Why people will always need to protest

At the Tolpuddle Martyrs museum 2017 

Throughout history people have always had to fight for their rights, rights denied them by the ruling elite, whether those in power be emperors, Russian Tsars, French, or British monarchs, fascist dictators, or unelected EU Commissioners. 

Over time, and considerable struggle, people have achieved a great deal to overcome oppression. For example, the right not to be treated as property, as slaves were until the abolition of slavery in 1833. We also take it for granted today, but it really wasn't that long ago, that only the very wealthiest property owners were allowed to vote in general elections. Men with  urban property got the vote in 1867, while men without property over 21, had to wait until after the end of First World War in 1918 to be eligible to vote. Women without property, thanks to the Suffraget Movement, finally got the vote ten years later than men in 1928. Finally, under a Labour Government, Harold Wilson in 1969 made it possible for 18 year olds to decide who represents them in Parliament, and so the fight for democracy goes on. Today, 16 year olds, while old enough to work, get married and have children, are unable to vote.  It must be right that young people should have the chance to choose who makes the laws that they are expected to obey? Democracy, even now it seems, is work-in-progress.

As a consequence of past class struggles, men and women are now able to vote in general elections and choose, if they wish, to elect representatives that will demand a descent living wage, a proper education, universal health care and to be cared for when they get old. Progressive change would not have happened were it not for the 19th century liberal approach to politics, 20th century Socialism, or people making themselves heard by protest.

In the 21st century, it seems to me an enduring truth that there are two popular views of how people are governed: The Conservative way and the Labour way. The distinction is simple, the Conservative Party exists to look after and maintain the the interests of the owners capital, while the Labour Party's purpose is to protect the workers (the people that toil to create the country's wealth).  Both systems claim  to oppose the ill treatment and exploitation of human beings that existed in the past, and the opportunity to protest, helps ensure that people will never again be slaves. 

There is still much work to do and damaging  inequality still remains in the UK, so until the norm across society is fairness, justice and equality we should take care not to judge too harshly those that stick their neck out to try to make their lives better.

History of Slavery

History of Voting

Equal Franchise Act 1928

Labour's Manifesto 2017

UK Equality Trust

World Wealth Inequality

More on Socialism

Why are people poor?

This article is work-in-progress and motivated by the assumption made by some that if you're poor it's pretty much your own fault and you're probably lazy.  

Your comments are welcome...

 
Some say, that if you're poor it must somehow be down to the bad decisions you've made, or that you're just plain lazy. While it's possible that this is partly true, I want to explore other causes of poverty that more completely explain why living rough, or just getting by is more than an life choice. 
 
Why is it then that the better off argue that the reason why people have less than they do is somehow their own fault?

It could be that the world's financial elite are worried that the poor are sucking up to much of their income in taxes. In theory, this may be true, as middle and top earners do pick up a larger chunk of the governments tax bill, but, as the Panama Papers Investigation has uncovered, by using complicated financial instruments, very rich companies and individuals using clever lawyers, limited liability and tax havens, to minimise what they pay in tax. In practice those in the know are able to choose how much they pay.  

I'm not arguing that hard work is wrong; who would begrudge those working long hours and sweetly paying their taxes, my point is that hard work is not necessarily a virtue in itself, or the primary reason why people with money have it in the first place.  

If it is others doing nothing that upsets the wealthy then why do they go out of their way to avoid doing their own chores, looking after their own children, cooking their own dinner or washing gthenir own car?  Instead they employ the very same class of people to work so they don't have to: having their children babysat full time at school, fed by chefs sweating in their kitchen and being fawned over at their dinner table as they pretend to be king for the evening.   

Rather than set an example, the rich demonstrate, how it is possible to do be idol  to exist and then have the colossal cheek to criticise those with nothing of laziness.   While it is true that the very rich and the very poor may well do nothing, but for some and those that's a luxurious choice and for those at the very bottom condition that is hellishly difficult to escape from. 

In this secular age empty churches routinely converted into flats parishioners are no longer fooled by the unthinkingly protestant work ethic that flogging your guts out is the only certain path to heaven.  Today governments dependent on big business for their survival (if not political purpose) encourage people to work hard for their bosses by giving them hope. Unfortunately, however, hope is a commodity in short supply both here in the UK and in the mighty USA.  It was no accident that near messiah Barack Obama's electoral slogan was "Hope and Change" but the problem was that there was so little hope and change around in 2015/6 that hundreds of millions of working class Middle Americans turned to Donald Trump. 

What gets people out of bed in the morning isn't a fear of appearing lazy in the eyes of neo-conservatives it is optimistic feelings, however nebulous, that as long as they are sufficiently tenacious, there will be  a reasonable chance that their effort will be rewarded with a decent standard of living. 

While there may well be a link between hard work and financial gain, but, as far can see, the will to work has little to do with indolence and is more to do with what a person believes they are worth and the reward our market-led economic system decides is the minimum it can get away with paying them.

People aren't poor because they're bone-idol, they're poor because they neither have the luxury of  inherited wealth, or are equipped with the skills that happen to be in demand at a particular period in time.  In short being poor the world over is, pretty much, down to access to education and luck. 

Read more articles mentioning Donald Trump 

Why do Conservatives fear change so much?

Conservatism means leaving things the way they are for fear of change.

The fear of change is not felt by those surviving each day using food banks, or by those who can only find work on a zero-hours contract. Hard working families unable to afford a home to live in don't fear change either. No - the fear of change, the fear of a more equal society, isn't felt by the disadvantaged, it is felt by the land owner, the million pound a year CEO and the very wealthiest in our society that stash their wealth offshore so they don't have to pay their share towards our country's armed forces, the police, NHS and schools...

I want change and think it's essential to create a fairer and more equal society. I am voting for change on June 8th.  

More on Politics