Heartless Britain - will attitudes ever change?

Why do you assume that people doing good deeds are thinking vile thoughts about others? It seems a rather odd thing to say.

Crossed post Pantglas.
Twas ever thus

I don’t see any evidence on this thread Growstuff that anyone feels that others are responsible for their own lack of success. This is most certainly not Conservative value to the core as you claim.
My point was that there are too many variables to judge why a person has lost a job. Of course many lose their job because they are unproductive and just as many lose their job because they are unfortunate. Unless we know the specifics of the job loss we can’t answer the question.
I have come to the conclusion that this is such a broad subject and, while some insist on nit picking a point here and there or being obtuse, deliberately or otherwise, I won’t continue.
A nice cup of coffee and a vanilla slice await. Have a nice afternoon.

“It's similar to making money from slavery as long as you build a library for the community.”

It is also very like proclaiming yourself appalled at the unkindness of approx 2500 people in a survey thinking job loss is down to underachievement and going on to be trebly rude and nasty to folks who disagree, “PippaZ”.......

If someone were to go round doing good deeds while having vile thoughts about those sharing the world with them and this influences government and brings people to the point of destitution because of that view, how does that offset any "good" acts? I would have thought one cancelled out the other.

It's similar to making money from slavery as long as you build a library for the community.

PippaZ

Nope LauraNorder. I have seen both small and larger businesses working in this way. If larger, the "slack" goes both up and down in the comapany, not necessarily to the owner/CEO. It is standard corporate economics. I'm not saying it is the only thing larger companies will do, they will also delay purchases, cut waste and all the things you would expect.

Your suggestion could mean that you lose two/three hands-on people producing the companies product for one manager/director. Losing that job may not be great for the company but it is probably more possible than your suggestion. Perhaps all at "worker level" should go and all management remain? The issue I have with your thinking is that you are still trying to prove those who lose their jobs must be less productive and I think this is an odd view of redundancy and of your fellow human beings.

Businesses have problems, especially coming out of the pandemic, but also at other times, these are to do with the economics, of the business or of the country, sometimes of poor management sometimes social changes but they are not all driven to the wall because of poor workers.

But then, many on here simply cannot see this to be the case and must blame people for the loss of their job. Perhaps because, if they don't there is always the chance it could happen to them and theirs? I don't know, but it is a callous way of thinking about others and generally untrue.

The concept of blame is part of the argument about meritocracy. It is argued that others are always responsible for their lack of success. It's a Conservative value to the core.

So who are these "some of you"? I'm not setting my store blindly by anything.

LauraNorder

Growstuff you do like to home in on small points and not see the whole argument.
Again your own words ‘so you think the survey was all fake news’. Nobody, throughout the discussion has used those words.
Some of you blindly set much store by the survey and some of us question its ability to decide that we are a ‘Heartless Britain’.

Well, thank you for the critique of my thinking processes.

I would say that the concept meritocracy is at the heart of any debate about equality, which is what that survey is all about, so I would argue that I am seeing the "bigger picture".

LauraNorder

Growstuff there is a clear difference between a government expecting you to ‘make your own success’ and a government facilitating the ability to make your own success.

Well, I'm being amazingly obtuse because I don't see it.

PippaZ “However, I would personally prefer to believe the glimpse it gives me of the way people think other than a couple of Gransnetters telling me how kind and wonderful their friends are. One is distinctly more scientific than the other”.

I would prefer to use my own judgement based on years of experience, of reading, of research and of interacting with the human race.

PippaZ you have argued using a defined business model. My comments were covering a broader spectrum. I know that most posters and readers here will be able to see that I was not comparing management and shop floor. I was comparing productive and less productive in the same role, the more productive being paid more on results.
If I have to explain every detail then my posts would be even longer, none of us want that.

Some times it's what you actually do that matters, not what box you tick in a survey....

My thoughts entirely, as expressed yesterday

LauraNorder

Growstuff you do like to home in on small points and not see the whole argument.
Again your own words ‘so you think the survey was all fake news’. Nobody, throughout the discussion has used those words.
Some of you blindly set much store by the survey and some of us question its ability to decide that we are a ‘Heartless Britain’.

I don't think anyone has "set store by the survey". However, I would personally prefer to believe the glimpse it gives me of the way people think other than a couple of Gransnetters telling me how kind and wonderful their friends are. One is distinctly more scientific than the other.

Nope LauraNorder. I have seen both small and larger businesses working in this way. If larger, the "slack" goes both up and down in the comapany, not necessarily to the owner/CEO. It is standard corporate economics. I'm not saying it is the only thing larger companies will do, they will also delay purchases, cut waste and all the things you would expect.

Your suggestion could mean that you lose two/three hands-on people producing the companies product for one manager/director. Losing that job may not be great for the company but it is probably more possible than your suggestion. Perhaps all at "worker level" should go and all management remain? The issue I have with your thinking is that you are still trying to prove those who lose their jobs must be less productive and I think this is an odd view of redundancy and of your fellow human beings.

Businesses have problems, especially coming out of the pandemic, but also at other times, these are to do with the economics, of the business or of the country, sometimes of poor management sometimes social changes but they are not all driven to the wall because of poor workers.

But then, many on here simply cannot see this to be the case and must blame people for the loss of their job. Perhaps because, if they don't there is always the chance it could happen to them and theirs? I don't know, but it is a callous way of thinking about others and generally untrue.

Growstuff you do like to home in on small points and not see the whole argument.
Again your own words ‘so you think the survey was all fake news’. Nobody, throughout the discussion has used those words.
Some of you blindly set much store by the survey and some of us question its ability to decide that we are a ‘Heartless Britain’.

Growstuff there is a clear difference between a government expecting you to ‘make your own success’ and a government facilitating the ability to make your own success.

LauraNorder

Nezumi you stated that a Conservative value is that you make your success.
I disagree. A Conservative value is that all people should be given the tools, the opportunity and the a encouragement to make their own success.

Exactly! A belief in meritocracy is at the heart of UK Conservatism.

I don't see the difference between what you and Nezumi are claiming.

So you think the survey was all "fake news"? Do you think all the respondents were lying?

Just because you happen to be a good-hearted Conservative doesn't mean that there aren't millions of people who aren't. Nobody expects anybody to know every single one of the 66 million people in the country, which is why well-conducted surveys are interesting.

PS. I do recognise some of the people in the survey - in real life and online. For my sins, I've also done election canvassing in the past and I recognise many of the attitudes expressed.

I am a Conservative, I have a good heart, I have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances of varying political persuasions and none.
I do not recognise any of the respondents to the survey in question.
Children in Need, captain Tom’s fund raiser and very many more such events run contrary to the view taken of ‘heartless Britain’.

Perhaps your theory would work PippaZ in a very small business with only two employees where the owner would pick up the slack but in a larger business one expensive but highly productive employee would be worth two unproductive or less productive employees.
The pandemic, of course, throws up a whole different scenario but choices of who to furlough may be the same.

Labour versus Conservatives (hearts) was brought up by previous posters PippaZ , I was just putting my view.

Should have previewed, hopefully you get the gist

Nezumi you stated that a Conservative value is that you make your success.
I disagree. A Conservative value is that all people should be given the tools, the opportunity and the a encouragement to make their own success.

Not if you're business is on its knees LauraNorder, or you believe you can manage for a while and will re-employ at that level when things look better.

The saying that "It is not poor decisions that make poor people but poverty that makes for poor decisions" can apply to business as well as to people.

I would think it would be counter productive to get rid of the highest performing employee even if they are more expensive.