A survey by Kings College into British attitudes to different forms of inequality found just one point of agreement - that geographical inequalities need to be tackled.
By far the most disturbing inequality at the moment concerns unemployment. Nearly 50% think people have lost their jobs because of under achievement. Only 31% think job loss is attributable to bad luck. Apparently, by 57% to 39% Conservative voters are more likely to accept poor performance as the reason for job losses.
Who are these people? Everywhere there are shuttered shops, boarded up pubs, bars and restaurants. Theatres, cinemas and concert halls are closed. Do they not think that the pandemic is the reason for the increases in unemployment? When they see a closed shop or pub do they think that the people employed therein were under performing?
Whenever I see or read about the goodness of people I think perhaps the world is going to change. But then I read the survey and realise that it's not going to.
You are still saying that, during the pandemic, an individual’s level of performance at work is important in determining whether they lost their job at this time.
Not the fact that swaths of businesses are not active or will disappear completely. According to you each one of those people's individual performance - when entire businesses and possibly industries close - is the reason why their job disappeared.
Because your invective makes you sound angry PippaZ and I suspect many people will get stuck on the anger and miss the salient points you make.
For instance I asked you a question, not to be sardonic, but to better understand your point. I barely got to the second part of your response because your assumption that I was attacking you took over. I wasn't, I'm not but I can't be arsed to read any more of your posts because they're a bit exhausting to be honest. Which is a shame because you do often say interesting and persuasive things.
I imagine some people might feel the same about mine.
PippaZ if folks lose their jobs due to the pandemic, which is a real possibility, professional management/employers will go on past performance along with future prospects.
Predominantly I can only guess that the majority of pandemic related job losses will be due to businesses closing permanently.
NellG
Because your invective makes you sound angry PippaZ and I suspect many people will get stuck on the anger and miss the salient points you make.
For instance I asked you a question, not to be sardonic, but to better understand your point. I barely got to the second part of your response because your assumption that I was attacking you took over. I wasn't, I'm not but I can't be arsed to read any more of your posts because they're a bit exhausting to be honest. Which is a shame because you do often say interesting and persuasive things.
I imagine some people might feel the same about mine.
Where are the insults, the abuse, the swearing and the expletives in my posts NellG. You go to far.
I did not suggest you were attacking me - although you now appear to be - but that I had been attacked.
Your posts to me seem to be personal rather than about the subject. I will not be bothering to reply to any more. Rude would be a polite word for this last one.
GrannyGravy13
PippaZ if folks lose their jobs due to the pandemic, which is a real possibility, professional management/employers will go on past performance along with future prospects.
Predominantly I can only guess that the majority of pandemic related job losses will be due to businesses closing permanently.
Predominantly I can only guess that the majority of pandemic related job losses will be due to businesses closing permanently.
Exactly, and it is often the case that employees lose their jobs, as I cited in a previous post, because of the economic and societal changes but, it often appears, blame must be attributed. How does it help?
Opinions in the survey are far more complex than the snippets quoted here (or in the media) I would recommend reading the report itself at www.gransnet.com/forums/news_and_politics/1292329-Heartless-Britain-will-attitudes-ever-change particularly the the opinions of furlough and job losses in sections from 4.2 to the end of 4.4 (pages 63 to 70)
That link should have been www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/unequal-britain.pdf I have no idea why it ended up as it did.
Pippa " How does it help?" If all must lose their jobs, there is no reason to measure the value of one employee over another, but if some must be let go and some kept on, the employer needs some kind of yardstick if they are choose to retain those who might be expected to help the business get back on its feet in the future. Would you fire the dedicated and flexible workers and keep on those whose past performance predicts that they will not be an asset?
This was a survey of attitudes Elegran, and attitudes do matter. Being seen as feckless or a poor worker, both of which we hear said without any relevant proof, only does something for the speakers - absolutely no one else. The report also looks at attitudes to inequalities and the blindness to how this can affect people's prospects over a lifetime is also something I find shocking.
The suggestion that benefit claimants are scroungers, unemployed are workshy or were laid off because of their low productivity comes straight from the pages of The Daily Express, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph and The Sun, all of which condition their regular readers to support the Tory Party.
How do,you suggest we bring about a change in people’s attitudes PippaZ ?
When did anyone say that opinions and attitudes didn't matter? I've not said that or seen it. And who said people were sacked as they were "seen as feckless or a poor worker *without any relevant proof*" ? That was an assumption. If they are dismissed wrongfully that is a different and further point and one for them to take up with their unions.
By the way, there are some feckless poor workers around. Even the unions recognise that. Those few colour opinions and attitudes toward the majority. If every single worker were efficient and hard-working, these generalisations would not have caught hold and been expressed in the survey.
I have come across a lot of young people that have the utmost sympathy for anyone from a foreign land who is in need but none for anyone in this country who are in need.
PippaZ
I'm just wondering why you would think I would espouse socialist views?
Because you appear to be so anti Conservatives.
JaneJudge
I feed the pigeons, I sometimes feed the sparrows too
It gives me a sense of enormous well-being and then I'm happy for the rest of the day safe in the knowledge there will always be a bit of my heart devoted to it
Get some park life mate! ?
I think it would make people happier all round.
I agree GrannyRose ?? As other posters say, tired old stereotyping going on as usual.
GrannyRose15
PippaZ
I'm just wondering why you would think I would espouse socialist views?
Because you appear to be so anti Conservatives.
Hmmm. A bit simplistic GrannyRose.
The suggestion that benefit claimants are scroungers, unemployed are workshy or were laid off because of their low productivity comes straight from the pages of The Daily Express, The Daily Mail, The Telegraph and The Sun, all of which condition their regular readers to support the Tory Party.
Varian I read the Daily Mail and, on occasion the Daily Telegraph, and I can only suppose that each paper brings out a special edition to sell to those who say they never read these papers, so that they can have their prejudices confirmed.
The only times you see any of the subjects you talk about in those papers, is , occasionally on the letters page. As for conditioning their readers to vote Tory! I have been reading the DT off and on since childhood and the DM for 30 years and I have never once voted Conservative, or even been tempted to do so, so they cannot be doing it very well.
Of course I do not agee with all their editorial positions and views, but that equally applies to The Guardian, the Times and the i. Of the others (Sun etc) I can offer no opinion because I do not read them.
I suggest M0nica that it is not those like you who read a range of papers who are. most likely to be steered in one political direction. but those whose daily reading is from one source. as numerous studies have confirmed.
The survey of a 30,000-strong online panel found that only 41 per cent of those who said they do not read a newspaper voted Leave (versus 52 per cent of the general population).
Press Gazette analaysis has found that overall, national press coverage was strongly weighted in favour of Leave in the month leading up to the referendum.
Four national newspaper titles were found to be strongly biased in favour of Leave through their choice of front-page stories: the Daily Express, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and The Sun.
Data from the British Election Study found that some 70 per cent of Sun and Daily Express readers voted Leave in the referendum, followed by 66 per cent of Daily Mail readers, 55 per cent of Daily Telegraph readers and 44 per cent of Daily Mirror readers.
A report by NatCen, called Understanding the Leave Vote, said: “The balance of pro- and anti- Leave positions of the newspapers was important given how many people read them, particularly the popular press. It is interesting to note that, when it came to the EU Referendum vote, people were more likely to follow the position of the newspaper they read than the political party they identify with.”
Yes but did they vote leave because they read the paper or did the papers support leave because they were reflecting their readers views and did not want to lose readers.
Given that Labour never did make its mind up on the referendum, it is not surprising that the paper people chose to read had more effect than the party they identified with.
A study has shown how The Daily Mail
The Sun and particularly the Daily Express spent years inciting antipathy towards immigrants to steer their readers towards a leave vote.
www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/26/migrants-are-off-the-agenda-for-the-uk-press-but-the-damage-is-done
www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/26/migrants-are-off-the-agenda-for-the-uk-press-but-the-damage-is-done
PippaZ
GrannyRose15
PippaZ
I'm just wondering why you would think I would espouse socialist views?
Because you appear to be so anti Conservatives.Hmmm. A bit simplistic GrannyRose.
The papers had absolutely no effect on my vote. I had made up my mind before the referendum was called.
PippaZ
If I read all your posts again would I get a more nuanced view?
Now I've muddles up my posts. The second one is for PippaZ: the first for those who commented about newspaper bias.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
