Nazi comparisons - please read

[estellyn]

It's very important to have some perspective. Yes, it's a horrible situation for those caught up in the welfare reforms, but currently we at least live in country that has welfare. Even in developed countries such as some states in the U.S. will just take your kids into care if you fall on hard times and lose accommodation (their rental laws are far worse than ours), rather than helping you. In some places there is no welfare, if you don't have work, and have no family to help, you beg, turn to crime, starve or die of illness or disease (no national health care in those countries either).

 

 

And the welfare reforms aren't particularly about hatred - they're about economic ideology and vote winning from an increasingly right wing country, and also about the apathy of the masses. The further right wing the country becomes, the more this type of reform of services we rely on will happen. It's our responsibility, if we disagree with right wing politics to get out there, vote for the most left wing party we can (difficult nowadays), and keep up a dialogue with people we know to ensure that they know the FACTS and not the right wing propaganda, so that they can make their own decisions (whatever they may be).

 

 

To think our current situation is anything like 1930's/40's Germany is pretty stupid and also devalues the real pain, trauma and mass genocide. However bad it is to need to use a food bank, soup kitchen, or be evicted, it is still not any way in the same realm as being abducted, tortured and gassed to death, or being a survivor and finding your entire family ended up in gas chambers. My husband's great aunt had mental health problems in Nazi Germany. And no she didn't have to go through an ATOS assessment and appeal, however difficult that is to deal with - she was picked up in a van for a 'journey into the country' and was gassed.

 

 

So please get a grip, people. Yes, the problems faced by people as a result of the welfare reforms are horrible and difficult to deal with, and I in no way underestimate the pain and trauma experienced by the individuals (to the individual knowing someone else had/has it worse doesn't bring any comfort), but on a national level it really doesn't compare to the unopposed genocide of millions.

[estellyn]

Useful, thanks. I'm so glad I left this thread open.

 

 

Ok, so to try to move to a more productive discussion.

 

 

If the Tory government were to retain power next year, what does everyone realistically (and I mean realistically) see as being the next services, benefits, rights to be reduced, amended, removed. Or do you think it will stay the same. Or to the right wingers, what (sensible) changes would you like to see the Tories make to welfare. And what (realistic) path do these changes lead us down. Are we looking at the eroding away of welfare to bare bones, and the upsurge of income insurance policies for those who can afford it?

 

 

Or for instance are we looking at more stringent measures for the unemployed, like the eventuality of everyone who is jobseeking having to do it from jobseeking centres, which they are required to attend 9-5, with 'passes' to go to interviews.

Edited March 4, 2014 by estellyn
errant comma

[estellyn]

+ 1 of course the press and mainstream media spout propaganda in the governments and the big corporates favour because most are shill's

 

even some of the so called documentaries like Panorama you have ex Tory ministers like edwina currie saying that food banks aren't the answer and that people should get jobs, when there aren't jobs in many areas, or if there are they are underpaid no one will take them,(quite rightly IMO) no one works for nothing, the very idea of spending a large chunk of your life at work ,for me there has to be an incentive of having enough money left after I've paid my living costs , to spend on going out ,socialising when not at work, or being able to buy nice clothes,and all the other things that our politicians and the rich take for granted , but lets not forget according to them were in it together,& everything is ok,

 

 

I disagree in part - we work in order to live - buy food, put a roof over our heads and pay essential bills and the costs of going to work. Buy clothes, yes, but not necessarily 'nice' clothes.

 

 

I do agree that in the course of going to work, no one should be worse off than on benefits.

 

 

Yes, the world is unequal, rich and/or powerful have more than the poor, but the world has been that way for thousands of years - even in early tribes, everyone who was physically able would be expected to do their part, but certain members of the tribe would have more status and power and get more/better food, other items than the lower members of the tribe.

 

 

It doesn't mean that such inequality is right in an advanced society with a developed morality, but sadly we're not there yet.

 

 

We can strive and try to change the world, but need to accept, that barring some sort of global disaster, change will happen very, very slowly. No it's not fair, but the world and life never has been - some win the great lottery that is birth, genetics and environment, and some lose out dreadfully.

[estellyn]

I have nothing against some people having wealth, power and the likes.

Like you say, it has always been so - will always be that way.

Some people work very hard to achieve what they have.

Those that are born into it - well I am sure I would not be looking a gift horse in the mouth if I was one of them.

What I am against is abuse of that power and wealth - what seems the law of the land for the less fortunate seems not to apply to them.

 

I also cannot fathom why some of them want to see us lesser mortals suffer - sometimes I feel it is not even a conscious act, it's as if it is ingrained in them, and they do it because they can (a sense of power).

 

All in all there is NO fairness in the World and waiting for it to happen - well hell as they say, will freeze before that day comes.

 

 

Well, yes, that's power for you. The more power a person has, more opportunity to abuse it. From the man who beats his wife and kids, to the manager who has his underlings do the worst jobs while sitting in the office doing 'paperwork', to dictators who commit genocide. People in power are very good at 'justifying' their abuses. It takes a particular brand of strong morality to have great power and wield it fairly for the good of all.

 

 

ETA: and no the world isn't fair. It is entirely set up for survival of the fittest. If you're born with average drive and intelligence, then environmental issues like abuse or poor education, or physical issues like disability will affect you more than someone with high intelligence and drive who suffers a disability, but had a good childhood and a good education.

[estellyn]

Wow this thread has moved on.

Going back to my sugestion of rationing NHS treatment I know it is emotive and I am not sure how I would feel personally if it was my baby or my parent. To be honest though, is it fair to let a baby who will never be even slightly independent in mind or body live. If I need a new liver and then carry on drinking so the newcone fails should I get it.

My mother has a living will, if she has say a serious stroke she wants to be kept comortable but not treated .

 

Moving on to spending and debt all this can be spun. I believe that labour tried to spend its way out of recession with large capital projects however this can not be sustained for ever. The arguments about how much the tories have borrowed may be unfair as how much of that was already in the pipeline before the election. It is argued that the tories did not expect to win the last election they did under Major and had screwed the econonmy in the hope labour would win have one term and not be able to fix it.

Then of course there are percentages. In a period of growth you can spend more but still spend a lower %of GDP and vice versa so you can use the figures to say what you want.

 

 

Baby euthanasia, can't see that as a vote winner!

[estellyn]

I know not popular but I did not say euthanasia only palliative care.. Big difference

 

 

Hey, don't get me wrong - I'm actually in favour of euthanasia for adults of sound mind. And I believe that medical intervention is used far too often when there is no hope. But I just come at it from a different angle. I don't care how much it costs if a person can be saved. I also don't care how much money can be saved by withholding treatment - it's about the amount of suffering the person experiences. Horrible invasive medical treatments in order to keep someone (whatever age) alive and in great pain and suffering for a few weeks or months is in most circumstances inhumane.

 

 

So no, I don't think the cost saving measure to the NHS should be argued, but we should be talking about the ethics of promoting pain and suffering, and educating people about end of life and dying issues rather than them being things we avoid until we have to face them.

 

 

And I also think that we could take some lessons from other cultures who look after and venerate their elders, caring for them at home, where possible, with family rather than shipping them off to care homes, with financial assistance being provided by the state. This would actually save money, but more importantly would be better for the person being cared for. Family members were queuing up to have my Nan come and live with them when she became disabled (I was awarded respite care), and we wouldn't dream of letting a family member go into care if it could be helped. So I say, keep your old people at home and keep your lawns intruder free. And for no additional cost, get useful wisdom such as 'if you play with eggshells you'll get warts', and 'don't sit on public toilet seats or you may get pregnant', and my personal favourite (after my divorce) 'Lyn, how can you invite a man up to your flat for 'coffee', if you don't have a kettle, and it's not as if you have any etchings to show him either!' (Loved my Nan, she was an original).