Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Better off to be in work. Yeah, except there is none (save in the South of England) and there's no political will to change that situation. People, generally, don't want to continually pile into the South East, they want to work near to where their family are and where they have grown up because this gives them some sense of continuity. But oh no, you have to move from there if you wish to be in a job that isn't mind numbing or shop-based. That's the Tory way for you. Come and live in Kensington and then you'll vote for us.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    Actually, at the end of Thatcher's reign as Prime Minister, all levels of income were higher than when she entered in 1979. In addition, there are reports which also suggest that the income divide was bigger under the Labour Government (1997-2010) than under Thatcher. I accept that you are referring to the Labour Government before Thatcher rather than post Thatcher but you have to accept that the Labour Government had far more money to spend, which is why they were able to construct so many houses.
    The Labour government in 1945 had more money to spend!?!?!?!?!?! The social divide when Thatcher left office was far greater than it had been in 1979 even if people were materially better off. Which is it to be: a happier, more equal society that is slightly poorer or a fractious, inequal society in which material wealth has stripped out all kind of humanity. I choose the former.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    Of course not! I'm suggesting that he should lie and use them until he's able to support himself. Its morally the best thing to do but if they have allowed him to slip out onto the streets then I see no reason in not doing it.
    In what way is lying to someone about who you are to emotionally manipulate them in any way moral?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Better off to be in work. Yeah, except there is none (save in the South of England) and there's no political will to change that situation. People, generally, don't want to continually pile into the South East, they want to work near to where their family are and where they have grown up because this gives them some sense of continuity. But oh no, you have to move from there if you wish to be in a job that isn't mind numbing or shop-based. That's the Tory way for you. Come and live in Kensington and then you'll vote for us.
    I'm saying that you should be financially better off in work than on benefits and that's something that the Conservatives have been banging on about for ages and are working to achieve. If people can't get a job that isn't mind numbing or shop-based them presumably they have few qualifications. Living in the South isn't this paradise with work for everyone; there are fewer jobs but there are a higher number of jobs available which ask for few qualifications. You also have to take into account that everyone is far more expensive here; we live in a four bedroom semi-detached house but if we moved to Lincolnshire for example, then we could afford a large six bedroom house.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    I could never survive on £20 a week!
    If you had to, you would. I've done it a couple of times over the last few years, although thankfully never for sustained periods.
    Being a student teaches you many things beyond what you actually study. Primarily how to live off very little money.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    The Labour government in 1945 had more money to spend!?!?!?!?!?! The social divide when Thatcher left office was far greater than it had been in 1979 even if people were materially better off. Which is it to be: a happier, more equal society that is slightly poorer or a fractious, inequal society in which material wealth has stripped out all kind of humanity. I choose the former.
    I thought you were referring to the Labour Government under Harold Wilson. My Dad was in poverty during the '50s, where welfare was so tight that he couldn't even be given the bus fare to see his dying brother in hospital. No Government; Labour or Tory during that time went to any great lengths to help the poor. It was only Harold Wilson with his construction of social housing where it really started; Thatcher continued this by helping working class families with 'right to buy' with all levels of income being higher when she left office. It was the Blair Government of 1997 that let things slip and created 'welfare dependency' and allowed the divide between rich and poor to increase because it was better for people to be on benefits than in work.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nothos)
    In what way is lying to someone about who you are to emotionally manipulate them in any way moral?
    That was meant to read; it is immoral
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    Thatche continued this by helping working class families with 'right to buy'
    And that's been a great success hasn't it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    I thought you were referring to the Labour Government under Harold Wilson. My Dad was in poverty during the '50s, where welfare was so tight that he couldn't even be given the bus fare to see his dying brother in hospital. No Government; Labour or Tory during that time went to any great lengths to help the poor. It was only Harold Wilson with his construction of social housing where it really started; Thatcher continued this by helping working class families with 'right to buy' with all levels of income being higher when she left office. It was the Blair Government of 1997 that let things slip and created 'welfare dependency' and allowed the divide between rich and poor to increase because it was better for people to be on benefits than in work.
    There was no Labour government from 1951-1964 and if you think that the Attlee Government didn't go to "any great lengths to help the poor" you really should read a history book or better still read the free-to-view cabinet papers online at the National Archives website. Was the NHS "nothing", the building of social housing "nothing"?

    The right to buy was and is a fallacy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandys1000)
    And that's been a great success hasn't it?
    Indeed popular policy among the working class with the chance to own a house without being stuck in a 'council house'; 2 million houses were sold in this manner
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The 1945 Labour Government founded the NHS and the Welfare state pretty much, so if that isn't helping the poor I don't know what is.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    There was no Labour government from 1951-1964 and if you think that the Attlee Government didn't go to "any great lengths to help the poor" you really should read a history book or better still read the free-to-view cabinet papers online at the National Archives website. Was the NHS "nothing", the building of social housing "nothing"?

    The right to buy was and is a fallacy.
    I'm aware of that but the policies Attlee put in place were not seriously reformed by the Conservatives in the '50s. I'm not talking about the NHS or the building of social housing; but welfare and helping those in poverty break out. People who had social housing but were still poor; little was done for them. Means-testing was still at large and there was little income support for people. The Attlee Government only gave employee's more rights and work related welfare rather than the income support a family such as my Dad's would have needed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    I'm aware of that but the policies Attlee put in place were not seriously reformed by the Conservatives in the '50s. I'm not talking about the NHS or the building of social housing; but welfare and helping those in poverty break out. People who had social housing but were still poor; little was done for them. Means-testing was still at large and there was little income support for people. The Attlee Government only gave employee's more rights and work related welfare rather than the income support a family such as my Dad's would have needed.
    Actually, the Conservatives broke with what Labour were doing and promoted the construction of housing by the private sector thereby shrinking the amounts available socially. This was what prompted Harold Wilson's great investment in the 1960s. But it was also the Conservatives which started to sell off railways and close down heavy industry - particularly in the North East and South Wales where mining still accounted for employment of many. The shift of emphasis in power generation from coal to oil meant that jobs were outsourced from the UK to the Middle East - the Tory policy there. So, I'm sorry but your seeking to blame Labour for the problems of the 1950s isn't historically accurate.

    I'm amused that you overlook James Griffiths' 1946 National Insurance Act which ushered in a welfare state based on putting something in to get something out.
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Actually, the Conservatives broke with what Labour were doing and promoted the construction of housing by the private sector thereby shrinking the amounts available socially. This was what prompted Harold Wilson's great investment in the 1960s. But it was also the Conservatives which started to sell off railways and close down heavy industry - particularly in the North East and South Wales where mining still accounted for employment of many. The shift of emphasis in power generation from coal to oil meant that jobs were outsourced from the UK to the Middle East - the Tory policy there. So, I'm sorry but your seeking to blame Labour for the problems of the 1950s isn't historically accurate.

    I'm amused that you overlook James Griffiths' 1948 National Insurance Act which ushered in a welfare state based on putting something in to get something out.
    Wasn't that 1946, the assistance act being 1948?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    Wasn't that 1946, the assistance act being 1948?
    Yes, my bad!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    Indeed popular policy among the working class with the chance to own a house without being stuck in a 'council house'; 2 million houses were sold in this manner
    And now Britain has a huge dearth of social housing, as evidenced by Dayne a few posts back. Social housing was designed to give decent housing to those who could otherwise not have afforded it. Selling it off at massively discounted prices to those who evidently no longer required it was a huge mistake that will take a lot if investment to put right.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The right to buy has never sat very well with me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sandys1000)
    And now Britain has a huge dearth of social housing, as evidenced by Dayne a few posts back. Social housing was designed to give decent housing to those who could otherwise not have afforded it. Selling it off at massively discounted prices to those who evidently no longer required it was a huge mistake that will take a lot if investment to put right.
    It was not a huge mistake as it allowed working class families living in social housing to break out of that and own a house. The Government after Thatcher should have concentrated on constructing more social housing and affordable housing; if they had done that then we would have the crisis that we do now.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Actually, the Conservatives broke with what Labour were doing and promoted the construction of housing by the private sector thereby shrinking the amounts available socially. This was what prompted Harold Wilson's great investment in the 1960s. But it was also the Conservatives which started to sell off railways and close down heavy industry - particularly in the North East and South Wales where mining still accounted for employment of many. The shift of emphasis in power generation from coal to oil meant that jobs were outsourced from the UK to the Middle East - the Tory policy there. So, I'm sorry but your seeking to blame Labour for the problems of the 1950s isn't historically accurate.

    I'm amused that you overlook James Griffiths' 1946 National Insurance Act which ushered in a welfare state based on putting something in to get something out.
    I'm blaming Labour for the poverty in the 1950's because they claim to have created the 'welfare state' when in reality they only created a 'welfare state' in the workplace. They did little to support people already in social housing who were short of money through income support. The Conservatives during the '50s encouraged the private sector to construct houses and privatised the railways which would have created work in the private sector; thus creating revenue for the Government. The mistake made was not using that revenue to construct social housing.

    Again, I am talking about what Labour did (or in this case what they didn't do) for people already in social housing at that time and struggling to survive.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    I'm blaming Labour for the poverty in the 1950's because they claim to have created the 'welfare state' when in reality they only created a 'welfare state' in the workplace. They did little to support people already in social housing who were short of money through income support. The Conservatives during the '50s encouraged the private sector to construct houses and privatised the railways which would have created work in the private sector; thus creating revenue for the Government. The mistake made was not using that revenue to construct social housing.

    Again, I am talking about what Labour did (or in this case what they didn't do) for people already in social housing at that time and struggling to survive.
    The Conservatives didn't privatise the railways ... until the 1990s. You seem to forget that Labour came to power in 1945 when the need to rebuild Europe after the Second World War was a priority. You forget also that the Americans called in their loans at the end of the 1940s and sent Britain into a devaluation crisis which it struggled to get out of. Your claims are historically inaccurate and would seem to lay the blame, which is appropriately levelled at the Conservative governments of the 1950s, squarely on the Labour government of 1945-1951 which is factually impossible.

    But what did they not do exactly? Your claims here are very, very vague.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.