State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[teamsaint]

Quote Originally Posted by teamsaint View Post

some day, when it is needed, the powers that be will decide the time is ripe for real inter generational economic warfare, as part of the endless divide and rule policy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/think...e-screwed.html

is just a taster.

People who see the world that way might very well see PFI as one part of that problem

I have no idea what you mean by this.

the clue is in "Divide and Rule."

I'm sure you have come across kids who are starting adult working life with mountains of debt from Uni loans, and who see things like home ownership as aspirations for those with extrememley well paid jobs, or wealthy and supportive parents

[jean]

I have no idea what this has to do with PFI.

[teamsaint]

I have no idea what this has to do with PFI.

PFI is surely about mortgaging the future?

no such thing as a free lunch? the bill was always going to have to be picked up down the road.....by future generations .

[jean]

Well yes, I certainly agree with that - but what has it got to do with divide & rule?

[teamsaint]

Well yes, I certainly agree with that - but what has it got to do with divide & rule?

Divide and rule is a key tactic for governments. Breaking the Unions, and so on.

No reason at all why governments can't use it in a generational way. Some people might see it as happening already.

Rich people keeping winter fuel allowances, while benefits are cut for young people, for instance, would be a small example.


Governments are having to kick the financial can down the road, and PFI is an important example.
So, in order to keep todays older voters happy, financial bills are being left for the young to pick up, would be the argument.

[jean]

PFI is not an intergenerational thing. We are paying now. All of us.

It is being made to appear that we aren't borrowing the money - that is all.

[Serial_Apologist]

Well yes, I certainly agree with that - but what has it got to do with divide & rule?

It has to do with scapegoating, doesn't it?

Somebody is to blame people suffer when capitalism goes wrong, and looks like continuing to do so for the forseeable future, and the right-wing press can always be relied on to make sure it isn't those who benefit most from capitalism's systemic contradictions who are to be picked on, whoever the easiest to target may be. Yesterday it was trade unions, today immigrants; tomorrow, who knows? Elderly folk for grabbing what they could when times appeared to be good? These ideas are already on the preparation slab.

[Serial_Apologist]

In the case of PFI though, we are paying now.

But "we" will be paying for the next 20 + years - plenty of time to build up resentment.

[ahinton]

Rich people keeping winter fuel allowances

The LibDems (remember them?) have indicated their intention to phase this out (when they can form a majority government?!) but seem not to have thought through the fact that effectively means-testing it would cost considerably more than not doing so and dealing with all the errors that will inevitably arise from introducing such a means-tested arrangement will cost more again. The same thing could as well be said for other privileges for the over-60s such as bus passes, HNS prescriptions et al.

[jean]

It has to do with scapegoating, doesn't it?

No, I don't think the particular example of PFI has anything to do with scapegoating.

Without PFI we would have been paying interest on the money we'd borrowed to build the hospitals and schools anyway - no getting out of that. We (and our descendants) just wouldn't have been paying nearly so much.

And if the young resent the pensions the elderly enjoy, and the houses they were able to buy when they were young themselves, I doubt if it was any government's policy to cause that resentment. What could they hope to gain by it?

Shifting blame onto unions or immigrants seem to me to be different cases entirely.

[teamsaint]

No, I don't think the particular example of PFI has anything to do with scapegoating.

And if the young resent the pensions the elderly enjoy, and the houses they were able to buy when they were young themselves, I doubt if it was any government's policy to cause that resentment.

policies that fail to control rents, (disproportionately hitting the young), massive hikes in tuition fees, decisions to keep allowances for wealthy pensioners, cutting housing benefits for the young, failure to invest enough in social housing, (after the council house sell off)...these are all deliberate political acts, whose effect on the young is pretty predictable.

decent private sector pensions are also something that have pretty much disappeared for huge numbers younger workers, and again could have been made mandatory by governments.

The resentment inevitably follows.

Personally,( and I am 52) I resent the fact that I will have to work at least 3 years longer than people 10 years older than me did before I get a state pension.
Not my choice, a deliberate policy.

PFI deliberately kicked the financial can down the road. That was the point of it. Younger people will feel the pain of that more than older people.

[jean]

...these are all deliberate political acts, whose effect on the young is pretty predictable....The resentment inevitably follows...

It doesn't mean that causing the resentment was part of the policy in the first place.

Inducing the electorate to hold the unions or immigrants directly responsible for any difficulties they suffer is a policy that might produce direct political gains.

Inducing the young to resent their elders isn't. I've asked already - what could a government hope to gain by it?

[teamsaint]

It doesn't mean that causing the resentment was part of the policy in the first place.

Inducing the electorate to hold the unions or immigrants directly responsible for any difficulties they suffer is a policy that might produce direct political gains.

Inducing the young to resent their elders isn't. I've asked already - what could a government hope to gain by it?

I can think of a lot of things that a government (and importantly their paymasters) might gain, directly or indirectly.
I'm sure you can too.

But buying the votes of older voters would be one. Putting a focus on minor inter generational stuggles, ( like heating allowance for the wealthy) to distract from big issues like wage deflation and attacks on collective bargaining might be another.

They are a machiavellian and manipulative lot up in whitehall,as you are doubtless aware.

There is a pretty thin line between a policy which is likely to cause resentment, and a deliberate attempt to create that resentment. Non existent , very often, I would suggest.


as an example: attack housing benefits for under 25s and you hit a small number of people, many of whom don't vote.
Hit pensions, and you hit a huge number.

[jean]

...as an example: attack housing benefits for under 25s and you hit a small number of people, many of whom don't vote.
Hit pensions, and you hit a huge number.

That's an example - you say so yourself - of a government favouring those most likely to vote. Nothing more.

[teamsaint]

That's an example - you say so yourself - of a government favouring those most likely to vote. Nothing more.

No because it has other effects, like resentment, and consequent blame games/scapegoating/diversion.