Has this country had it

[Si]

What I am attacking is some 50 years of liberalism which has failed totally, by increasing an uneducated, violent, useless, unemployable, drunk, drugged up, fast breeding, indolent and lawless underclass. Liberalism has achieved nothing in 50 years.

Havent the underclass always been considered as such, even in Victorian times when hanging and deportation were in operation to enforce discipline, not exactly liberal days.

I don't think we can compare the poor of Victorian times - workhouses, children working down mines, up chimneys and mills with no state education to today's underclass with their mobiles and x boxes and seemingly limitless funds to purchase alcohol.

You'd be wrong then...virtually every age thinks itself civilised compared to the previous.

Indeed, you just need to look at the amount of gin that was quothed by the lower classes during the latter IR years. Likewise, allowing children to work or to go into workhouses was seen as a benevolent act by those in power (and the children that worked often thought themselves the lucky ones compared to those who could not get work). All these jobs in in the mills that we've given them, and work houses for the idle, etc - the poor really were spoilt, and very ungrateful too!

Also, you make the mistake of viewing things in strictly economical terms. It is often the case that people have X Boxes, mobiles, etc not because they have a large amount of expendable income to fritter away, but because they see it as a requirement to maintain some sort of feeling of self worth (if you live in a deprived area but everyone else has an XBox, and all you see on TV are people with XBoxes, and all your kids talk about is how their friends all have XBoxes then your choice is to either admit that you are a complete failure as a person and a parent, or to sacrifice in some other area to acquire an XBox). This is something that we have seen in many many societies - social pressure out-trumps practical need time and again.

[Trev The Rev]

You hit the nail on head when you mentioned self worth. This is what we have to get to grips with. One reason why a worthwhile job is so important.

Unlike in Victorian times, people do not go hungry in this country today, on the contrary too many people these days are obese. You really can not compare the hardship suffered by the poor in Victorian times to today.

[tatanab]

Also, you make the mistake of viewing things in strictly economical terms. It is often the case that people have X Boxes, mobiles, etc not because they have a large amount of expendable income to fritter away, but because they see it as a requirement to maintain some sort of feeling of self worth.

What were the equivalents 50 years ago in the 1960s? At that time I was in grammar school with a strictish uniform code. There was no such thing as "brand envy" for trainers or clothes; the nearest being that I lusted after a Parker pen like one of my class mates had. There were no cars owned by 6th formers and very very few had motorcycles. About 10% of the school had free school meals, again with no stigma attached. Yes there were "tribal problems" with mods and rockers, later the skin heads. However I do not recall anything like the routine vandalism and bad behaviour, indeed the general lack of decency that so many people display these days.

[Ayesha]

Decline in 'Common decency' followed the decline of corporal punishment.

Bring back the pillory and the birch rod.

[Trev The Rev]

Also, you make the mistake of viewing things in strictly economical terms. It is often the case that people have X Boxes, mobiles, etc not because they have a large amount of expendable income to fritter away, but because they see it as a requirement to maintain some sort of feeling of self worth.

What were the equivalents 50 years ago in the 1960s? At that time I was in grammar school with a strictish uniform code. There was no such thing as "brand envy" for trainers or clothes; the nearest being that I lusted after a Parker pen like one of my class mates had. There were no cars owned by 6th formers and very very few had motorcycles. About 10% of the school had free school meals, again with no stigma attached. Yes there were "tribal problems" with mods and rockers, later the skin heads. However I do not recall anything like the routine vandalism and bad behaviour, indeed the general lack of decency that so many people display these days.

I went to school in through the sixties and early seventies. The headmaster would send a boy round the school to give permission to remove your blazer when the temperature topped 80 degrees Fahrenheit. The biggest fear was the teachers reporting your bad behaviour to your parents. Now the teachers are afraid the parents will come to the school and attack them if they complain about the children's behaviour.

[Si]

Unlike in Victorian times, people do not go hungry in this country today, on the contrary too many people these days are obese. You really can not compare the hardship suffered by the poor in Victorian times to today.

I think that you'll find that people do go hungry these days, but it just tends to be brushed under the carpet for the most part - just like it was for the upper classes in times past, or explained away as the idlers bringing it on them selves. Still too many people living rough, using soup kitchens or food aid, not to mention all of those go without food so that they can afford something else. Sure, general conditions may have improved but the attitude of "well they had it worse than us so we've no right to complain" ain't going to help anyone.

And, again you are looking at it in purely financial terms. The rift between haves and have-nots is just as great now but is much more visible. This highly visible lack of equality and fairness drives social unrest.

[Trev The Rev]

Unlike in Victorian times, people do not go hungry in this country today, on the contrary too many people these days are obese. You really can not compare the hardship suffered by the poor in Victorian times to today.

I think that you'll find that people do go hungry these days, but it just tends to be brushed under the carpet for the most part - just like it was for the upper classes in times past, or explained away as the idlers bringing it on them selves. Still too many people living rough, using soup kitchens or food aid, not to mention all of those go without food so that they can afford something else. Sure, general conditions may have improved but the attitude of "well they had it worse than us so we've no right to complain" ain't going to help anyone.

And, again you are looking at it in purely financial terms. The rift between haves and have-nots is just as great now but is much more visible. This highly visible lack of equality and fairness drives social unrest.

Do you think the scum that attacked the man we were originally talking about were hungry and homeless and on their way to a soup kitchen?

[Si]

What were the equivalents 50 years ago in the 1960s? At that time I was in grammar school with a strictish uniform code. There was no such thing as "brand envy" for trainers or clothes; the nearest being that I lusted after a Parker pen like one of my class mates had. There were no cars owned by 6th formers and very very few had motorcycles. About 10% of the school had free school meals, again with no stigma attached. Yes there were "tribal problems" with mods and rockers, later the skin heads. However I do not recall anything like the routine vandalism and bad behaviour, indeed the general lack of decency that so many people display these days.

If you are trying to paint the '50s as some idyllic time of wonderful social cohesion and progressive society then I'm afraid I'm not going to buy it. It's all swings and roundabouts - as one aspect of society devolves and other evolves. In the 1950s we saw no wanton vandalism or disrespect for one's betters (well that's how many remember it anyway), but on the other hand what did we have? How about overt racism and sexism? We had people starting to come over from the Wast Indies and Indian Sub Continent, who wanted to work hard and contribute towards the good of society and look how they were treated by many ordinary 'decent' people. We had women who were barred from certain aspects of education and from may jobs. Where they did get a job that men also did they were often paid considerably less. Even many of the males in the population could find themselves barred from certain posts because they had the wrong accent or didn't have the right school tie.

Pick virtually any society and you can run a whole host of horrendous problems ups it's flag pole and suggest that it is a society that has "had it". On the other hand you can also select a whole host of ways in which it has improved over past versions of itself. However, it seems that it is human nature to notice the negatives a lot more than the positives (probably because they pose a threat), and so it is also human nature to assume that society has gone to the dogs.

I think that real question should not be: "has this country had it" (because it hasn't - things have been better, things have been worse), but what can we do to improve this country? I don't want to come over all "just call me Dave" and "Big Society", but there are lots of little things that any of us can do that, whilst barely scratching the surface by themselves, may reach a critical mass and eventually make things change. For example, we used to get a lot of crime and vandalism around my allotments - so we started putting on community events and inviting people (inc schools in) and since then the crime has diminished and the feeling of community has increased ever so slightly - not rocket science, didn't require action in Whitehall, just a few people coming together, giving up some time and effort and making it a better place to live.

[Si]

Unlike in Victorian times, people do not go hungry in this country today, on the contrary too many people these days are obese. You really can not compare the hardship suffered by the poor in Victorian times to today.

I think that you'll find that people do go hungry these days, but it just tends to be brushed under the carpet for the most part - just like it was for the upper classes in times past, or explained away as the idlers bringing it on them selves. Still too many people living rough, using soup kitchens or food aid, not to mention all of those go without food so that they can afford something else. Sure, general conditions may have improved but the attitude of "well they had it worse than us so we've no right to complain" ain't going to help anyone.

And, again you are looking at it in purely financial terms. The rift between haves and have-nots is just as great now but is much more visible. This highly visible lack of equality and fairness drives social unrest.

Do you think the scum that attacked the man we were originally talking about were hungry and homeless and on their way to a soup kitchen?

Again, you are being somewhat simplistic. If we are talking social problems then we need to view it on a social level. If you are just talking about it as a single isolated case then you can't use it to prove social problems. Pay your money, take your choice, but you ain't going to have your cake and eat it.

[Trev The Rev]

I understand there has been some success with programs where youngsters charged with taking away and driving without permission have been taught car mechanics. They restore and set up a car then get the chance to drive it on a track.

[tatanab]

What were the equivalents 50 years ago in the 1960s?

If you are trying to paint the '50s as some idyllic time of wonderful social cohesion and progressive society then I'm afraid I'm not going to buy it.

Not at all, it was a serious question. If people have to have X boxes etc to stop them feeling deprived and left out, what was the equivalent?

Maybe the "must have" consumer society is a fairly recent thing and possibly due to historically recent periods of high employment and spare cash leading to a generation that puts entertainment (X box, huge TV etc) higher in their budgets than paying for housing. This is a first hand description from an aunt who worked for a council/housing association and would find people say "I cannot pay much rent this week because I've two lots of Sky to pay for".

[Edmo]

If you are trying to paint the '50s as some idyllic time of wonderful social cohesion and progressive society then I'm afraid I'm not going to buy it. It's all swings and roundabouts - as one aspect of society devolves and other evolves. In the 1950s we saw no wanton vandalism or disrespect for one's betters (well that's how many remember it anyway), but on the other hand what did we have? How about overt racism and sexism? We had people starting to come over from the Wast Indies and Indian Sub Continent, who wanted to work hard and contribute towards the good of society and look how they were treated by many ordinary 'decent' people. We had women who were barred from certain aspects of education and from may jobs. Where they did get a job that men also did they were often paid considerably less. Even many of the males in the population could find themselves barred from certain posts because they had the wrong accent or didn't have the right school tie.

Pick virtually any society and you can run a whole host of horrendous problems ups it's flag pole and suggest that it is a society that has "had it". On the other hand you can also select a whole host of ways in which it has improved over past versions of itself. However, it seems that it is human nature to notice the negatives a lot more than the positives (probably because they pose a threat), and so it is also human nature to assume that society has gone to the dogs.

I think that real question should not be: "has this country had it" (because it hasn't - things have been better, things have been worse), but what can we do to improve this country? I don't want to come over all "just call me Dave" and "Big Society", but there are lots of little things that any of us can do that, whilst barely scratching the surface by themselves, may reach a critical mass and eventually make things change. For example, we used to get a lot of crime and vandalism around my allotments - so we started putting on community events and inviting people (inc schools in) and since then the crime has diminished and the feeling of community has increased ever so slightly - not rocket science, didn't require action in Whitehall, just a few people coming together, giving up some time and effort and making it a better place to live.

<mod: edited to fix quotes>
Si,

I don't mean to ignore the rich 'criminals', as Philtrot rightly pointed out, but never before have there been more folk who have become used to being unemployed AND having more than their basic needs met, folk who have become, I think, instiutionalized in their lifestyle. Also, I would rather offenders changed their ways, wanted to reform, and if they're prepared to do so, then give them help, but if they don't want to, then what's wrong with administering punishment? Even if do wish to reform, punishment ought to accompany. You talk about the 50s: sure we had lots of problems the, but at least offenders were punished more harshly. As regards racism, it hasn't died out: come to various parts of Glasgow where there are lots of asylum seekers and refugees, and you'll discover that it's alive and 'well'.

[Si]

What were the equivalents 50 years ago in the 1960s?

If you are trying to paint the '50s as some idyllic time of wonderful social cohesion and progressive society then I'm afraid I'm not going to buy it.

Not at all, it was a serious question. If people have to have X boxes etc to stop them feeling deprived and left out, what was the equivalent?

Maybe the "must have" consumer society is a fairly recent thing and possibly due to historically recent periods of high employment and spare cash leading to a generation that puts entertainment (X box, huge TV etc) higher in their budgets than paying for housing. This is a first hand description from an aunt who worked for a council/housing association and would find people say "I cannot pay much rent this week because I've two lots of Sky to pay for".

I think that your closing statement demonstrates my other point - practicalities are often trumped by social pressure.

But going back to the '50s, "Keeping up with the Jones's" isn't a recently generated phrase - it's been going on for ages. Of course in the 1950s there was less material culture available than today and a much more restricted media to raise people's ideals, thus the trend may have been less marked. Yet competitive consumption is something that we can demonstrate not just back to the 1950s but for at least 6,000 years in this country. Look at the early Neolithic and you will find a sudden increase in the production of pottery and stone axes amongst other items. Much of this material culture has been been recovered from structured depositions that are clearly not refuse, and much of it was deposited in pristine unused condition. Just like today, people were going to great amounts of effort to acquire items that were not functional, indeed, life could have been a lot easier if they hadn't bothered with these items, yet the acquisition of such items seem to have been one of the most important things in their lives. Similarly we find this behaviour through out history including the 1950s....when private cars and TVs were first trickling down to the masses.

[Si]

I don't mean to ignore the rich 'criminals', as Philtrot rightly pointed out, but never before have there been more folk who have become used to being unemployed AND having more than their basic needs met, folk who have become, I think, instiutionalized in their lifestyle. Also, I would rather offenders changed their ways, wanted to reform, and if they're prepared to do so, then give them help, but if they don't want to, then what's wrong with administering punishment? Even if do wish to reform, punishment ought to accompany. You talk about the 50s: sure we had lots of problems the, but at least offenders were punished more harshly. As regards racism, it hasn't died out: come to various parts of Glasgow where there are lots of asylum seekers and refugees, and you'll discover that it's alive and 'well'.

I fear that in hazing the lines between those who are mealy institutionalised to living off benefits (due to failings in the education system, the projection of false expectations, and so on), and those who have turned to crime, you really run the risk of insulting many, not to mention sounding somewhat like a Victorian mill owner who believes that the under classes are all sub-human and thus deserve all that they get.

As for racism, I didn't say it had died out, merely that it had been dramatically reduced.

[Edmo]

I fear that in hazing the lines between those who are mealy institutionalised to living off benefits (due to failings in the education system, the projection of false expectations, and so on), and those who have turned to crime, you really run the risk of insulting many, not to mention sounding somewhat like a Victorian mill owner who believes that the under classes are all sub-human and thus deserve all that they get.

As for racism, I didn't say it had died out, merely that it had been dramatically reduced.

OK, we have an imperfect education system, but just how has the education system failed those you speak about?. So many youngsters have opted out of education, but I don't think that's the fault of that system. Until recently my wife interpreted for French-speaking refugees and asylum seekers. At a parents' night she commented to the head teacher how good it was to have a separate night for the Africans. The response was that it wasn't a separate night, but that the Scottish parents weren't interested. So many of these (Scottish) youngsters leave school insufficiently educated to fill any jobs that are available. How is that the fault of the education system? There's always someone else to blame.

I've been unemployed, but believe it better to take any job whilst striving to get a better one. I left school literate and numerate, but without formal qualifications. Deciding my prospects would be better with qualifications, I worked hard to get to university. I could have stayed in lower-paid, menial work, not gone for the qualifications, and blamed others, and maybe the education system. I'm not against spending big to help people better themselves, but I do think that many aren't interested in playing their part.