in his words, that "among the richest countries, it's the more unequal ones that do worse according to almost every quality of life indicator".

 

Among 21 developed market ­democracies, we found that Britain does worst on child wellbeing and badly on teenage births, imprisonment, drug abuse, trust, obesity, social mobility and mental ­illness. This week brought fresh confirmation of the pervasive and profound inequality in Britain in the form of a 460-page government-commissioned study – An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK – which described a nation in which the richest 10% are more than 100 times as wealthy as the poorest 10%.

 

But where does the blame lie? The evidence shows that almost all the problems that occur most often in the poorest neighbourhoods – including those that make us a broken society – are systematically more common in more unequal societies. Rates are not just a little higher, but between two and eight times higher. Wider income gaps make societies socially dysfunctional across the board.

 

Last October Cameron rounded on Labour, saying: "Who made inequality greater? No, not the wicked Tories. You, Labour. You're the ones that did this to our society. So don't you dare lecture us about poverty. You have failed and it falls to us, the modern ­Conservative party, to fight for the ­poorest who you have let down."

 

But the truth is that we are suffering the impact of the massive increases in income inequality under Thatcher, which Blair and Brown have since failed to reverse. In the 1980s the gulf between the top and bottom 20% widened by a full 60% – much the most dramatic widening of income differences on record. Since then there have been only minor fluctuations under Major, Blair and Brown. The result is that the gap between the top and bottom 20% in Britain is twice as big as among our more equal European partners.

 

Almost all of Gordon Brown's budgets did at least something to redistribute from rich to poor. But because the benefit was entirely offset by the unconstrained rise in top earnings, he can claim no more than having prevented a greater rise in inequality.

 

What happened in the later 1980s may now seem merely water under the bridge. But broken Britain is Thatcher's bitter legacy. Rather than having instantaneous effects, inequality gradually corrodes the social fabric. It takes a while for greater material differences to make the social hierarchy steeper, for status competition and consumerism to increase, for people to feel a greater sense of superiority or inferiority, for prejudices towards those lower on the social ladder to harden, for prisons to fill to overflowing under the impact of more punitive sentencing, and for people to seek ­solace in drugs.

 

Rather than dealing with inequality, some politicians find it tempting to blame "broken families", "bad parenting" and "damaged" children. Science has made huge leaps in understanding how our biology and psychology are affected by early life experiences, both in the womb and after. Children are deeply sensitive to family relationships and the quality of care. However, this sensitivity, and the way it shapes emotional and cognitive development, is not an evolutionary mistake.

 

It exists because early life serves as a taster of the kind of society that we may have to deal with in adulthood. It ­prepares children for the kind of ­society they are growing up in. Are they in a world of rivals, in which they will have to fight for what they can get, fend for ­themselves and learn not to trust ­others? Or will they need to gain one another's trust, dependent on ­co-operation and reciprocity, in a world where empathy and social skills are at a premium?

 

Whether through maternal stress in pregnancy, depression, ­domestic conflict or poor attachment, parents' experience of adversity in a more unequal dog-eat-dog society is passed on, with inevitable consequences for their children's cognitive and emotional development. Early intervention programmes may help but will be needed for ever unless we reduce inequality.

 

Because the children of single ­parents fare less well than children raised by two parents, it is sometimes suggested that our broken society results from broken families. In the revised paperback edition of our book The Spirit Level, we include an analysis of the effects of higher rates of single parenthood on l­evels of child wellbeing in rich countries. The proportion of single parents varies from under 4% in Greece to nearly 30% in Britain and the US, but this bears no relation to average levels of child wellbeing.

 

National standards of child wellbeing seem unaffected by high rates of single parenthood. The explanation is that the disadvantages of single parenthood are largely the result of higher rates of poverty and maternal depression. More equal countries seem to avoid ill effects by providing good services and ­keeping most of their single parents out of poverty.

 

The remedy for broken Britain is to reduce income inequality. Prime ministers who proclaim, as John Major did, that they want to create a classless society, will inevitably fail unless they reduce material differences. Similarly for those who want to give all children an equal chance in life: if the social ­ladder is steeper it becomes harder to climb and social mobility slows.

 

Greater equality improves the quality of life for everyone – not just the poor. Whatever your income or education, ­living in a more equal society means you will be likely to live longer while being less likely to suffer violence or have a problem with obesity. In turn, your ­children have a better chance of doing well at school and are less likely to use drugs or to become teenage ­parents. This is about the quality of life for all of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But...but 'Call me Dave' is an egalitarian - it's clearly shown in his humble background, how he had to fight his way out of the lower east wing of some gilded country estate and struggled at failing and underfunded institutions like Eton and Oxford and how as a result, he's never been able to get a proper job since - he had to get on his bike and look for men to fix his ancestral gates...he KNOWS what suffering is, what 'Broken Britain' is all about does 'Call me Dave' - he's not one to airbrush over his faults...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read an article in the FT (I think) recently about political debate and why AMericans seem to vote, oddly, against their own self interest (if poor and voting republican)

 

It basically concluded that you can be as right as you like but as soon as it comes to stats or having to make any form of argument that might take an explanation (Quantitative Easing vs Cut the deficit), people will believe the simple soundbite. LAYZZANDGEMM, I give you GW Bush.

 

 

and Tory Boy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's correct that there is an ever increasing under class economically excluded that needs help. How he has the gall to pronounce that a Tory government is the one to fix it is staggering really.

but he'll reduce the tax they pay by abolishing the NHS and he'll also do away with that pesky BBC meaning that poor people get another 140 quid a year back in their pockets. he's robin f***ing hood is dave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not due to any cunning or mischievous strategy that he's about to become Prime Minister, it's through his overall ability to smile and keep his gob shut from saying all that very much as new labour dissolves in a rusted bath of it's own toxic green blood.

 

He's how bad new labour have become, so bad that he is going to give them a posh champagne-fuelled thrashing and we'll all watch.

 

F*ckin great innit?

 

Legacy ar5eholes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But...but 'Call me Dave' is an egalitarian - it's clearly shown in his humble background, how he had to fight his way out of the lower east wing of some gilded country estate and struggled at failing and underfunded institutions like Eton and Oxford and how as a result, he's never been able to get a proper job since - he had to get on his bike and look for men to fix his ancestral gates...he KNOWS what suffering is, what 'Broken Britain' is all about does 'Call me Dave' - he's not one to airbrush over his faults...

 

 

Don't be such a lazy c*nt Fyds. He may be an opportunistic waxwork of a politician but his ability to lead or worth as a public servant has nothing to do with his background. Tony Benn (that's Viscount Stansworth, of Westminster School and New College, Oxford) is a prime example of why this type thing is b******s, whether in jest or not.

 

Focus on the fact he's got no policies and seems to think George Osbourne is remotely competent instead- if that man isn't an electoral timebomb I don't know what is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He may be an opportunistic waxwork of a politician

 

I did a bit of work for an event that Cameron appeared at last year, and was chatting to the person responsible for showing him to the venue etc. She remarked that he is very smooth, I agreed, thinking she meant in a smarmy way, she responded "no, I mean he's very smooth", as in no hair on his hands/not a hint of stubble etc. Maybe he actually is a waxwork?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not due to any cunning or mischievous strategy that he's about to become Prime Minister, it's through his overall ability to smile and keep his gob shut from saying all that very much as new labour dissolves in a rusted bath of it's own toxic green blood.

 

He's how bad new labour have become, so bad that he is going to give them a posh champagne-fuelled thrashing and we'll all watch.

 

F*ckin great innit?

 

Legacy ar5eholes.

 

Are you going to vote Tory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be such a lazy c*nt Fyds. He may be an opportunistic waxwork of a politician but his ability to lead or worth as a public servant has nothing to do with his background. Tony Benn (that's Viscount Stansworth, of Westminster School and New College, Oxford) is a prime example of why this type thing is b******s, whether in jest or not.

 

Focus on the fact he's got no policies and seems to think George Osbourne is remotely competent instead- if that man isn't an electoral timebomb I don't know what is.

Tony Benn is an example of an upper class socialist. David Cameron is an example of an upper class Tory.

 

Cameron is pretending that he has transcended his background and can address the problems of 'Broken Britain' (a phrase which translates as 'be scared of the feral poor').

 

the problem with this country is that even in this 'post deferential' age, we still have a large cabal of privately educated, Oxbridge smarmy t***s in positions of power. And before you ask, some of them are in the Labour Party too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony Benn is an example of an upper class socialist. David Cameron is an example of an upper class Tory.

 

Cameron is pretending that he has transcended his background and can address the problems of 'Broken Britain' (a phrase which translates as 'be scared of the feral poor').

 

the problem with this country is that even in this 'post deferential' age, we still have a large cabal of privately educated, Oxbridge smarmy t***s in positions of power. And before you ask, some of them are in the Labour Party too...

 

 

No arguments there. Just think attacking his background all the time is counter-productive and clearly not the only factor in his being such a consummate political android.

 

If another MP was continually lambasted as being unfit for the role because their education and upbringing was considered sub-standard, regardless of his/her ability, there would be a justifiable uproar- it's just lazy.

 

Osbourne is a chinless thunderc*nt though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you going to vote Tory?

 

 

Liberal, probably. They were second last time.

 

Voting against Louise Ellman:

 

Voted very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws.

Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.

Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/louise_ellman/liverpool,_riverside#votingrecord

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If another MP was continually lambasted as being unfit for the role because their education and upbringing was considered sub-standard, regardless of his/her ability, there would be a justifiable uproar- it's just lazy.

 

 

Ever heard of a bloke called John Prescott?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony Benn is an example of an upper class socialist. David Cameron is an example of an upper class Tory.

 

Cameron is pretending that he has transcended his background and can address the problems of 'Broken Britain' (a phrase which translates as 'be scared of the feral poor').

 

the problem with this country is that even in this 'post deferential' age, we still have a large cabal of privately educated, Oxbridge smarmy t***s in positions of power. And before you ask, some of them are in the Labour Party too...

 

 

Most of the Labour cabinet are, aren't they? Don't worry about it. I haven't changed my mind. Labour will win the next election quite comfortably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberal, probably. They were second last time.

 

Voting against Louise Ellman:

 

Voted very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws.

Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.

Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/louise_ellman/liverpool,_riverside#votingrecord

That website is brilliant. I've always like Lynn Jones, our local MP and it's a real shame she's standing down at the next election.

 

Has never voted on a transparent Parliament.

Voted moderately for introducing a smoking ban.

Voted moderately against introducing ID cards.

Voted very strongly against introducing foundation hospitals.

Voted moderately against introducing student top-up fees.

Voted strongly against Labour's anti-terrorism laws.

Voted very strongly against the Iraq war.

Voted moderately for an investigation into the Iraq war.

Voted very strongly against replacing Trident.

Voted very strongly for the hunting ban.

Voted strongly for equal gay rights.

Voted strongly for laws to stop climate change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That website is brilliant. I've always like Lynn Jones, our local MP and it's a real shame she's standing down at the next election.

 

Has never voted on a transparent Parliament.

Voted moderately for introducing a smoking ban.

Voted moderately against introducing ID cards.

Voted very strongly against introducing foundation hospitals.

Voted moderately against introducing student top-up fees.

Voted strongly against Labour's anti-terrorism laws.

Voted very strongly against the Iraq war.

Voted moderately for an investigation into the Iraq war.

Voted very strongly against replacing Trident.

Voted very strongly for the hunting ban.

Voted strongly for equal gay rights.

Voted strongly for laws to stop climate change.

 

 

Excellent shout. Compare that to Ellman and you'd think it was her who was in the wrong party, then you see the line at the bottom:

 

Voted a mixture of for and against a transparent Parliament. votes, speeches

Voted strongly for introducing a smoking ban.

Voted very strongly for introducing ID cards.

Voted moderately against introducing foundation hospitals.

Voted strongly for introducing student top-up fees.

Voted very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws.

Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.

Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.

Voted very strongly for replacing Trident.

Voted strongly for the hunting ban.

Voted very strongly for equal gay rights.

Voted moderately against laws to stop climate change.

 

Hardly ever rebels against their party in this parliament

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No arguments there. Just think attacking his background all the time is counter-productive and clearly not the only factor in his being such a consummate political android.

 

If another MP was continually lambasted as being unfit for the role because their education and upbringing was considered sub-standard, regardless of his/her ability, there would be a justifiable uproar- it's just lazy.

 

Osbourne is a chinless thunderc*nt though.

But Cameron is in the position he is in simply because of his background, education and networks of friends. God knows it isn't because he's talented.

 

And as Des pointed out, Prescott and plenty of other MPs have been ridiculed for their social background.

 

How do you vote stongly or moderatly? Don't you just vote?

Yes, those websites are cack.

 

How do they define "a transparent parliament" for example? It's nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cameron is pretending that he has transcended his background and can address the problems of 'Broken Britain' (a phrase which translates as 'be scared of the feral poor').

 

also translates, as far as the tories are concerned as 'The Daily Express view of this country is the one we recognise and endorse'

Edited by charlie clown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, those websites are cack.

 

How do they define "a transparent parliament" for example? It's nonsense.

 

Like this method here, it seems. Is there a better way of defining how someone voted on the Iraq War and climate change and so on? Or would you prefer that such information shouldn't be available?

 

If you put in some work, we will add new policies to the voting record section. You need to research the policy, and make up a list of divisions in Parliament relating to it and which way the votes go. You can then enter these into the Public Whip site. When you're done, contact us to get us to add it to TheyWorkForYou. You must also be prepared to maintain this list of votes as more related ones are cast in future.

 

Not hugely scientific then....

 

Here:

 

How is the voting record decided?

The voting record is not affected by what MPs and Peers have said, only how they voted in relation to that topic in the house - i.e. "aye" or "no". Votes on each topic were examined, and strength of support determined based on these votes. Follow the "votes" link next to each topic for details. Additionally, in many votes, MPs and Peers are told how to vote ('whipped') by their parties. Since the Whip is secret, we have to assume, like the Speaker, that all votes are free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...