Much of what you say resonates but it's generic comments like 'no fault of their own' which will never sway the centre voters that Labour needs to attract again. Of course this is true of many and probably the majority but not all.
I am reluctant to use personal examples as they miss the point, but my father-in-law lives entirely on benefits having pissed away a good career through reckless spending and professional misconduct.
In his case the fault is entirely his own and moreover you could have predicted it twenty years ago when he gave the clearly false impression of being very well-off.
I could not possibly comment on your father-in-law's case, nor could I on any case of anyone who receives welfare, for whatever reason. It isn't my place to judge whether someone is entitled to financial support, nor is it anyone's place. This is why I feel strongly about sanctions and punishments against those who are reliant on welfare to live; there are far too many cases where people who are genuinely reliant on welfare payments for survival having their payments stopped and then suffering or even dying as a result. There is no possible way we can have a system where the person sitting in the welfare office can make the right call, 100% of the time. And if that person is working for a privately-owned company whose profit targets create horrible incentives to deny welfare to a certain proportion of claimants, leaving them without much needed funds for weeks on end, forcing them to either starve, freeze or turn to loansharks in the interim. No surprise that most appeals against such decisions are successful, but by then the damage has usually been done. Loansharks make an absolute mint out of the desperate and destitute and many people are forced to turn to them because the welfare system has let them down.
Regardless of your father-in-laws's mistakes, as someone living on these Isles I would hope that he has enough to give him food, shelter and warmth. I'm not sure what you feel an acceptable poverty rate is in this country, one of the richest countries in the world, but here are some figures:
- our poverty rate has been rising since 2010 and is nearing 20% - over a quarter of British children now grow up in poverty - up to a third of disabled people in the UK live in poverty - over two thirds of those reliant on benefits to live are in employment - the majority of those on benefits are never out of work for more than 12 weeks - over half of children in poverty live in a household with at least one working parent - the number of people being trapped in a poverty cycle (where their poverty perpetuates their inability to rise out of it and improve their situation) is increasing
Clearly, the government's mantra, and what Theresa May spouted the other day, that all you need to do is simply work your way out of poverty, is false; simply having a job has little effect on whether you are able to escape poverty. Their system of sanctions and financial punishment against those who they feel are not pulling their weight enough does not work either and in a way is sickening; they starve some poor to send a message to the rest. It sounds more like something from Game of Thrones than a policy of a 21st century developed country.
The question we should be asking ourselves isn't "do the poor deserve to have enough money to live" but "do the poor have enough money to live". The answer to that question is emphatically "No".
New York addick was right that personal examples miss the point - then he used that hypocritical three letter word - BUT and ignored his statement. Maybe we could build a big machine which can decide how deserving people are. Or maybe we should be less judgmental. We should all be fighting to get people out of poverty - that doesn't mean people shouldn't be rewarded for hard work and honest endeavour, but we are talking about those at the bottom.
I mentioned a personal example just to emphasise that I'm not oblivious to what it means to literally be penniless as someone very close to me is in that position (entirely his fault again I reiterate), which in turn puts pressure on my own family situation which I manage far more prudently.
Well I'll vote based on your experience with your father in law then! It is a cheap tory trick (not accusing you here - talking about the party and the press) to find a scrounger/underserving person and use that hammer the unfortunate! Give people somebody to get angry about, even if it isn't reasonable -when was anger reasonable?
Much of what you say resonates but it's generic comments like 'no fault of their own' which will never sway the centre voters that Labour needs to attract again. Of course this is true of many and probably the majority but not all.
I am reluctant to use personal examples as they miss the point, but my father-in-law lives entirely on benefits having pissed away a good career through reckless spending and professional misconduct.
In his case the fault is entirely his own and moreover you could have predicted it twenty years ago when he gave the clearly false impression of being very well-off.
I could not possibly comment on your father-in-law's case, nor could I on any case of anyone who receives welfare, for whatever reason. It isn't my place to judge whether someone is entitled to financial support, nor is it anyone's place. This is why I feel strongly about sanctions and punishments against those who are reliant on welfare to live; there are far too many cases where people who are genuinely reliant on welfare payments for survival having their payments stopped and then suffering or even dying as a result. There is no possible way we can have a system where the person sitting in the welfare office can make the right call, 100% of the time. And if that person is working for a privately-owned company whose profit targets create horrible incentives to deny welfare to a certain proportion of claimants, leaving them without much needed funds for weeks on end, forcing them to either starve, freeze or turn to loansharks in the interim. No surprise that most appeals against such decisions are successful, but by then the damage has usually been done. Loansharks make an absolute mint out of the desperate and destitute and many people are forced to turn to them because the welfare system has let them down.
Regardless of your father-in-laws's mistakes, as someone living on these Isles I would hope that he has enough to give him food, shelter and warmth. I'm not sure what you feel an acceptable poverty rate is in this country, one of the richest countries in the world, but here are some figures:
- our poverty rate has been rising since 2010 and is nearing 20% - over a quarter of British children now grow up in poverty - up to a third of disabled people in the UK live in poverty - over two thirds of those reliant on benefits to live are in employment - the majority of those on benefits are never out of work for more than 12 weeks - over half of children in poverty live in a household with at least one working parent - the number of people being trapped in a poverty cycle (where their poverty perpetuates their inability to rise out of it and improve their situation) is increasing
Clearly, the government's mantra, and what Theresa May spouted the other day, that all you need to do is simply work your way out of poverty, is false; simply having a job has little effect on whether you are able to escape poverty. Their system of sanctions and financial punishment against those who they feel are not pulling their weight enough does not work either and in a way is sickening; they starve some poor to send a message to the rest. It sounds more like something from Game of Thrones than a policy of a 21st century developed country.
The question we should be asking ourselves isn't "do the poor deserve to have enough money to live" but "do the poor have enough money to live". The answer to that question is emphatically "No".
New York addick was right that personal examples miss the point - then he used that hypocritical three letter word - BUT and ignored his statement. Maybe we could build a big machine which can decide how deserving people are. Or maybe we should be less judgmental. We should all be fighting to get people out of poverty - that doesn't mean people shouldn't be rewarded for hard work and honest endeavour, but we are talking about those at the bottom.
I mentioned a personal example just to emphasise that I'm not oblivious to what it means to literally be penniless as someone very close to me is in that position (entirely his fault again I reiterate), which in turn puts pressure on my own family situation which I manage far more prudently.
Well I'll vote based on your experience with your father in law then! It is a cheap tory trick (not accusing you here - talking about the party and the press) to find a scrounger/underserving person and use that hammer the unfortunate! Give people somebody to get angry about, even if it isn't reasonable -when was anger reasonable?
To be fair this 100+ page thread is full of anecdotal examples to emphasise one point or another!
So if someone finds themselves in poverty through their own fault and cannot find work, should we let them starve? Freeze? Live on the streets? What would be the point? Just trying to get into the thought process of those who think some poor people don't deserve assistance?
We've made it to 100 pages and 1000's of comments without a Tory supporter setting out, or even attempting to outline, why the UK is overall a better place now than when they took over 7 years ago.
As I said before food banks are a national disgrace, and anyone using them should be a cause for criticism, but care should be taken when using emotive accusations.
Except in the evidence from the RCN to the NHS pay review board in the link, no.
As I said before food banks are a national disgrace, and anyone using them should be a cause for criticism, but care should be taken when using emotive accusations.
Except in the evidence from the RCN to the NHS pay review board in the link, no.
Except it's not evidence, is it? HCA's are not nurses. Try searching Nursing Times like I did too. Trainee nurses are also not nurses. Interesting blind 'likes' by people who haven't looked closely enough.
Michelle Murray, a single mum of four from Wigan who has been an NHS nurse for 16 years and visited a food bank for the first time this month.
Danielle Tiplady, a nurse: "As a nurse, I see my colleagues go to food banks because of low pay".
Marina Down, 23, a single mum in London training to become a nurse, says her lowest point came when she was forced to visit a food bank with her daughter.
Names and details. Is this evidence enough?
Taking those 3 examples, one is a single mum and a student, so the issues isn't a nurse on 21.5k but someone not earning anything (due to being a student) and bringing up a child alone, where is the father and what can we do to help students in that position? I suspect the London aspect doesn't help.
The other is a single mum of 4 who is a nurse, so again the issue isn't necessarily a nurses wage but the fact someone earning £21.5k a year trying to bring up and pay for a family of 5 on her own, where is the father of the 4 children and what has changed to make her now need to visit a food bank? In the past 7 years her annual net pay has increased by around £1500 a year. I suspect other changes have caused this, maybe the fathers done a bunk, we don't know though.
The last one is a nurse who know other nurses who visits food banks but we don't know their circumstances. But if a nurse on 21.5k is going to food banks due to that low pay then anyone earning that or less is and that's a fair proportion of the UK population.
So none of these are specific to nurses or someone earning close to the national average but have i suspect other influences.
I'm 100% behind nurses should be better paid for the job they do and I'd be happy to pay for that, but we need to look at the wider picture on food banks than headlines of 'nurses visit food banks' as I know many people earning less than nurses who don't.
I think it is outrageous that many poor civil servants havent received a pay award above 1% since 2012 and that it was 0% for some years - not just nurses.
Don't disagree in the principal but don't just think it's civil servants, I know many people in the private sector who haven't received ANY payrise for some years. And you do have to balance that with what has been done in respect of tax and look at the net take home pay.
Had the government not have increased considerably the personal allowance in the last 7 years but kept it static or in line with inflation, public sector (or other) workers at the lower end would be no better off even with a 2-3% rise each year rather than 0-1%. You can't look at one element in isolation.
Using the £21.5k Nurse example, roughly in 2010 say a nurse was on £20,500 (my guess, might be different but would be roughly that). Income Tax back then on that would be £2,750. Now on £21,500 the tax is £2,000 so the net effect (before NI) is:
2010 - After tax £17,750 2017 - After tax £19,500
An increase in net take home pay of roughly 10% in that period.
NI would have reduced slightly as well but broadly the same.
So using those figures above, that's equivelant to a 1.352% payrise per year, which is below the inflation rate every year in that period. According to the Bank of England inflation calculator, that £17,750 in 2010, would need to be £21,000 now just to match inflation. So rather than being £1500 better off as you state above, they're actually £1500 worse off. Plus things like house prices, rent, travel have all gone up above the rate of inflation.
Good point, depending what inflation rate you use, but taking CPI (compounded) since 2010 the 17,750 in 2010 becomes £19,850, so yes, on that basis can see they are £350 a year worse off than in 2010.
Of course in some areas there are different dynamics, rent as one example in many areas will have increased at a far greater rate than inflation. On the flip side interest rates (BOE) were 1.5% in Jan 2009, 1% in Feb 2009, 0.5% in march 2009 and finally 0.25% In August 2016. You only need go back to December 2007 and they were at 5.5%.
So anyone with a mortgage for the past 10 years will have seen considerable savings in their monthly outgoings. Someone with an 80k mortgage in 2008 will be paying somewhere in the region of £3,500 less per annum in interest.
House prices are probably the real killer, although in part that it southern centric. My sister lives in a very nice house in Nottingham that probably hasn't even gone up in line with inflation over the past ten years. Conversely my fathers in SE London has probably doubled in that time.
The clue is in BOE rates. The Tories are not resposible for mortgage owners benefiting from low interest rates. They are set by Mark Carney and reflect the global market.
So if someone finds themselves in poverty through their own fault and cannot find work, should we let them starve? Freeze? Live on the streets? What would be the point? Just trying to get into the thought process of those who think some poor people don't deserve assistance?
And who decides it was their own fault? Maybe we should appoint a judge to make these calls?
I am going to be critical of Corbyn now though - I have been so impressed with the manifesto and the economics behind it - but why is he not appearing in the TV leaders debate tonight? I know why May isn't. I would advise her not to if I was her adviser, but Corbyn has to win the election - May has to not lose it!
So if someone finds themselves in poverty through their own fault and cannot find work, should we let them starve? Freeze? Live on the streets? What would be the point? Just trying to get into the thought process of those who think some poor people don't deserve assistance?
Ludicrous comment. I haven't seen anyone even the most staunch conservative supporter suggest any of that. We all have a human duty to help those less fortunate wherever your current position is in that.
We've made it to 100 pages and 1000's of comments without a Tory supporter setting out, or even attempting to outline, why the UK is overall a better place now than when they took over 7 years ago.
Pass the socialist champagne...
Probably because no one believes we are in a massively better place than 7 years ago. But are we in a better place than we could/would have been? ...... but that would be a bit like wondering if Powell would have got us to the Premiership by now....... we'll never know!
Question is do people think we will be in a better place than now in another 7 years time under Corbyn's Labour or mays Conservatives? Again whoever gets in (making a wild assumption it'll be one of those two) we simply will never know if the one that didn't would have made a better job of it.
So if someone finds themselves in poverty through their own fault and cannot find work, should we let them starve? Freeze? Live on the streets? What would be the point? Just trying to get into the thought process of those who think some poor people don't deserve assistance?
So if someone finds themselves in poverty through their own fault and cannot find work, should we let them starve? Freeze? Live on the streets? What would be the point? Just trying to get into the thought process of those who think some poor people don't deserve assistance?
Ludicrous comment. I haven't seen anyone even the most staunch conservative supporter suggest any of that. We all have a human duty to help those less fortunate wherever your current position is in that.
We've made it to 100 pages and 1000's of comments without a Tory supporter setting out, or even attempting to outline, why the UK is overall a better place now than when they took over 7 years ago.
Pass the socialist champagne...
Probably because no one believes we are in a massively better place than 7 years ago. But are we in a better place than we could/would have been? ...... but that would be a bit like wondering if Powell would have got us to the Premiership by now....... we'll never know!
Question is do people think we will be in a better place than now in another 7 years time under Corbyn's Labour or mays Conservatives? Again whoever gets in (making a wild assumption it'll be one of those two) we simply will never know if the one that didn't would have made a better job of it.
Yes, of course many on here passionately believe that - why would we be saying what we are saying otherwise.
As I said before food banks are a national disgrace, and anyone using them should be a cause for criticism, but care should be taken when using emotive accusations.
Except in the evidence from the RCN to the NHS pay review board in the link, no.
As I said before food banks are a national disgrace, and anyone using them should be a cause for criticism, but care should be taken when using emotive accusations.
Except in the evidence from the RCN to the NHS pay review board in the link, no.
Except it's not evidence, is it? HCA's are not nurses. Try searching Nursing Times like I did too. Trainee nurses are also not nurses. Interesting blind 'likes' by people who haven't looked closely enough.
Michelle Murray, a single mum of four from Wigan who has been an NHS nurse for 16 years and visited a food bank for the first time this month.
Danielle Tiplady, a nurse: "As a nurse, I see my colleagues go to food banks because of low pay".
Marina Down, 23, a single mum in London training to become a nurse, says her lowest point came when she was forced to visit a food bank with her daughter.
Names and details. Is this evidence enough?
Taking those 3 examples, one is a single mum and a student, so the issues isn't a nurse on 21.5k but someone not earning anything (due to being a student) and bringing up a child alone, where is the father and what can we do to help students in that position? I suspect the London aspect doesn't help.
The other is a single mum of 4 who is a nurse, so again the issue isn't necessarily a nurses wage but the fact someone earning £21.5k a year trying to bring up and pay for a family of 5 on her own, where is the father of the 4 children and what has changed to make her now need to visit a food bank? In the past 7 years her annual net pay has increased by around £1500 a year. I suspect other changes have caused this, maybe the fathers done a bunk, we don't know though.
The last one is a nurse who know other nurses who visits food banks but we don't know their circumstances. But if a nurse on 21.5k is going to food banks due to that low pay then anyone earning that or less is and that's a fair proportion of the UK population.
So none of these are specific to nurses or someone earning close to the national average but have i suspect other influences.
I'm 100% behind nurses should be better paid for the job they do and I'd be happy to pay for that, but we need to look at the wider picture on food banks than headlines of 'nurses visit food banks' as I know many people earning less than nurses who don't.
I think you've helped illustrate the dichotomy. Some people will accept that there are a few nurses relying on food banks and will look to understand the underlying reasons. Other people will think that it's utterly shameful that any nurse working full-time would ever have to rely on free food hand outs.
In other words, either you think a small number is ok, or you don't.
For me, no first world country should put trained, full-time, key, vital workers through the embarrassment and indignity of, de facto, begging for food. Ever. Period. We used to be better than that.
Just for the record I do think it shameful on society that anyone has to use food banks, but I'd like to understand why, to solve any problem you need to understand the issue which I don't believe is solely due to someone earning on or near the national average wage. Let's not forget that wage would still be £3-4K above labours increased new minimum wage.
As an example it could be that the lady with 4 children a few years back was fine, her husband/partner was also a nurse, they paid their rent, food bill etc etc. It could be he ran off with another woman never to be seen again and isn't paying any maintenance, it could be he died leaving no money/life assurance etc. It could be 101 other reasons, we don't know.
If her personal circumstances haven't changed then the reason she is needing to visit a food bank to me isn't clear when she would have circa 10% more take home pay than 7 years ago. How old are the children? Did she only have 1 in 2010 and has had 3 since....... we simply don't know. What is about the only thing that is clear in those examples or maybe the common denominator is the single parent aspect.
As an aside but slightly related, back in the early 70's my parents who both worked used to borrow money/food from next door some weeks and vice versa next door at times would do the same to make it through the week. They moved down into Kent to rent their first home as couldn't afford in London, for the first 6 years after getting married they rented a room from my dads Aunt, I wasn't alive then but yes my mum and dad plus my sister as a baby lived in that one room.......
We moved back to London in the late 70's but it wasn't until 1986 we lived in a house with central heating. Both my parents worked in the city.......
As a society are we really worse off now?.......
No. The common denominator is that they are nurses. Some of the examples were those of single parents. All of the examples were those working in nursing.
But clearly that isn't the sole cause (being nurses) otherwise all 675,000 would be visiting food banks, along with the other 10m+ of the working population who earn £21.5k or less.
My wife is a teaching assistant, two of her colleagues (FT teaching assistants) that I know personally have children with absent fathers (so are by definition are single mums), neither of those go to food banks and as teaching assistants they earn less than £12,000 a year. Not saying life isn't hard for them and that they don't make sacrifices but they do make ends meet.
You said the common denominator is that they are single parents ("the only thing that is clear in those examples ... the common denominator is the single parent aspect"). This is not true. The common denominator is that they are nurses. I didn't say it's the sole cause. You brought up "common denominator". I corrected you. That's all.
There must be a point at which anyone decides enough is enough. So, each of us can decide how many nurses having to rely on food banks is too many. For me, it's one.
So if someone finds themselves in poverty through their own fault and cannot find work, should we let them starve? Freeze? Live on the streets? What would be the point? Just trying to get into the thought process of those who think some poor people don't deserve assistance?
Where has anyone suggested that?
What was the point you were trying to make about your father in law then?
I got Centralist with a balance between Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour! I even got an edge of UKIP based on wanting to deport criminals I guess they're the only options I felt may have been UKIP linked!
@seth plum I understand that poverty is simply based on 60 percent of the average income so if we continue to use this, we will never eradicate poverty no matter how rich we all are.
Hard why some people will switch off when these figures are used. They have little to do with real poverty.
Mrs TT works in a medical centre. I asked her about food banks so I could report back to here.
She is responsible for all staff personnel issues. None of them have declared use of good banks, although it can't be ruled out that embarrassment might inhibit sharing this info. She doesn't think so as she is regularly approached over personal problems. She has around 40 staff working under her including receptionists, HCAsand nurses.
the doctors issue good bank vouchers and whilst not denying them to any recipients, they often privately question the validity of the need. Mrs TT has witnessed some recipients turning up with new hair dos, freshly manicured nails and top of the range smart phones.
this doesn't mean these people are not deserving but the doctors are far from typical right wingers and are naturally bleeding heart liberals. Some turning up for vouchers with smart phones and freshly manicured leaves them open to the question of if their need is genuine.
I got Centralist with a balance between Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour! I even got an edge of UKIP based on wanting to deport criminals I guess they're the only options I felt may have been UKIP linked!
pretty much sided with Labour and the Greens 70% each (they happen to be the two parties I would most likely vote for) with that quiz, the Conservatives were the least. apparently it's a shame I'm not welsh as I had a lot of matches with Plaid Cymru (82%).
So if someone finds themselves in poverty through their own fault and cannot find work, should we let them starve? Freeze? Live on the streets? What would be the point? Just trying to get into the thought process of those who think some poor people don't deserve assistance?
Where has anyone suggested that?
What was the point you were trying to make about your father in law then?
Because Fiiish said, "They are already doing everything they can to survive on their own and they still cannot make ends meet through no fault of their own," and I had an issue with the 'no fault of their own' bit with regard to my own close sample of one (well two actually as his ex-wife is in the same boat!).
@seth plum I understand that poverty is simply based on 60 percent of the average income so if we continue to use this, we will never eradicate poverty no matter how rich we all are.
Hard why some people will switch off when these figures are used. They have little to do with real poverty.
Mrs TT works in a medical centre. I asked her about food banks so I could report back to here.
She is responsible for all staff personnel issues. None of them have declared use of good banks, although it can't be ruled out that embarrassment might inhibit sharing this info. She doesn't think so as she is regularly approached over personal problems. She has around 40 staff working under her including receptionists, HCAsand nurses.
the doctors issue good bank vouchers and whilst not denying them to any recipients, they often privately question the validity of the need. Mrs TT has witnessed some recipients turning up with new hair dos, freshly manicured nails and top of the range smart phones.
this doesn't mean these people are not deserving but the doctors are far from typical right wingers and are naturally bleeding heart liberals. Some turning up for vouchers with smart phones and freshly manicured leaves them open to the question of if their need is genuine.
What kind of organisation would require their staff to declare whether they use food banks?
I got Centralist with a balance between Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour! I even got an edge of UKIP based on wanting to deport criminals I guess they're the only options I felt may have been UKIP linked!
UKIP 54%, Cons 54%, LibDems 38%, Green 35%, Labour 29%
Ignoring UKIP and Green which I wouldn't vote for as they're a bunch of loons, the other %s look about right between the three main parties.
"You said the common denominator is that they are single parents ("the only thing that is clear in those examples ... the common denominator is the single parent aspect"). This is not true. The common denominator is that they are nurses. I didn't say it's the sole cause. You brought up "common denominator". I corrected you. That's all.
There must be a point at which anyone decides enough is enough. So, each of us can decide how many nurses having to rely on food banks is too many. For me, it's one."
My use of the 'common denominator' was in respect of why they are visiting a food bank. I don't believe that is in any way because they are nurses as otherwise all 675,000 nurses plus the other 10m+ people on a nurses equivalent wage or less would also be doing so. The only other link on the very limited information was single parent. It might be that, it might not.....
I agree one is AT LEAST one too many under most circumstances, but we don't know those circumstances. For all we know the reason they are visiting the food bank is because they have a gambling habit and feed 10% of their wages to William Hill ....... have a debt from 100 parking fines, had a house fire and weren't insured, ran up a huge mobile phone bill, bought a £500 smart phone or maybe even had to find £4,000 to pay for their charlton supporting fathers funeral........ there could literally be a thousand different reasons.
As examples I have given, I know people earning around half what a nurse earns in similar circumstances to the limited info given (single parent and number of children being about the only other information) who don't need to visit a food bank to eat, why is that? It isn't because they aren't nurses......
I got Centralist with a balance between Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour! I even got an edge of UKIP based on wanting to deport criminals I guess they're the only options I felt may have been UKIP linked!
UKIP 54%, Cons 54%, LibDems 38%, Green 35%, Labour 29%
Ignoring UKIP and Green which I wouldn't vote for as they're a bunch of loons, the other %s look about right between the three main parties.
Mine was almost identical, just had labour and UKIP the other way around!
To use Cambridge University as an example, they estimate the actual cost (to them) of providing an undergraduate education to be £18k pa on average - in other words even at £9k pa, the taxpayer is still providing a 50% subsidy.
And you of all people simply blithely accept that figure?
It hardly sounds outlandish given it is similar to what a typical non-profit private school would charge for a sixth form education.
Indeed given the small group teaching emphasised by the university and the central overheads of running such a large university (plus additional college costs), if anything it sounded quite low.
By comparison Harvard charges $43k for tuition (£33k at current FX rates or closer to say £25k pre-Brexit).
e
I would prefer to argue the case with different benchmarks. Cambridge is a special case, I could accept they have a highr cost base, although whether those costs are effectively managed, we are unable to discern.
The issue for most of us will be standard UK Unis. In my case Kent and Loughborough. 27k per student. Just covering costs? Really? If that is so, why do no Unis in Europe charge anything like these figures, even for foreign students? Is it because they are all useless by comparison with English ones? There is a ranking for that sort of comparison, and by no means is it dominate by English Unis.
My buddy' son is one year younger than my nephew, both did/Do a biz studies degree. My buddy's son is at Copenhagen. Cost of fees? Nic, nada, nulla. And he isn't even a Danish national ( it's a pan Scandi arrangement apparently). CPH is an expensive city. So why do the Danes put this burden on the State? More importantly just how big is The burden?
When I look at my nephew and my mate's son it looks like the latter who is better equipped for a biz career. My nephew sailed through biz studies at Kent with a 1st, but flunked his exams in the E&Y grad course, was booted out, and his nascent career has drifted ever since. My buddy's son seems more focused, and I have never come across a Dane in business who wasn't razor sharp and punching above his/her perceived national weight.
Anyone who looks at the situation across Europe can see that there is something radically wrong with our new fee regime, but few do, preferring to pull up the drawbridge and comfort themselves that it's still cheaper than Harvard.
No one has directly made the comment but there has been plenty of chatter on here about what the poor do and don't deserve and how much they are given through welfare. I'm trying to reconcile how some people can say we pay poor people too much money but then no one wants to outright say that they want benefits reduced to a level where they cannot afford food and will eventually starve, even though this is currently the reality for over 1 million British families reliant on food banks for their survival.
It seems to me that most people voting to cut benefits are completely unaware that benefits are already at a level where families are unable to afford food, even when most of those families will have someone in employment.
TT: it's actually based on the median as opposed to usual average, which means it is not entirely impossible to reduce the number of people in poverty down to a percentage of less than 5%.
There will always be temporary poverty so under 5% at any given time is to be expected. What I feel to be particularly shameful about poverty in Britain is that the number of children, disabled people, other vulnerable groups, and those trapped in a poverty cycle, are all rising.
I got Centralist with a balance between Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour! I even got an edge of UKIP based on wanting to deport criminals I guess they're the only options I felt may have been UKIP linked!
It would have been great to have seen Fiiiish do this in 2015 and be able to compare it to now. Would have been really interesting reading.
So if someone finds themselves in poverty through their own fault and cannot find work, should we let them starve? Freeze? Live on the streets? What would be the point? Just trying to get into the thought process of those who think some poor people don't deserve assistance?
Ludicrous comment. I haven't seen anyone even the most staunch conservative supporter suggest any of that. We all have a human duty to help those less fortunate wherever your current position is in that.
We've made it to 100 pages and 1000's of comments without a Tory supporter setting out, or even attempting to outline, why the UK is overall a better place now than when they took over 7 years ago.
Pass the socialist champagne...
Probably because no one believes we are in a massively better place than 7 years ago. But are we in a better place than we could/would have been? ...... but that would be a bit like wondering if Powell would have got us to the Premiership by now....... we'll never know!
Question is do people think we will be in a better place than now in another 7 years time under Corbyn's Labour or mays Conservatives? Again whoever gets in (making a wild assumption it'll be one of those two) we simply will never know if the one that didn't would have made a better job of it.
I didn't say "massively better place" than where we were, just asked the question why some believe we, as a country not individuals, are overall better off now than we were then?
This forum is a really good place for reasoned, informed discussions on all sides. Much better than I see elsewhere tbh. Yet the evidence from the many 1000's of comments on this thread, and those that have not yet been able or willing to present an overall positive view of the current government's performance, is that we are not in a better place.
You're basically indulging in whataboutery rather than making a genuine effort to present any real, evidence based, examples of where the UK has benefited from a Tory led administration. Worse than that you're clearly prepared to go out and give them another 5 years, pretty much on the basis they aren't someone else. Which raises the question at what, if any, point do you acknowledge that things are not improving?
Some of us are already well past that point and think another 8 years of austerity budgets, which is what you're about to vote for, will be a disaster for a supposed developed country and the people who rely on its public services. Which is all of us...
Comments
We've made it to 100 pages and 1000's of comments without a Tory supporter setting out, or even attempting to outline, why the UK is overall a better place now than when they took over 7 years ago.
Pass the socialist champagne...
Of course in some areas there are different dynamics, rent as one example in many areas will have increased at a far greater rate than inflation. On the flip side interest rates (BOE) were 1.5% in Jan 2009, 1% in Feb 2009, 0.5% in march 2009 and finally 0.25% In August 2016. You only need go back to December 2007 and they were at 5.5%.
So anyone with a mortgage for the past 10 years will have seen considerable savings in their monthly outgoings. Someone with an 80k mortgage in 2008 will be paying somewhere in the region of £3,500 less per annum in interest.
House prices are probably the real killer, although in part that it southern centric. My sister lives in a very nice house in Nottingham that probably hasn't even gone up in line with inflation over the past ten years. Conversely my fathers in SE London has probably doubled in that time.
I am going to be critical of Corbyn now though - I have been so impressed with the manifesto and the economics behind it - but why is he not appearing in the TV leaders debate tonight? I know why May isn't. I would advise her not to if I was her adviser, but Corbyn has to win the election - May has to not lose it!
Question is do people think we will be in a better place than now in another 7 years time under Corbyn's Labour or mays Conservatives? Again whoever gets in (making a wild assumption it'll be one of those two) we simply will never know if the one that didn't would have made a better job of it.
There must be a point at which anyone decides enough is enough. So, each of us can decide how many nurses having to rely on food banks is too many. For me, it's one.
I side with quiz
I got Centralist with a balance between Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour!
I even got an edge of UKIP based on wanting to deport criminals I guess they're the only options I felt may have been UKIP linked!
I understand that poverty is simply based on 60 percent of the average income so if we continue to use this, we will never eradicate poverty no matter how rich we all are.
Hard why some people will switch off when these figures are used. They have little to do with real poverty.
Mrs TT works in a medical centre. I asked her about food banks so I could report back to here.
She is responsible for all staff personnel issues. None of them have declared use of good banks, although it can't be ruled out that embarrassment might inhibit sharing this info. She doesn't think so as she is regularly approached over personal problems. She has around 40 staff working under her including receptionists, HCAsand nurses.
the doctors issue good bank vouchers and whilst not denying them to any recipients, they often privately question the validity of the need. Mrs TT has witnessed some recipients turning up with new hair dos, freshly manicured nails and top of the range smart phones.
this doesn't mean these people are not deserving but the doctors are far from typical right wingers and are naturally bleeding heart liberals. Some turning up for vouchers with smart phones and freshly manicured leaves them open to the question of if their need is genuine.
Anyhow I wish I'd never mentioned it! ;-)
Ignoring UKIP and Green which I wouldn't vote for as they're a bunch of loons, the other %s look about right between the three main parties.
"You said the common denominator is that they are single parents ("the only thing that is clear in those examples ... the common denominator is the single parent aspect"). This is not true. The common denominator is that they are nurses. I didn't say it's the sole cause. You brought up "common denominator". I corrected you. That's all.
There must be a point at which anyone decides enough is enough. So, each of us can decide how many nurses having to rely on food banks is too many. For me, it's one."
My use of the 'common denominator' was in respect of why they are visiting a food bank. I don't believe that is in any way because they are nurses as otherwise all 675,000 nurses plus the other 10m+ people on a nurses equivalent wage or less would also be doing so. The only other link on the very limited information was single parent. It might be that, it might not.....
I agree one is AT LEAST one too many under most circumstances, but we don't know those circumstances. For all we know the reason they are visiting the food bank is because they have a gambling habit and feed 10% of their wages to William Hill ....... have a debt from 100 parking fines, had a house fire and weren't insured, ran up a huge mobile phone bill, bought a £500 smart phone or maybe even had to find £4,000 to pay for their charlton supporting fathers funeral........ there could literally be a thousand different reasons.
As examples I have given, I know people earning around half what a nurse earns in similar circumstances to the limited info given (single parent and number of children being about the only other information) who don't need to visit a food bank to eat, why is that? It isn't because they aren't nurses......
I would prefer to argue the case with different benchmarks. Cambridge is a special case, I could accept they have a highr cost base, although whether those costs are effectively managed, we are unable to discern.
The issue for most of us will be standard UK Unis. In my case Kent and Loughborough. 27k per student. Just covering costs? Really?
If that is so, why do no Unis in Europe charge anything like these figures, even for foreign students? Is it because they are all useless by comparison with English ones? There is a ranking for that sort of comparison, and by no means is it dominate by English Unis.
My buddy' son is one year younger than my nephew, both did/Do a biz studies degree. My buddy's son is at Copenhagen. Cost of fees? Nic, nada, nulla. And he isn't even a Danish national ( it's a pan Scandi arrangement apparently). CPH is an expensive city. So why do the Danes put this burden on the State? More importantly just how big is The burden?
When I look at my nephew and my mate's son it looks like the latter who is better equipped for a biz career. My nephew sailed through biz studies at Kent with a 1st, but flunked his exams in the E&Y grad course, was booted out, and his nascent career has drifted ever since. My buddy's son seems more focused, and I have never come across a Dane in business who wasn't razor sharp and punching above his/her perceived national weight.
Anyone who looks at the situation across Europe can see that there is something radically wrong with our new fee regime, but few do, preferring to pull up the drawbridge and comfort themselves that it's still cheaper than Harvard.
Brexit British attitudes, in a nutshell.
No one has directly made the comment but there has been plenty of chatter on here about what the poor do and don't deserve and how much they are given through welfare. I'm trying to reconcile how some people can say we pay poor people too much money but then no one wants to outright say that they want benefits reduced to a level where they cannot afford food and will eventually starve, even though this is currently the reality for over 1 million British families reliant on food banks for their survival.
It seems to me that most people voting to cut benefits are completely unaware that benefits are already at a level where families are unable to afford food, even when most of those families will have someone in employment.
There will always be temporary poverty so under 5% at any given time is to be expected. What I feel to be particularly shameful about poverty in Britain is that the number of children, disabled people, other vulnerable groups, and those trapped in a poverty cycle, are all rising.
Green 79%
Lib Dem 72%
UKIP 38%
Conservatives 36%
Shocked that I align nearly 40% with UKIP!!! Just goes to show!
This forum is a really good place for reasoned, informed discussions on all sides. Much better than I see elsewhere tbh. Yet the evidence from the many 1000's of comments on this thread, and those that have not yet been able or willing to present an overall positive view of the current government's performance, is that we are not in a better place.
You're basically indulging in whataboutery rather than making a genuine effort to present any real, evidence based, examples of where the UK has benefited from a Tory led administration. Worse than that you're clearly prepared to go out and give them another 5 years, pretty much on the basis they aren't someone else. Which raises the question at what, if any, point do you acknowledge that things are not improving?
Some of us are already well past that point and think another 8 years of austerity budgets, which is what you're about to vote for, will be a disaster for a supposed developed country and the people who rely on its public services. Which is all of us...