Re~Stirred Forum

We are "among the worst idlers in the world", in a country that "rewards laziness". "Too many people in Britain prefer a lie-in to hard work." Poor productivity is the result of our attitude to work. "Once they enter the workplace, the British are among the worst idlers in the world... We work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor."

So now you know what Tories think of you. It's public.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19300051

Do the authors have lots of experience of British factories and offices? Kwasi Kwarteng went to Eton and worked in finanical services. Dominic Raab is an international business lawyer. Elizabeth Truss was a senior management accountant and economics director of Cable and Wireless. Priti Patel has worked entirely in politics - starting at Conservative Central Office - and public affairs consultancy. Chris Skidmore was a political adviser.

Perhaps someone should offer them a job in an office or on the shop floor for a few months.

Its interesting that one of them is a Patel, remind me, was it not the first generation of Patels who came to this country worked bloody hard and built up successful businesses, surely they and their descendants now class themselves as British...maybe this guy is one of them.

To be perfectly fair to the Tories, and particularly those of Miss Truss's constituency, these were exactly the attitudes they did not want in their local MP. Miss Truss, of course, was parachuted in to what is, or should be, a safe Tory seat for life. We had some discussion of this on the old forum.

SW Norfolk is an odd mix of fenland, marshland and breck, attractive to London commuters because of the direct rail line and because the motorway can be picked up near Cambridge. There is very little by way of industry, and the area is noted, even by East Anglian standards, for the increasing casualisation of labour, low wages, long hours, and high rents - this is why the gangmasters are so ubiquitous in west Norfolk.

The gangmasters were bringing in foreign labour long before our borders were opened, the reason being not local laziness, but because as the area became attractive to the middle-classes labour available for agricultural work increasingly migrated away. You can not buy or hope to rent in that part of the world unless you have regular work and a good income. If you can get work in the processing sheds that dot the landscape, you will work more than 50 hours per week, often longer, for the minimum wage, and, because the odds are that you will not live locally, your hours are increased by travel to work time. Shift and weekend working is normal. This is why the gangmasters prefer foreign labour, which they house, transport and apportion work to (and because they can help themselves to a hefty slice of the workers' wages in payment for these services).

The local Tory party, having its roots in this discrete society, understood it thoroughly. They were exactly what a Tory constituency party used to be. They understood local labour and housing difficulties, and frequently sided with labour against the gangmasters, landlords and employers. They were never devil take the hindmost Tories of the Truss variety, but, of course, she was imposed upon them and her candidacy assured only after much arm bending and packed meetings orchestrated by Central Office. I understand the breach caused then and the strong ill will generated has never been salved, and that the Tory party that runs the constituency isn't quite the same thing as the party that runs the town, parish and district councils.

The point of this being that in parts of the country there does survive a Tory party that - while it will never appeal to the Labour voter - does recognise that it exists in something called a society, a society better united than divided, in which all elements play their parts, is best served by MPs with some connection to it, and can well do without the political wide boys (and girls) with their theories, contempt, arrogance, and sheer ignorance of life's realities as they impact upon ordinary people.

To be perfectly fair to the Tories, and particularly those of Miss Truss's constituency, these were exactly the attitudes they did not want in their local MP. Miss Truss, of course, was parachuted in to what is, or should be, a safe Tory seat for life. We had some discussion of this on the old forum.

SW Norfolk is an odd mix of fenland, marshland and breck, attractive to London commuters because of the direct rail line and because the motorway can be picked up near Cambridge. There is very little by way of industry, and the area is noted, even by East Anglian standards, for the increasing casualisation of labour, low wages, long hours, and high rents - this is why the gangmasters are so ubiquitous in west Norfolk.

The gangmasters were bringing in foreign labour long before our borders were opened, the reason being not local laziness, but because as the area became attractive to the middle-classes labour available for agricultural work increasingly migrated away. You can not buy or hope to rent in that part of the world unless you have regular work and a good income. If you can get work in the processing sheds that dot the landscape, you will work more than 50 hours per week, often longer, for the minimum wage, and, because the odds are that you will not live locally, your hours are increased by travel to work time. Shift and weekend working is normal. This is why the gangmasters prefer foreign labour, which they house, transport and apportion work to (and because they can help themselves to a hefty slice of the workers' wages in payment for these services).

The local Tory party, having its roots in this discrete society, understood it thoroughly. They were exactly what a Tory constituency party used to be. They understood local labour and housing difficulties, and frequently sided with labour against the gangmasters, landlords and employers. They were never devil take the hindmost Tories of the Truss variety, but, of course, she was imposed upon them and her candidacy assured only after much arm bending and packed meetings orchestrated by Central Office. I understand the breach caused then and the strong ill will generated has never been salved, and that the Tory party that runs the constituency isn't quite the same thing as the party that runs the town, parish and district councils.

The point of this being that in parts of the country there does survive a Tory party that - while it will never appeal to the Labour voter - does recognise that it exists in something called a society, a society better united than divided, in which all elements play their parts, is best served by MPs with some connection to it, and can well do without the political wide boys (and girls) with their theories, contempt, arrogance, and sheer ignorance of life's realities as they impact upon ordinary people.

Who doesn't?!

I think there is some truth in those quotes. Perhaps little different to other countries and other times we have in Britain a whole class of bureaucrat-administrators, certainly in the public services and I guess also in some corporations. These people typically work to rule, going home on the dot at 4pm or 5pm. Whilst they are at work, they spend excessive time gossiping at water coolers or in pointless, interminable meetings that fail to come to any decision about anything. When they do get on with their work, they are archetypal jobs-worths refusing to do anything vaguely outside their contracted duties, refusing to do anything other than by their established protocols, refusing to understand a bigger picture than their limited role in the organisation and generally impeding those staff on the 'shop-floor' who get the actual work done.

To idle is a very wonderful thing, and we all do it - whether in the boardroom with our secretary perched on our knee, or in the office/ factory/ hospital/shop. Anyone who doesn't idle every now and again is missing out.

These comments are riduculous really. Yes, there is a culture of working absurdly long hours in certain countries across the globe, such as China, Korea and no doubt other places too.

However, the problems facing the UK are not to do with people being idle. They are the result of structural and global shifts, and the failure of the UK to find its place beyond financial and service sectors.

When and if the UK finds a place in the world again, people will do what's required of them, as they have done before. They will work hard, if rewarded and treated well, but no doubt they will also very wisely find a little time to idle too. Good for them.

Life is more than work and sensible people will always realise that's the case, especially when a slice of the profit they produce is routinely impounded by their employers, who will with great pleasure idle away those profits on an island in the sun.

I cannot find acceptable words to describe how I feel and what I think, of the comments made so casually by tory mp's ,regarding British working people being too lazy to work productively. Tell that to JLR. for example.
I have nothing but sympathy for the workers in other countries , who have to work the clock around to make a wage , that provides enough to live on. while the owners of companies reap the rewards, living a fantastic lifestyle.
Why would British workers want to go backwards?
Offices maybe have a more relaxed environment to work in, however from what I have seen , the layout is designed, to enable, a manager to see who is or isn't working.
Put these mp's in a factory for a week working at a machine 8 to 12 hrs a day{depending on shift patterns} working under a glass
roof , in summer , or in a kitchen ,/ hospital floor/office with no aircon, /tramping the roads emptying bins.
I demand they do the work, before they tell people to work harder , longer, then even longer if the management demands it.
My goodness, they have some neck, voters hope your taking down their names.

Brilliant! Best laugh I've had all weekend!

However I think you shouldn't just write these things without citing your source. I'm sure you know how precious Richard Littlejohn is about people stealing his material.

http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.co.uk/2012/ ... among.html

The above story is interesting with regard to the MPs concerned. I'm sure the foreign trips were a reward for their hard work over the years.

So,a bunch of MP's tell the workforce of the UK that they are lazy & idle,those same MP's who have massive holiday entitlement, free food,a subsidized bar (at their place of work) free housing & other 'expenses'. The people of this country work the longest hours in Europe,the MP's of this country work the shortest hours of any group of workers in the UK, its the MP's who are failing this country not normal hard working Men & Women.I have not a shred of respect for these people,I wonder when they last got their hands dirty doing real work?

Well really when you think about it who gives a f**k what the Tories think about us, and come to think of it who are US anyway?

I give a f**k that this bunch of thoughtless dimwits think they an blame me (me being US) for the countries ills, the worrying thing is that there are people who agree with them.Go to any country in the world,the USA, Singapore, China, India & you will see 'idle' people. There is a reason for this,lack of meaningful jobs, jobs where you are paid a decent wage,wages you can support a family with, this bunch of 'politicians' wouldn't know that though, they are probably to busy quaffing cheap booze in the bars of Westminster.

Here's some more of the same attitude, with the right-wing free-market Policy Exchange think tank trying to cut the standards of social housing, and the housing minister saying their proposals are "blindingly obvious":

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19311364

I wonder if any of the report's authors have tried to enter the private housing market lately, or considered how someone in a manual job in London - and increasingly elsewhere - can do so? But people doing those essential jobs "deserve a roof over their heads but not one that is better than most people can afford".

Andy's opening quote reduced to the "bare bones"

I am quite sure non-Conservative MPs have made similar comments in the past, notably during industrial disputes. Sometimes the words of Frank Field on welfare were rather too harsh for his own party IIRC.

The socio-economic background of MPs has changed significantly in the last forty years, with more professionals (lawyers like Tony Blair or teaching - Gordon Brown), those who have been in quangos and served as "special advisers" (David Cameron & Ed Miliband) and it is now a minority who have ever worked in a factory or business.

Yes this reflects the change in the British economy, but also shows how different our national politicians are from the rest of us. Another indicator of the growing gap between the national electorate and the "chattering", political elite.

That does not mean I am an advocate of occupational P.R.

The sooner the better that the "club" atmosphere and perks of Westminster go. How they survived the scandal of parliamentary expenses eludes me and now in time of austerity even more so.

[/quote] The sooner the better that the "club" atmosphere and perks of Westminster go. How they survived the scandal of parliamentary expenses eludes me and now in time of austerity even more so. [/quote]

Sadly because we allowed them to.

Other than that spot on though. Parliament is a club, and it's revolting. However the atmosphere is a symptom, rather than a cause, of the current malaise. It's the consequence of thirty years of the same, failed economic policies and intellectual convergence between the three 'mainstream' parties. If you haven't got anything important to argue about, then of course it will become like a cosy little club.

There should have been a mass imprisonment of politicians from all parties following the expenses scandal rather than the scapegoating of a handful. But it would have taken serious pressure from below to bring that about. And right now that isn't likely.

Honestly, realistically did anyone think that the tories thought anything else? They have such narrow, blinkered views and short memories so who cares what they say? Does anyone listen to them any more? I certainly don't!!

Fair point, and well made. Maybe the response to this thread should have been pure silence.

The more comments like this, makes me understand, how so far removed they are from the challenges that most people face.
therefore it really is a case that people wake up, then show what is thought of them , when it comes to voting for the next government.
Same as this government is closing the coast guard centres, yet they are first on the sea when needed , as we have seen in the last 2 days in Burnham -on -sea, searching for a four year old boy, so very sadly not found. who will be first on the scene, when there are no coast guards. speaks volumes to me.

The Tories are still only eight or nine points behind in the polls, something which can be made up in an election campaign. So a lot of people still think they are credible, and must be listening to them.

As for thinking anything else, I confess to thinking before the general election that Cameron seemed a genuinely more moderate Tory than his predecessors and that, particularly after the tragedy of his young son, the NHS at least might be reasonably safe with him. I've not made so big a mistake for a long time, and I've been looking at Tories since Harold Macmillan. "You've never been had so good" as the Labour Party altered his (successful) 1959 election slogan.

So yes, I think it's important and necessary to point it out when some Tories actually let the mask drop.

One of the issues that has really got to me is their approach to social housing tenants. Only this week it was reported in the Birmingham Mail that councils are to be encouraged to sell off council homes in the 'posher' areas once a tenant has left/died. The idea being that so-called 'affordable' housing can then be financed and built in less posh areas. In my mind this amounts to social engineering, a nasty, mean proposal that denigrates tenants, inferring they have no right to live in areas like Kensington and Chelsea, Sutton Coldfield etc.

So inequality is perfectly fine so long as it's there within every given community?

I disagree. The last twenty or so years has seen a fundamental change happen in British politics. This article by the New Statesman highlights some of the difficulties the Conservative party faces at the moment.

your right but whats more did you see who would be buying the properties? , developers who stand to gain more money,
Again it is a case of deals from the rich to the rich, and who do the working classes think they are, living where they couldn't afford if not put in a council house.
The whole point of social housing was to build and rent them in all areas not to single people out for ghetto's .
This government however wants ghetto's and a 2 or even 3 tier society , with themselves at the top.

Of course Sally, it's the developers who win out. So, where there was once a home for people who had not been able to buy in an area that's nice to live in, they are to be ousted in favour of wealthier characters. I think it's what the Nazis called 'lebensraum', after they ousted Jewish people from areas they didn't want them to live in.

That is interesting, wasn't it Lord Halifax who wanted to do a deal with the Nazis's? That would be Lord Halifax the Tory, maybe a common theme amongst the party that believes they are born to rule.

If your jaw-dropping logical argument leads policy-makers to ignore the basic economic principle of buy low sell high in the area of public housing, where do you plan to cut to make up the shortfall?

Dom, just think you've got it all about wrong. Why should social housing be sold off to private developers? It's council tax payers that funded the housing in the first place. And then the tenants were paying rent. Council properties belong to the citizens, not private investors.

And just before I go to bed, Tories really don't give a damn that tenants should have a say in what goes on in their area. This sham of Diedre Alden et al, making appearance that they care, is laughable. They really don't give a sxxt!

Dominator are you then in favour of council houses always being only available in poorer area's? there by ensuring council tenants know there place and stay there, never having the chance to live outside their "sink". and be gratefull for it govnor.
If the council houses are offered for sale , then the tenant who has paid rent for years on end should get the chance to buy low sell high. Or pass the mortgage to younger family members. Developers dont need to be gifted by Eaton poxy school boys.
My sister's council house, is in a "nice" area, her long back garden ends at a boundary fence, the property the other side of the fence, is worth getting on for half a millon pounds, the funny thing is my sister has more land surrounding her house, as do all the councill houses on the same road as her, than the inflated half a mill houses , must p em off a bit?

I'm in favour of all areas improving. In my world there would be less demand for social housing and poorly designed eyesore estates would continue to be demolished to make way for more pleasant residential environment.

Er. I'm all for widespread property ownership. It's part of being a conservative.

They might even find it a little unfair. However, life's not fair. On the other hand you help me make my basic point - it's financial insanity for a council to build new social housing in an area where the land for each plot in itself costs six figures. I don't even expect Labour councils to be THAT stupid.