It just proves what I was saying, under Labour there was a growing number of people that were lazy bstds who didn't want to work from 2005-2013 it grew and grew due to how easy they made it
I'll admit labour were too generous with benefits and made it too hard for people to come of them as if they did they wouldn't cope financially, however we've had pretty blooming strict benefit reforms under conservatives and I think they've taken it way too far as stated in my other post the cap should have been variable as children are severely suffering because of it. labour have said nothing about reversing this or changing it which should please most working people on the other hand conservatives want to pull it even tighter which I think will be a disaster. We not only have more families using foodbanks than ever before but the councils homeless list for families particularly in big cities is higher than its ever been due to the caps inflicted because there is no flexibility for higher rent. Why should a family in hull live comfortable in a four bedroom house at £95 per week when a family of five can't even afford to stay in London in a two bedroom flat for £450 per week? The cap should be variable.
It just proves what I was saying, under Labour there was a growing number of people that were lazy bstds who didn't want to work from 2005-2013 it grew and grew due to how easy they made it
We can take a different view on the reason for the rise of unemployment post '07 through to the end of the Labour admistration in 2010 but how about the left hand side of the graph, how does this fit in with your view?
For the record, I'm not saying there are no claimants out there taking the pee, there clearly are. But I don't believe there's anywhere near as many as as commonly thought and also they are not surviving on benefits alone. In my experience the sorts of claimant you're referring to is often involved in other criminality to supplement their benefit, whether that's benefit fraud itself, theft, tobacco smuggling, dealing, cash in hand work, eBaying, etc, etc. They do not wish to work because that in itself creates a practical problem in that it gets in the way of their tax free earnings.
Of all those 'working families' using food banks, I'd love to know how many of them have the internnet, mobile phones or flat screen TV's.
Some people have their priorities all wrong.
This is anecdotal .. BUT .. I know of several cases whereby some folk who are quite able to afford to buy their own groceries use food banks 'because they can and it's free' .. this is by no means to denigrate the efforts of those charitable souls who are happy to donate food and/or the time to distribute it and ask no questions of those who come around for help .. but those who claim that food banks are a symptom of a society which is digressing back to the third world or the starving middle ages are just wrong .. However, what is needed is a government that can help to incentivise work and pride in having a job and thereby to make food banks and dependency on benefits unnecessary.
From a purely economic perspective, there is an equivalence between those who can afford to feed the poor do so by physically donating food items to food banks (the food bank system), or by those who can afford to feed the poor do so by paying taxes which then enters a bureacracy and then trickles down to the poor in the form of benefits so they can buy the food themselves (the welfare system). The difference is that the food bank system cuts out the middle man and instead of someone waiting 4 weeks for their next benefit pay-out, they can find their nearest food bank and feed their family there and then. I'm not saying food banks are better than a well-funded and well-organised welfare system but the fact is prior to 2010 hardly anyone had even heard of a food bank because there was no demand for them. Well, there was specifically a demand for free food by the poor but Labour intentionally took steps to suppress the existence of food banks. Over 1 in 10 benefit payments was made late under Labour, that means potentially over 10% of all those on benefits needed food now but only able to afford it weeks down the line - the benefits system fails these people.
This is a good article which explains why the growing usage of food banks does not necessarily mean food poverty is increasing. Food banks are also more widespread in other developed nations and have been for a while, where there is little stigma attached to them compared to here - they are seen as a part of a charitable and well-intentioned welfare state instead of being a symptom of a badly organised welfare state.
From a purely economic perspective, there is an equivalence between those who can afford to feed the poor do so by physically donating food items to food banks (the food bank system), or by those who can afford to feed the poor do so by paying taxes which then enters a bureacracy and then trickles down to the poor in the form of benefits so they can buy the food themselves (the welfare system). The difference is that the food bank system cuts out the middle man and instead of someone waiting 4 weeks for their next benefit pay-out, they can find their nearest food bank and feed their family there and then. I'm not saying food banks are better than a well-funded and well-organised welfare system but the fact is prior to 2010 hardly anyone had even heard of a food bank because there was no demand for them. Well, there was specifically a demand for free food by the poor but Labour intentionally took steps to suppress the existence of food banks. Over 1 in 10 benefit payments was made late under Labour, that means potentially over 10% of all those on benefits needed food now but only able to afford it weeks down the line - the benefits system fails these people.
This is a good article which explains why the growing usage of food banks does not necessarily mean food poverty is increasing. Food banks are also more widespread in other developed nations and have been for a while, where there is little stigma attached to them compared to here - they are seen as a part of a charitable and well-intentioned welfare state instead of being a symptom of a badly organised welfare state.
It's a bit clinical fiish, it's easy to look at this like that from afar but the reality is a lot bleaker. No man or woman wants to go to a stranger and plead poverty to get food, it's only half a step up from street begging and it's not only very embarrassing for that person but degrading too. People can claim benefits and do so privately apart from DWP no one else needs to know you haven't got to personally go and beg food from a volunteer that could live down the street from you, benefits should not be a way of life but a stop gap, to most people that is the case, it's only a small percentage of people that abuse the system and use it as to never work or pay rent etc. unfortunately these are the ones that are portrayed in the media.
Also people on benefits aren't necessarily the same people that are using food banks, in fact people with all of the benefits they need and are entitled to shouldn't need to use foodbanks as long as they budget effectively (unless they are in a high rent area with a big family and a benefit cap). The people using food banks are mostly people that work but are not earning enough to cover their rent, bills, travel, essentials AND food, people that work and earn not enough to live on but apparently too much to qualify for any additional help.
In short we don't have a failed benefits system we have a failed "top up" system.
This is where you fall down Fiiish. You don't explain why this is not a good approach or where the Conservatives have a better one, you just dismiss it. It is probably as trustworthy a source as you can get -from the horse's mouth as it were- will it help small business? - question that by all means, but don't make the debate a pantomime.
You're not Michael Green are you?
No, but the problem isn't Labour's policies, it's the fact that me and the others who doubt Labour's promises to small businesses do so because Labour have a track record of breaking their manifesto pledges, so quoting their manifesto in an attempt to woo us isn't really going to work.
Broken promises eh?
‘We have absolutely no plans to raise VAT.’ Mr Cameron made this pledge during a grilling from the BBC’s Jeremy Paxman, adding: “Our first budget is all about recognising we need to get spending under control rather than putting up tax.” George Osborne announced in his very first budget that he would raised VAT from 17.5 to 20 per cent.
‘I’m not going to flannel you, I’m going to give it to you straight… I like the child benefit, I wouldn’t change child benefit, I wouldn’t means-test it, I don’t think that is a good idea'. Another unfortunate choice of words, in retrospect – this time from a “Cameron Direct” question-and-answer session the future prime minister did in March 2010. In 2013 means-testing of child benefit kicked in, with a reduced benefit for households with one parent earning more than £50,000 a year. The change was predicted to affect about a million families.
‘We’ve looked at educational maintenance allowances and we haven’t announced any plan to get rid of them. We don’t have any plans to get rid of them. It’s one of the plans the Labour party keep putting out, but we’re not.’ Mr Cameron was answering a question on the future of the educational maintenance allowance (EMA) at a question-and-answer event in January 2010 The person asking the question here – Save EMA campaign director James Mills (now a Labour party staffer) – sensed Mr Cameron was lukewarm on the allowance and pushed him, asking: “Do you support it?” and: “Is that a yes?” The Conservative leader eventually replied: “That is a yes”. A month before the election the future Education Secretary, Michael Gove, said: “Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won’t.” The EMA, a grant paid to the poorest 16 to 19-year-olds in further education, was of course scrapped after the election.
‘There will be no more of those pointless reorganisations that aim for change but instead bring chaos.’ The big one. These words were greeted with a round of applause when Mr Cameron made this speech at the Royal College of Nursing in 2009. In 2011 delegates at the college’s annual conference overwhelmingly backed a motion of no confidence questioning Health Secretary Andrew Lansley’s reforms to the NHS. The move to replace primary care trusts with GP-led commissioning groups and increase the role of private providers has been described as the biggest reorganisation of the NHS in its history. But before the last election, Mr Cameron had been adamant there would be no big surprises in store for NHS workers. In another speech in 2009 he said: “We are committed to the status quo. It’s true, with the Conservatives there will be no more of the tiresome, meddlesome, top-down re-structures that have dominated the last decade of the NHS.”
There are more - should I go on? All politicians break promises - it's one of the key attributes of a politician.
As I have asserted I'm not in the business of defending the Tories, my point was that the Labour manifesto is not a trustworthy source to use if you're trying to assert Labour's pro small-business credentials.
And my point is - neither is the fecking tories!
What was it someone else said on this thread? - 'defending the indefensible' or something like that. You are really not doing yourself any favours old chap.
Sorry but what is indefensible about saying 'the Labour manifesto isn't trustworthy'?
Cos Owen jones told me it's trustworthy.
"No more boom and bust", 11 years of boom later a massive bust hits. Nice trustworthy labour there!
Unbelievable comment....the world went into recession, I suppose thats Labours fault too?
FWIW - I'm still undecided who to vote for, but the blind faith sworn to various parties on here is very amusing. At the end of the day they are all narcissistic politicians and will say anything to get a job (elected).
From a purely economic perspective, there is an equivalence between those who can afford to feed the poor do so by physically donating food items to food banks (the food bank system), or by those who can afford to feed the poor do so by paying taxes which then enters a bureacracy and then trickles down to the poor in the form of benefits so they can buy the food themselves (the welfare system). The difference is that the food bank system cuts out the middle man and instead of someone waiting 4 weeks for their next benefit pay-out, they can find their nearest food bank and feed their family there and then. I'm not saying food banks are better than a well-funded and well-organised welfare system but the fact is prior to 2010 hardly anyone had even heard of a food bank because there was no demand for them. Well, there was specifically a demand for free food by the poor but Labour intentionally took steps to suppress the existence of food banks. Over 1 in 10 benefit payments was made late under Labour, that means potentially over 10% of all those on benefits needed food now but only able to afford it weeks down the line - the benefits system fails these people.
This is a good article which explains why the growing usage of food banks does not necessarily mean food poverty is increasing. Food banks are also more widespread in other developed nations and have been for a while, where there is little stigma attached to them compared to here - they are seen as a part of a charitable and well-intentioned welfare state instead of being a symptom of a badly organised welfare state.
It's a bit clinical fiish, it's easy to look at this like that from afar but the reality is a lot bleaker. No man or woman wants to go to a stranger and plead poverty to get food, it's only half a step up from street begging and it's not only very embarrassing for that person but degrading too. People can claim benefits and do so privately apart from DWP no one else needs to know you haven't got to personally go and beg food from a volunteer that could live down the street from you, benefits should not be a way of life but a stop gap, to most people that is the case, it's only a small percentage of people that abuse the system and use it as to never work or pay rent etc. unfortunately these are the ones that are portrayed in the media.
Also people on benefits aren't necessarily the same people that are using food banks, in fact people with all of the benefits they need and are entitled to shouldn't need to use foodbanks as long as they budget effectively (unless they are in a high rent area with a big family and a benefit cap). The people using food banks are mostly people that work but are not earning enough to cover their rent, bills, travel, essentials AND food, people that work and earn not enough to live on but apparently too much to qualify for any additional help.
In short we don't have a failed benefits system we have a failed "top up" system.
People using food banks average 2 visits per year. I imagine for these people they barely live from payday to payday and the occasions they've had to use a foodbank is because they've incurred an unavoidable expense and it's left them out-of-pocket.
I can understand the argument about the embarrassment of visiting a food bank but as I said there is needless stigma attached to food banks that other countries don't seem to have as they use foodbanks as part of their welfare state, not as a replacement. The fact is you will only see two people at a food bank:
- a charity worker who is spending their money and time helping people like you because they empathise with your situation - other people in the same boat as you
It's not as if the Joneses at number 42 are going to start calling you a scrounger or a beggar since they'll never know unless you tell them.
However, you are entirely correct, it is an absolute scandal that people with jobs need to resort to food banks. Unfortunately this has been the situation for decades now where low wages need to be topped up with state handouts or charity givings. Effectively, taxpayers and donors are subsidising companies that refuse to pay a living wage. This is why I welcome the policies of parties that look to increase the minimum wage and to sanction companies that are able to pay a living wage and do not do so.
If he goes into power off the back of Salmond and the SNP lot surely even Labour supporters will lose faith in him. Another election in the Autumn and the Tories win a majority and BoJo is PM by Xmas. What's the odds I wonder.
Honestly if Labour use a party who don't even want to be part of this country to enable them to govern then it will be despicable on every level. Silent partner - yeah right. Salmond and Sturgeon won't have to say anything safe in the knowledge that without them Ed wouldn't even be in number 10. The Tories will be best of stepping back and letting them do it because it will go down like a cold cup of sick with the public.
Honesty you can see this coming a mile off. Why the bloody hell would you vote Labour and get the SNP involved.
The United Kingdom has huge wealth. The concept of anyone in 2015, working or otherwise, having to rely on food banks donated by the private sector/individuals to feed their families is a total and utter disgrace. A typical grade 6 Nurse would earn about £25k - is that how much we value nurses? That's just an example - we really need to look closely at the value of work.
Maybe we need another Poor Law - after all the last one was a long time ago in 1834. To quote the inimitable Alistair Sim playing Scrooge - 'are there no prisons, are there no workhouses'.
Ignoring the politics, this is likely to be the least effective outcome simply because it will be the least stable administration.
LibDems got little credit for actually putting stability of Government above their party interests whilst in coalition and it was not the disaster that many expected.
SNP will have no concerns about destabilising the government or creating an England/Scotland schism.
There are more common ideologies across the three main parties than this thread suggests, and given our parliamentary system, and the danger of minority parties having overdue influence, it might be argued that it makes more sense for a new middle ground party of national unity to be set up than the more obvious option of changing to a proportional representation system.
It would also shorten the political threads on CL.
I would prefer a strong government (even slightly pink) to an administration pulled in all directions and ending up in no mans land. More use of referenda would counter the danger of having too much power or big decisions with no single political bias.
Ignoring the politics, this is likely to be the least effective outcome simply because it will be the least stable administration.
LibDems got little credit for actually putting stability of Government above their party interests whilst in coalition and it was not the disaster that many expected.
SNP will have no concerns about destabilising the government or creating an England/Scotland schism.
There are more common ideologies across the three main parties than this thread suggests, and given our parliamentary system, and the danger of minority parties having overdue influence, it might be argued that it makes more sense for a new middle ground party of national unity to be set up than the more obvious option of changing to a proportional representation system.
It would also shorten the political threads on CL.
I would prefer a strong government (even slightly pink) to an administration pulled in all directions and ending up in no mans land. More use of referenda would counter the danger of having too much power or big decisions with no single political bias.
This. The preferable outcome in the event of hung Parliament is a continuation of the current Coalition - Tory/LibDem. Anything else would likely result in chaos. However the way the dice are likely to be rolled means that this won't have the numbers, and Labour/LibDem would be just as unlikely. I don't see Tory/UKIP happening as UKIP won't win more seats than the Libdems. Therefore the way the arithmetic is going, Labour will likely be leading a minority Government and having to barter for votes on an issue-by-issue basis. Labour/SNP remains likely but Labour's ideology only permits one king on the hill. This will be largely chaotic. Those who don't have short memories will remember the chaos that Cameron has had to face on a few occasions when either his or Clegg's backbenchers rebelled, notably on Syria. Each of these votes meant that deals were being made off-the-record, in the early hours of the morning and hours before the vote was due to take place, not in the debating chamber or on public record. This is a subversion of the democratic process and leads to huge uncertainty.
So on that basis, the idea of a Unity Coalition of both Labour & Tories would seem to be in the national interest. There are plenty of centrists in both parties to make it work. But whilst I could imagine some Tories would begrudgingly go for it, if only to ensure there was a voice of reason in the government, I cannot ever seeing Labour acting professional about this and putting the pathological hatred for the Tories aside in the national interest. Chaos lies ahead and when people are unable to feed their families or their savings are wiped out due to the chaos unfolding in Westminster, I hope people remember that these are the people we thought were best to run the country.
Is there even a remote possibility of a Con/Lab coalition?
It would make a degree of sense - with the leader of the biggest party being PM and the cabinet made up from both sides. But it wouldn't happen and reality wouldn't work because too many vested interests would surface. The Lib Dems in coalition would have had zero benefit in bringing down the government in a vote of confidence. Labour or Conservatives would both seek to maximise an opportunity to force an election if it suited them.
It shows on the left why I voted labour to remove the lot that was crippling our great country, and why I have not looked at my political alligence like a football team, you need to change things when it is not working, but you need time to see if that is the case, 4 yrs isn't long enough especially when you can see the change and growth is happening,
Sadie I totally agree about the need to help people live in London etc and be able to afford it whilst in the system of support on benefits and I don't have the answer to that
I don't feel sorry for those finding it harder on benefits due to the cuts, if they can work and it forces them out the door to do it
As for foodbanks in this day ans age it saddens me greatly that this happens and it's a disgusting disgraceful situation that should not happen in the UK and although the only time I have had to visit one of these is to give them contribution items
that is not the fault of the tory government though it's a combination of abusing the system in the past and not having any option other than to face it head on
Same as it wasn't the fault of the labour gvmt for the global meltdown,
If the SNP were to suddenly decide to withdraw all their candidates does anyone dispute who would win the majority of seats in Scotland?
If the voting is as current polls suggest on Election Day does anyone dispute it would be a clear indication that the majority in the UK are broadly in favour of a government implementing Labour policies?
If the SNP were to suddenly decide to withdraw all their candidates does anyone despute who would win the majority of seats in Scotland?
If the voting is as current polls suggest on Election Day does anyone dispute it would be a clear indication that the majority in the UK are broadly in favour of a government implementing Labour policies?
Fact is that they are not, and it is looking more and more likely that a vote for Labour is a vote to give the SNP more power over a United Kingdom they want no part of.
Look - I get that you are pro Labour and anti Tory. As a Tory voter - I would still be far happier with a Labour majority government without the SNP getting involved but that won't happen.
Would you be happy to see the SNP carry Labour into unstable power? You have to admit that it would be chaos for our country.
The only leader to have said they will not deal with the SNP is Milliband. It is conceivable that the Conservatives could team up with them – say offer them a deal to bring a Labour minority Government down. Milliband put his weight behind supporting the Union in the referendum, even though he knew it would cost his party votes. If you say you are not going to do something as clearly as Milliband has, the damage of actually doing so will outweigh any short term gain. The problem is, the SNP set out from the off threatening to blackmail a Labour government into meeting extreme demands– Milliband knows he cannot deal with them. What is more likely to happen (If Labour and Conservatives get the same share of votes, is that Labour go into coalition with the Lib Dems, which would give them a majority over right leaning parties, and hope the SNP don’t try to rock the boat. This is a reasonable hope as it would surely damage the SNP if they helped get a Conservative government into power. But the logical conclusion if you are worried about the scaremongering (which I think is disgraceful btw) is to ensure Labour won’t need to hope the SNP don’t rock the boat by voting for them. Cameron went to Scotland to plead with them to stay in the Union, he is now trying to create a divide between England and Scotland for electoral gain.
Ignoring the politics, this is likely to be the least effective outcome simply because it will be the least stable administration.
LibDems got little credit for actually putting stability of Government above their party interests whilst in coalition and it was not the disaster that many expected.
SNP will have no concerns about destabilising the government or creating an England/Scotland schism.
There are more common ideologies across the three main parties than this thread suggests, and given our parliamentary system, and the danger of minority parties having overdue influence, it might be argued that it makes more sense for a new middle ground party of national unity to be set up than the more obvious option of changing to a proportional representation system.
It would also shorten the political threads on CL.
I would prefer a strong government (even slightly pink) to an administration pulled in all directions and ending up in no mans land. More use of referenda would counter the danger of having too much power or big decisions with no single political bias.
This. The preferable outcome in the event of hung Parliament is a continuation of the current Coalition - Tory/LibDem. Anything else would likely result in chaos. However the way the dice are likely to be rolled means that this won't have the numbers, and Labour/LibDem would be just as unlikely. I don't see Tory/UKIP happening as UKIP won't win more seats than the Libdems. Therefore the way the arithmetic is going, Labour will likely be leading a minority Government and having to barter for votes on an issue-by-issue basis. Labour/SNP remains likely but Labour's ideology only permits one king on the hill. This will be largely chaotic. Those who don't have short memories will remember the chaos that Cameron has had to face on a few occasions when either his or Clegg's backbenchers rebelled, notably on Syria. Each of these votes meant that deals were being made off-the-record, in the early hours of the morning and hours before the vote was due to take place, not in the debating chamber or on public record. This is a subversion of the democratic process and leads to huge uncertainty.
So on that basis, the idea of a Unity Coalition of both Labour & Tories would seem to be in the national interest. There are plenty of centrists in both parties to make it work. But whilst I could imagine some Tories would begrudgingly go for it, if only to ensure there was a voice of reason in the government, I cannot ever seeing Labour acting professional about this and putting the pathological hatred for the Tories aside in the national interest. Chaos lies ahead and when people are unable to feed their families or their savings are wiped out due to the chaos unfolding in Westminster, I hope people remember that these are the people we thought were best to run the country.
This would be a fascinating approach. I know you aren't the biggest fan of Labour Fiiish, but surely the argument against them putting their 'pathological hatred for the Tories' aside works both ways.
I want/will vote Labour but worry about the prospect of a Labour/SNP coalition. I liken it to mum and dad (Labour) going away for a week and the children (SNP) inviting all their mates round for a house party using Facebook. The house is destroyed by the time they get back. Who knows what the SNP have got up their sleeve in terms of what they want for Scotland whilst still having a say on English issues.
As you mention, people from both sides share central views/approaches on some issues. Both sides are (so they say) committed to cutting the deficit (how may differ). The biggest hurdle is surely the attitudes toward tax and public spend. Could they ever reach a compromise on such issues?
The SNP don't have any interest in dragging down a coalition over anything silly and I'm not sure they'll play the referendum card again so soon.
Many of their seats will be in constituencies that are solidly pro-Union (eg anywhere in the north and northeast, as well as much of the central belt). If they force an election over something stupid, Scots will go back to Labour in favour of a strong government.
I have a vote in a Scottish constituency, but I won't be around so won't be voting. The constituency is a natural Tory seat if the party wasn't so toxic in Scotland. The SNP look like they might go from being 4th (and far behind the top 3) to winning the seat. But the people in the area definitely want to stay in the UK.
Sturgeon has been praised a lot in this campaign, but I think her tactics have been very short-sighted and naive with a touch of arrogance mixed in from the perspective of her party.
But you agree that if the SNP withdrew all their candidates the Labour Party would win all those seats?
That's like saying if the 9 teams above us in the Championship folded we would be heading for the Prem.
I note that you won't back SNP involvement in a UK government. What do you think is the most stable outcome?
I, personally, would have no problem with SNP involvement in a UK government. But I don't see any reason why Labour should negotiate with the SNP. Leaders of both Labour and SNP know that the vast majority of the new supporters of SNP are essentially Labour supporters. If the SNP MPs brought down a Labour government or blocked any of its major policies I reckon the SNP would lose more than 50% of it's newly gained seats in the next election.
Out of interest (I could come out of this post and check on google I suppose but I am feeling lazy) do the Tories put up candidates in the Northern Ireland seats?
But you agree that if the SNP withdrew all their candidates the Labour Party would win all those seats?
That's like saying if the 9 teams above us in the Championship folded we would be heading for the Prem.
I note that you won't back SNP involvement in a UK government. What do you think is the most stable outcome?
I, personally, would have no problem with SNP involvement in a UK government. But I don't see any reason why Labour should negotiate with the SNP. Leaders of both Labour and SNP know that the vast majority of the new supporters of SNP are essentially Labour supporters. If the SNP MPs brought down a Labour government or blocked any of its major policies I reckon the SNP would lose more than 50% of it's newly gained seats in the next election.
Out of interest (I could come out of this post and check on google I suppose but I am feeling lazy) do the Tories put up candidates in the Northern Ireland seats?
The Tories merged with the old Ulster Unionist Party. In the 2010 election the UUP ran candidates of the "Conservative and Unionist Party". I'm not sure if that will be happening again.
Comments
Some people have their priorities all wrong.
For the record, I'm not saying there are no claimants out there taking the pee, there clearly are. But I don't believe there's anywhere near as many as as commonly thought and also they are not surviving on benefits alone. In my experience the sorts of claimant you're referring to is often involved in other criminality to supplement their benefit, whether that's benefit fraud itself, theft, tobacco smuggling, dealing, cash in hand work, eBaying, etc, etc. They do not wish to work because that in itself creates a practical problem in that it gets in the way of their tax free earnings.
but those who claim that food banks are a symptom of a society which is digressing back to the third world or the starving middle ages are just wrong .. However, what is needed is a government that can help to incentivise work and pride in having a job and thereby to make food banks and dependency on benefits unnecessary.
This is a good article which explains why the growing usage of food banks does not necessarily mean food poverty is increasing. Food banks are also more widespread in other developed nations and have been for a while, where there is little stigma attached to them compared to here - they are seen as a part of a charitable and well-intentioned welfare state instead of being a symptom of a badly organised welfare state.
Also people on benefits aren't necessarily the same people that are using food banks, in fact people with all of the benefits they need and are entitled to shouldn't need to use foodbanks as long as they budget effectively (unless they are in a high rent area with a big family and a benefit cap). The people using food banks are mostly people that work but are not earning enough to cover their rent, bills, travel, essentials AND food, people that work and earn not enough to live on but apparently too much to qualify for any additional help.
In short we don't have a failed benefits system we have a failed "top up" system.
http://may2015.com/featured/election-2015-polls-suggest-ed-miliband-is-likely-to-become-prime-minister/
FWIW - I'm still undecided who to vote for, but the blind faith sworn to various parties on here is very amusing. At the end of the day they are all narcissistic politicians and will say anything to get a job (elected).
I can understand the argument about the embarrassment of visiting a food bank but as I said there is needless stigma attached to food banks that other countries don't seem to have as they use foodbanks as part of their welfare state, not as a replacement. The fact is you will only see two people at a food bank:
- a charity worker who is spending their money and time helping people like you because they empathise with your situation
- other people in the same boat as you
It's not as if the Joneses at number 42 are going to start calling you a scrounger or a beggar since they'll never know unless you tell them.
However, you are entirely correct, it is an absolute scandal that people with jobs need to resort to food banks. Unfortunately this has been the situation for decades now where low wages need to be topped up with state handouts or charity givings. Effectively, taxpayers and donors are subsidising companies that refuse to pay a living wage. This is why I welcome the policies of parties that look to increase the minimum wage and to sanction companies that are able to pay a living wage and do not do so.
Honestly if Labour use a party who don't even want to be part of this country to enable them to govern then it will be despicable on every level. Silent partner - yeah right. Salmond and Sturgeon won't have to say anything safe in the knowledge that without them Ed wouldn't even be in number 10. The Tories will be best of stepping back and letting them do it because it will go down like a cold cup of sick with the public.
Honesty you can see this coming a mile off. Why the bloody hell would you vote Labour and get the SNP involved.
Fecking nuts. Country will go down the shitter.
Maybe we need another Poor Law - after all the last one was a long time ago in 1834. To quote the inimitable Alistair Sim playing Scrooge - 'are there no prisons, are there no workhouses'.
LibDems got little credit for actually putting stability of Government above their party interests whilst in coalition and it was not the disaster that many expected.
SNP will have no concerns about destabilising the government or creating an England/Scotland schism.
There are more common ideologies across the three main parties than this thread suggests, and given our parliamentary system, and the danger of minority parties having overdue influence, it might be argued that it makes more sense for a new middle ground party of national unity to be set up than the more obvious option of changing to a proportional representation system.
It would also shorten the political threads on CL.
I would prefer a strong government (even slightly pink) to an administration pulled in all directions and ending up in no mans land. More use of referenda would counter the danger of having too much power or big decisions with no single political bias.
So on that basis, the idea of a Unity Coalition of both Labour & Tories would seem to be in the national interest. There are plenty of centrists in both parties to make it work. But whilst I could imagine some Tories would begrudgingly go for it, if only to ensure there was a voice of reason in the government, I cannot ever seeing Labour acting professional about this and putting the pathological hatred for the Tories aside in the national interest. Chaos lies ahead and when people are unable to feed their families or their savings are wiped out due to the chaos unfolding in Westminster, I hope people remember that these are the people we thought were best to run the country.
Sadie I totally agree about the need to help people live in London etc and be able to afford it whilst in the system of support on benefits and I don't have the answer to that
I don't feel sorry for those finding it harder on benefits due to the cuts, if they can work and it forces them out the door to do it
As for foodbanks in this day ans age it saddens me greatly that this happens and it's a disgusting disgraceful situation that should not happen in the UK and although the only time I have had to visit one of these is to give them contribution items
that is not the fault of the tory government though it's a combination of abusing the system in the past and not having any option other than to face it head on
Same as it wasn't the fault of the labour gvmt for the global meltdown,
A con/lab coalition wouldn't be a bad idea
If the voting is as current polls suggest on Election Day does anyone dispute it would be a clear indication that the majority in the UK are broadly in favour of a government implementing Labour policies?
Look - I get that you are pro Labour and anti Tory. As a Tory voter - I would still be far happier with a Labour majority government without the SNP getting involved but that won't happen.
Would you be happy to see the SNP carry Labour into unstable power? You have to admit that it would be chaos for our country.
I note that you won't back SNP involvement in a UK government. What do you think is the most stable outcome?
I want/will vote Labour but worry about the prospect of a Labour/SNP coalition. I liken it to mum and dad (Labour) going away for a week and the children (SNP) inviting all their mates round for a house party using Facebook. The house is destroyed by the time they get back. Who knows what the SNP have got up their sleeve in terms of what they want for Scotland whilst still having a say on English issues.
As you mention, people from both sides share central views/approaches on some issues. Both sides are (so they say) committed to cutting the deficit (how may differ). The biggest hurdle is surely the attitudes toward tax and public spend. Could they ever reach a compromise on such issues?
Many of their seats will be in constituencies that are solidly pro-Union (eg anywhere in the north and northeast, as well as much of the central belt). If they force an election over something stupid, Scots will go back to Labour in favour of a strong government.
I have a vote in a Scottish constituency, but I won't be around so won't be voting. The constituency is a natural Tory seat if the party wasn't so toxic in Scotland. The SNP look like they might go from being 4th (and far behind the top 3) to winning the seat. But the people in the area definitely want to stay in the UK.
I think either Cameron or Miliband (whichever one loses) will definitely step down or be forced out
Clegg is not safe in his seat, and looks to me a lot like Brown last time (the party want to replace him, but nobody wants to come in and lose)
Farage would struggle to remain at the top of UKIP if he does not win his constituency election
The Greens must surely be looking to replace Bennett
I have no idea about the Plaid Cymru leader, and I would say the SNP and NI party leaders are probably all fairly safe.
So I reckon there might be 4 new party leaders after the election.
Out of interest (I could come out of this post and check on google I suppose but I am feeling lazy) do the Tories put up candidates in the Northern Ireland seats?