An alternative Queen's speech.

Thanks for that link dj. I was unaware of this programme but have signed the petition and note that in the short time since it was started, fewer than 2000 signatures are now needed to hit the 15000 target.

It's very disturbing to think that the BBC feel that this type of programme is what the public want to watch. I abhor the exploitative aspects. I wonder how many people will be tempted to participate because they are desperate for money. How humiliating

I know it would be their choice to enter the competition, but if they're desperate they would be willing to try anything.

It occurs to me that although the 'winnings' are, presumably, not taxable, their benefits may be affected because it will take them over whatever the threshholds currently are? So they wouldn't actually gain in the end. Not sure about that . . .

Over 12000 signatures on this petition.

www.change.org/p/the-bbc-stop-the-bbc-s-hunger-games-style-show

You just have to look at the Benefits Street style programmes to see how the poor are humiliated. To see poverty as a game show is despicable in my opinion. Those in power will not be saying let's put up the minimum wage so they have enough to live on.

At the same time, the government is trying to get rid of the unions so that there will be nobody to stand up for workers' rights.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/05/29/the-government-are-trying-to-kill-off-the-trade-union-moveme

I wonder if like the first Big Brother programme, which was in Holland, this could be a serious social experiment. It might highlight the real difficulties faced by those earning such low wages, if it's on over a number of weeks.

I'd be surprised and appalled if the BBC was really setting up the low-waged to make fools of themselves and be humiliated in order to win £15,000.

www.change.org/p/the-british-broadcasting-corporation-stop-exploiting-the-poorest-in-society-for-cheap-entertainment

There is a petition to stop it.

Simply needs ignoring - that will soon be dropped.

Good grief dj that is disgraceful.

In the queen's speech there was mention of keeping tax below 30 hours minimum wage. Apparently 44% of workers earn less than the tax threshold at the moment.

The BBC is going to do a Hunger Games programme to set off those earning less than £15,500 against each other.

"The BBC has defended a new TV reality show pitting unemployed and low-paid workers against each other for a cash prize, which has been accused of echoing film the Hunger Games, arguing it is a “serious social experiment”.

The show, called Britain’s Hardest Grafter, is seeking 25 of Britain’s poorest workers with applications limited to those who earn or receive benefits totalling less than £15,500 a year.

The five-part BBC2 series will pit contestants against each other in a series of jobs and tasks with the “least effective workers” asked to leave until one is crowned champion.

The winner will receive a cash prize of about £15,500, the minimum annual wage for workers outside London."

Not quite sure where they get the £15,500 as minimum wage. I worked that out to be on a 46 hour week.
I think it's an appalling idea. There are too many reality programmes that put down the poor. Don't they need a bit of dignity? It's a cheap prize, too.

Keir Starmer's maiden speech was on the Human Rights Act.

www.theguardian.com/law/2015/may/28/keir-starmer-defends-human-rights-act-in-maiden-commons-speech

Gove said he'd heard stuff straight out of Dickens. Rich coming from him.

mediareform.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=ca407d4765e6b4879b06b0d5b&id=6b3a3c9727&e=418311f20a

I do not think media and TV censorship is a good idea, either.
Sign this if you agree.

Thanks, dj.

dj - do you see all Tory MPs as one mass.

Do you see all Tory voters as one mass?

There is a crackdown on political campaigning and funding by unions, but not by employer organisations. Gagging laws restrict campaigning by civil society organisations and charities, but commercial lobbying is still allowed.

Cameron wants to restrict all union rights, but does not do similar on the right of politics.

What does this sentence mean, please, dj?

I tell you what, I'll leave this thread to you, shall I, and put my sarcastic comments, as you call them, on the other thread.
If you find my comments tedious, do not respond. If you do, I'll just be more sarcastic. You obviously enjoy that.

So will I. Making points is fine, but the sarcasm is getting tedious.

If you want to be nice about the Queen's speech, you can always go on my original thread, which GNHQ decided to adopt. On here, I'll say what I want.

What's a psychoactive drug? I am drinking one at the moment. I bet some of you are as well. Anti-depressants, anyone? They are psychoactive, too.

Here we go again..........

If that's what you believe dj

OFGS...

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/05/27/the-government-just-banned-everything

Definitely alternative. Does the government know what it said?
It wishes to protect hardworking families from drugs. Does that mean that anyone who is not hardworking can continue to take them?

The restrictions on union funding were not in the manifesto. Cameron wants to restrict all union rights, but does not do similar on the right of politics.
Another example of not being the party for all people.

Thinking a bit more about the speech - really it was a sort of cut down version of the Tory manifesto, plus all the wild un-costed promises he made when he thought he may be losing the election. I am sure that some of it DC never thought he would be presenting as everyone thought that if he did get anywhere near a majority it would be with the Libs. So some of the stuff he promised before the election he probably thought that he would not get through. Be very interesting now to see how it all progresses.

Thanks for the explanation, Lara. It's the same link as on the original thread, so really you should have read it. But never mind, at least you have realised now.

I quite often put links to taxresearch, jingl, because I think the man who runs it actually has more of an idea about how to run the economy for all the population than Osborne does.

I admit to being biased, grannyonce, and there's nothing wrong with that. I think you are biased as well. If people all agreed there would be no point in politics, would there? I do not think that what Richard Murphy says is childish. I think the government acts in a much more childish way by pretending to be the party for all people whilst saying they will take money away from those who do not have it, as in welfare cuts.