It's not separate from the state. When push comes to shove the establishment tell the BBC what to do.
We've seen this in the 2011 riots. We've seen this in the 2008 banking crisis and subsequent massive wealth transfers. Now we see it with state surveillance.
The BBC is on your side until it matters. I don't care what their charter says, I look at what they do.
The UK is preparing. As living standards continue to fall state surveillance will become more and more necessary to try and suppress alternate views. How long before posting a blog on the UK's intractable deficit and massive private debt is "financial terrorism"?
To be fair, they tried standing up to "the man" once, in 2003 on the Iraq invasion. They pushed the revelations from Dr. Kelly and condemned "sexing up" of dossiers that tried to justify the war, something that is now accepted historical fact on both sides of the Atlantic.
Dr. Kelly killed himself in a field, and BBC head Greg Dyke was forced to resign and pushed in the political wilderness for a decade.
Insert the word "perceived" into that sentence and none of that matters.
Also, ignoring for the sake of argument whether this is actually true, there are numerous possible caveats:
- Living standards could be better now, but also more fragile than at any time in history.
- Average living standards could be high, but with growing extremes and a shrinking middle.
- Living standards in a historical perspective are 100% irrelevant to someone who is currently living half the lifestyle they did five years ago because their industry dried up and they have to serve food for a living.
It is certainly true that a common political tactic is to attempt to convince people that there was some time in the past when they were better off than today. Remarkably, people are far more willing to believe this (even in the face of all the data which inevitably shows it isn't true - in the UK we've been on a near-vertical climb for a century with even the recent economic messes being little more than a quiver), than they are willing to believe that things could be made better in the future.
There are plenty of places in the world where living standards are low. The UK is not one of them. If you live here, even if you are the poorest person in the country, you are rich beyond the dreams of half the population of the world.
I'm not buying into any of this "life is terrible, you should give me more" meme.
"If you live here, even if you are the poorest person in the country, you are rich beyond the dreams of half the population of the world"
Really? Have you ever been in The Work Programme? Have you ever visited a food bank? Have you ever had neighbours pleading with you for food for their children because they have no money? You can prefer to live inside of a cosy bubble of ignorance if you wish, but this is the UK in 2016.
The answer to all of your questions is approximately yes (names vary). I've also done a lot of work to address these problems when they come up, and I've read the data on the current state of the economy. How many of these things have you done?
Have you ever had people pleading with you for food/money and, instead of berating people on the internet, got them into the drugs treatment programme that they desperately needed? Have you ever got people to correctly file appeals when the jobcentre made a mistake and didn't give them the money they were entitled to? Have you ever taught people the skills they need to be productive members of society and provide for themselves?
Because I've also done all of those things on multiple occasions, and I think I have a much better sense of the problems that we face than you do. I also think that your refusal to admit these are the real problems and put work into fixing them is one of the major reasons why we still have them. It's very easy to say "I want more, it's not fair", and much harder to figure out why things aren't working when there's plenty for everybody and get something done about that.
So, this is true, and after acknowledging this. I find it very hard to buy into the stuff about the 1%, because to the rest of the world I am (and my kids are) the 1%.
However, having said that, I do notice the "shut up, you're doing better than before" argument is only ever used on those at the bottom of the heap asking for more equality. No one ever seems to use it to respond to people complaining about progressive tax rates on the wealthy for example, despite it being even more true for them.
I've dug into this in more detail in some past political events, and I've always found that the people making the strongest "there should be more for me" demands had incomes above the median. I never had much sympathy for them, and I do call them on it when I see them.
I can't really do it here, unless people in this thread would care to share what they earn.
> The main flaw in your argument is that living standards are better than at any time in history before now.
For some, yes.
For some, and that growing inequality is the problem. Food bank use and rough sleeping are rising steeply over the last few yeas, and that's not a problem of perception, it is based in fact. But everything is fine for me, so what's the problem, right?
Food bank use is increasing out of certain social classes realising there is free food on offer. Rough sleeping is by choice in the UK; if they want a homeless shelter there are plenty on offer, all government funded. All they have to do is walk into their local council social services and they will be dealt with. As usual, modern leftist opinions love to attack the "welfare state" that they originally helped to build. As though it is crumbling away. It isn't...
Do you have some evidence to support any of this? Sounds like a collection of easy to repeat lines...
I say this because I have actually tried to get a homeless person into a shelter once, only to be told that half them were closed down due to funding cuts, the rest needed a lengthy referral procedure or a £20 payment for the night - aka a normal hostel.
And all this was possible because I had a smartphone on me with internet to look up and call various places. A homeless person without such access has very little chance!
Several of our customers (IT projects) are organisations for homeless. So I can tell you they do exist. Two types of referral exist: from the council, or a walk in from the street. There are also numerous TV shows that document the process. Sometimes it is called "sheltered housing" other times "homeless hostel" and other times "emergency accommodation". It is effectively all the same thing.
Like I said "living rough" i.e. the stereotypical homeless person is basically not a real thing in the UK. They do it because they either choose to do so or have other mental or social problems that prevent them from seeking free help.
>the stereotypical homeless person is basically not a real thing in the UK. They do it because they either choose to do so or have other mental or social problems that prevent them from seeking free help.
I don't know what fantasy world you're living in, but in London homelessness is very real and very present. Go take a walk through the city at night, it's eye-opening.
I've noticed it has become considerably worse (by number of homeless) over the past year or so.
I've edited my post to include the context-- but my point stands. I just don't believe that most homeless are incapable of finding shelter, let alone choosing to be on the streets.
> Food bank use is increasing out of certain social classes realising there is free food on offer. Rough sleeping is by choice in the UK;
That is unsubstantiated opinion (to put it mildly), and does not even address the main point that these examples are intended to show: inequality is growing, and that this causes problems, or that the statement "living standards are better" is not true for many people.
While your statements might resonate with a certain mean-spirited kind of person, they don't even make logical sense - Do you really think that food bank use is increasing because "certain social classes" have found them all of a sudden? Why now? What other forces might be at play at this time that caused it to happen now not 10 years ago? Are there gourmet buffets on offer that weren't there before perhaps?
I also remember reading that during the Alistair Campbell days that the Today program on Radio 4 would get a call immediately they said anything critical of the Blair government. However, these calls would often be answered by someone senior picking up the phone, listening politely for a short while and then the caller (who was presumably calling from No 10) being told to "F*ck Off".
We've seen this in the 2011 riots. We've seen this in the 2008 banking crisis and subsequent massive wealth transfers. Now we see it with state surveillance.
The BBC is on your side until it matters. I don't care what their charter says, I look at what they do.
The UK is preparing. As living standards continue to fall state surveillance will become more and more necessary to try and suppress alternate views. How long before posting a blog on the UK's intractable deficit and massive private debt is "financial terrorism"?