"Change must come" Theresa May.

[theelench]

Just conference rhetoric or has at least one politician seen that disaffection with the Westminster elite and a system that ignores the majority must be addressed?

What chance that the way capitalism works at the moment with the top 10% reaping all the rewards while most others see little or no increase in prosperity will be tackled?

If she tries to make changes what chance that she will have any success?

[cee-dee]

"The majority" seems jealous of the "top 10%" but I wonder what they'd be like if they were elevated to such a lofty realm?

Some change may be necessary but will that change see the return of Tony B liar with any chance of success for him?

[margaret*e]

Not surprising when the majority(poorest are seeing their living standards constantly cut, while seeing rich criminals paid off with huge amounts.

[cee-dee]

Well now, there's another side to it when you see people who've not paid their rent being evicted but have a house full of all sorts of stuff that appears to have been "comfort buying" and are really hopelessly in debt to others who'll never get their money.

[margaret*e]

There are always two sides, while what you say is true, there are thousands working hard for minimum wage, and if these people were paid off from their jobs for any wrongdoing it wouldn't be with a huge payoff.

[fallen-archie]

Surely that is the fault of a system which encourages frivolous borrowing. I can see the sense In allowing someone to borrow to replace an essential item that has broken but some schemes are simply a road to ruin.
I hope Mrs may does have a compassionate side and that she can carry the support of those who once supported Blair because at the end of the day it is those people who are far more likely to offer a reasoned response to an srguement as oppposed to political clap trap.

[cee-dee]

Change must come, yes, but some members of the population need to change their attitude too.

It seems "odd" that some ordinary "working class" people manage to get their own house paid for, have new cars and don't seem "short of money" when they get in to their fifties but other people having the same job still pay rent in their sixties and never seem to have any money. Why is that?

Might it be that the former people don't fritter their money away? You can't call them "mean" or "tight fisted" (can you?) when they have their holidays, nice cars and a nice home and don't seem to want for much?

Might it be because they're just "careful" and carefully consider their income/expenditure?

The others seem to come up with all sorts of excuses giving all sorts of reasons as to why they're "hard up" and in later life expect everyone to feel sorry for their situation.

As to borrowing, seeing adverts for all sorts of loans makes me cringe to see the idiotic interest being charged. People must be mad to even consider it never mind pay it!

Leaving aside those who've got wealth from inheritance, jealousy of those who're now "comfortable" is a very poor outlook on life.

If criticism of any "rich" people is due, I think it should be aimed on those who have thought up ways to sell something for "big" money, their "something" having costed very little to make. There's no way to suddenly go from little or nothing to dripping with money if you've not been ripping (willing?) people off by exploiting some workers somewhere to make the item(s) for peanuts and then selling those items for far and away in excess of their production price.

Generally, being in business is not a licence to print money, often it's a path leading to considerable worry. Those with a "licence to print money" are those immediately above and if the items are so desirable that people consider them a "must have" it's high time the excessive profitability was exposed and a larger slice taken in tax after closing the gaps of megga tax avoidance.

[al**bear]

Cameron said the exact same thing,and I expect May will do much the same as him, ie NOTHING about it

May is and has been part of the Elite,

ever since She left Oxford Uni, went to work for the Bank of England and married Her Investment Banker Husband

[theelench]

I was thinking more of how the main parties at Westminster have increasingly ignored the majority by tailoring their policies and campaigns to appeal to the small number of marginal seats and thus marginalised themselves by doing so.  That, in part, was why the referendum result was such a shock for them.

The "quiet revolution" that Mrs May referred to was that for the first time the majority did not follow the the main parties, rejected the tribal voting that they have come to rely on, and voted for what they wanted.  IMO it was an anti-establishment as much as an anti-EU vote.  The majority remember that both main parties have had a hand in ruining pensions for most people.  Maggie set the ball rolling by removing the link between earnings and the state pension to get people to start private pensions and what a disaster that has been for so many that did so.  An establishment that awards itself double digit pay rises while telling everyone else that "we're all in it together" when austerity arrived after the 08 crash.

Most people realise that falling living standards have been masked by increasingly easy credit.  But the inevitable consequence has been that many more ordinary people cannot maintain a lifestyle lived on a tight-rope.  Not all those evicted for non-payment of rent have indulged themselves at others expense.  With low wages, little or nothing in savings and debts to finance when working hours are cut or any other emergency interrupts their earnings they are in immediate trouble.  Increasingly there is little chance that they can ever hope to change that situation.

There will always be some jealousy of the rich by the not so well off but there is also real and growing resentment that to provide another billion in profit for a huge company owned by a few shareholders lives are ruined.  Family, social and community life must all be sacrificed so companies can be "leaner and more profitable".  For example, when some stores decided to open on Christmas Day and staff refused they were told that they would be sacked because their contracts said that they had to work on public holidays as long as they were given another day off in lieu.

It is now more a matter of luck whether an ordinary person ends their days in poverty or not.  Decided more by the decisions of the few in the 10% than carefull spending or planning that they can do. 

[theelench]

And I forgot to add.  As for the return of Blair I don't think that even he could be so deluded as to think that he would ever be trusted again.  Or that even the safest of Labour seats would return him to parliament if he was to stand for election.  So his only option would be to get his friends to shoehorn him into some non-elected sinecure.  Exactly what so many of the electorate find so disgusting about the way the elite operate at the moment.