I've got to agree with whoever said Corbyn is completely missing a trick not being involved in the debate tonight.
The more he gets his policies out there, the bigger chance he has in my opinion. He could really show up May's complete cowardice at dodging them, yet he's decided to too.
Utter madness, and as infuriating as letting Diane Abbott anywhere near the public eye.
I think one of the problems of modern living is it now costs so much to live that both parents need to work, as most parents will probably know it is hard to give your children the kind of upbringing they need when both parents are in full-time jobs, let alone what it must be like as a single parent, ironically it is probably that boost of both parents working income that created the demand and increased cost of living in the first place. The result is the social issues we have today, kids not being 'brought up properly', and the rise in anti-social behaviour - you only have to see kids after school in my area to see the carnage of our modern age.
I've got to agree with whoever said Corbyn is completely missing a trick not being involved in the debate tonight.
The more he gets his policies out there, the bigger chance he has in my opinion. He could really show up May's complete cowardice at dodging them, yet he's decided to too.
Utter madness, and as infuriating as letting Diane Abbott anywhere near the public eye.
It was me - it is so frustrating. His argument is if May won't do it he won't, but what sort of nosnsense is that. This is an election campaign, he needs to get his message out there - May needs to talk as little about her message as possible. It is right for her not to attend - and potentially make a cock up - Corbyn has to take a risk or two and get out there given the gap Labour needs to close!
This is the most exciting manifesto I can remember - get the message out in every way you can and lock Abbott away somewhere.
I undertsand he can still change his mind and appear - I hope there are people trying to make that happen.
I've got to agree with whoever said Corbyn is completely missing a trick not being involved in the debate tonight.
The more he gets his policies out there, the bigger chance he has in my opinion. He could really show up May's complete cowardice at dodging them, yet he's decided to too.
Utter madness, and as infuriating as letting Diane Abbott anywhere near the public eye.
I caught 20 minutes of Corbyn on the radio being interviewed earlier by Jeremy Vine. I have to say he came across really well in that format and if you weren't aware of his "baggage", the people that are around him and that he looks like a 1970's geography teacher his performance was pretty credible. Certainly did more than repeat clichés and slogans like Jeremy Hunt did on Today this morning.
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...
I don't think anyone would try to make the case that these are wonderful times for the UK but relative to reasonable expectations after the financial crisis, we seem to be in relatively decent health (certainly relative to most of EU peers and probably the US too).
Unemployment is below 5%, inflation is low and economic growth is satisfactory at this point in the economic cycle - all of these points come with caveats of course (are the jobs good quality? is inflation looming? etc.)
Unfortunately when people think of some halcyon days when things were much better, my sense is that either they have selective memory or they are considering temporary 'boom' parts of the economic cycle (which inevitably precedes a bust as economic growth/spending was pulled forward from future periods via borrowing).
Alternatively they are considering boom periods for their own lives but as you rightly say, one needs to consider the country holistically and not just as a series of individual experiences.
Bloody Tories making me pay for my care out of my own pile and expecting me to feed my own children and pay for my own winter fuel. Absolute disgrace.
What the Tories ever done for the rich.
Thing is Dipps, I am not sure a modest little terrace house in Eltham Park is a "pile". But it probably represents the only way my nephew and niece can expect to rent a reasonable place, and possibly own in future, given the state of house prices.
This has not been thought through at all. Well it comes from Jeremy Hunt, so colour me gobsmacked
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...
I don't think anyone would try to make the case that these are wonderful times for the UK but relative to reasonable expectations after the financial crisis, we seem to be in relatively decent health (certainly relative to most of EU peers and probably the US too).
Unemployment is below 5%, inflation is low and economic growth is satisfactory at this point in the economic cycle - all of these points come with caveats of course (are the jobs good quality? is inflation looming? etc.)
Unfortunately when people think of some halcyon days when things were much better, my sense is that either they have selective memory or they are considering temporary 'boom' parts of the economic cycle (which inevitably precedes a bust as economic growth/spending was pulled forward from future periods via borrowing).
Alternatively they are considering boom periods for their own lives but as you rightly say, one needs to consider the country holistically and not just as a series of individual experiences.
Don't want this to detract from the main thrust of your post, which is a good one, but you are in for a shock re the relative health of the UK. Esepcially when you see which "basket case" EU country is no 1.
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.
Understood, and I hope from any of my posts you don't feel I have taken that stance.
If there's one thing I've learnt along the way throwing money at problems doesn't generally solve much in the long term, you need to attack the route cause. If I can give one example;
A young homeless lady who used to sit outside the station. I would always stop and chat on the way to getting the train and on a Friday give her some money. I was usually in a rush so the chat was usually 1 minute of pleasantries.
Well she's not there anymore, she has a job now and a roof over her head. During one of our conversations when SE Trains were being crap as usual I chatted for a bit longer and found out a lot more about her, she said she'd love a job but no one would give her a chance, by her own admission she looked scruffy, had no clothes that she felt was suitable for an interview nor did she know how to write a CV, she was early 20's and had never really worked since leaving care. So for the price of a few starbucks we smartened her up a bit, got her a 1 page CV together (all around what she could offer as a person as there was no exams or work history) and I lined her up with an interview at Pret's main centre (who are fantastic with the homeless by the way).
She didn't get the Pret job, but not long after she did get a job in a shoe shop. I don't see her anymore since she told me and said goodbye but I assume it's working out for her.
None of that progression for her was really anything to do with money, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if she got almost as much money sitting outside the station as she does working at the shoe shop. She needed the help from the homeless charities and people passing by giving her a few pounds to eat and to try to survive, but as good and as necessary as that was it didn't deal with the underlying issue. I literally only gave her a few hours of my time and what I'd probably have given her in money over the next 4-5 Fridays anyway. Some people need that little bit of help, some don't and can do it themselves and some need an awful lot more.
A long winded way of saying it's fine to give people money to help them to survive (as in benefits), but as a society and specifically as individuals we need to help people less fortunate to break that spiral of hand to mouth and to allow them to be able to help themselves. You can't always rely on governments to do that for us 100% of the time, we are all human beings at the end of the day and time costs nothing.
Hence why I am a big fan of taking those on the average salary or less out of taxation. No point taxing them and then having to top up their salaries with benefits, makes no sense in my view. Clearly that's just one small problem, it won't solve all problems, but it's a start for a better future 'for the many and not the few' .
Bloody Tories making me pay for my care out of my own pile and expecting me to feed my own children and pay for my own winter fuel. Absolute disgrace.
What the Tories ever done for the rich.
Thing is Dipps, I am not sure a modest little terrace house in Eltham Park is a "pile". But it probably represents the only way my nephew and niece can expect to rent a reasonable place, and possibly own in future, given the state of house prices.
This has not been thought through at all. Well it comes from Jeremy Hunt, so colour me gobsmacked
It is an improvement on now though - but they havent tackled the injustice that people in care homes with savings are paying 40% more for their care than those without. The message is, if you get dementia we will steal your money off you to subsidise the costs of other people with dementia.
The TV debates were dreadful for Miliband last time around. The Tories sat back and watched smugly while all the smaller parties took chunks out of Labour and hardly challenged the Tory record. I imagine they want to avoid a repeat.
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!
With the winter fuel, because it may not reach those who need it its universal - perhaps it could be an honest tax, and those who don't qualify for it can opt out..
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.
Understood, and I hope from any of my posts you don't feel I have taken that stance.
If there's one thing I've learnt along the way throwing money at problems doesn't generally solve much in the long term, you need to attack the route cause. If I can give one example;
A young homeless lady who used to sit outside the station. I would always stop and chat on the way to getting the train and on a Friday give her some money. I was usually in a rush so the chat was usually 1 minute of pleasantries.
Well she's not there anymore, she has a job now and a roof over her head. During one of our conversations when SE Trains were being crap as usual I chatted for a bit longer and found out a lot more about her, she said she'd love a job but no one would give her a chance, by her own admission she looked scruffy, had no clothes that she felt was suitable for an interview nor did she know how to write a CV, she was early 20's and had never really worked since leaving care. So for the price of a few starbucks we smartened her up a bit, got her a 1 page CV together (all around what she could offer as a person as there was no exams or work history) and I lined her up with an interview at Pret's main centre (who are fantastic with the homeless by the way).
She didn't get the Pret job, but not long after she did get a job in a shoe shop. I don't see her anymore since she told me and said goodbye but I assume it's working out for her.
None of that progression for her was really anything to do with money, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if she got almost as much money sitting outside the station as she does working at the shoe shop. She needed the help from the homeless charities and people passing by giving her a few pounds to eat and to try to survive, but as good and as necessary as that was it didn't deal with the underlying issue. I literally only gave her a few hours of my time and what I'd probably have given her in money over the next 4-5 Fridays anyway. Some people need that little bit of help, some don't and can do it themselves and some need an awful lot more.
A long winded way of saying it's fine to give people money to help them to survive (as in benefits), but as a society and specifically as individuals we need to help people less fortunate to break that spiral of hand to mouth and to allow them to be able to help themselves. You can't always rely on governments to do that for us 100% of the time, we are all human beings at the end of the day and time costs nothing.
Hence why I am a big fan of taking those on the average salary or less out of taxation. No point taxing them and then having to top up their salaries with benefits, makes no sense in my view. Clearly that's just one small problem, it won't solve all problems, but it's a start for a better future 'for the many and not the few' .
Good to read. I've done crisis now and don't claim to be any expert but the problem with homelessness as I understand it, is that local councils cannot help anymore. It's pretty much on the charities to help. Your point is bang on about not throwing money at it per se, but money will have to be spent if we are able to put together an infrastructure and culture, resources, whatever is needed to do what you did in this example.
How many hard working public sector employees probably want to do what you did here every single day they go into work. Wanting to do it versus doing what they can given the current climate of austerity is probably a million miles away.
With the winter fuel, because it may not reach those who need it its universal - perhaps it could be an honest tax, and those who don't qualify for it can opt out..
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!).
Anyhow I wish I'd never mentioned it! ;-)
Yes, sorry to LABOUR the point - I think Fish was making a general comment rather than one aimed specifically at your father in law and that was my issue with it. More because it is a tried and trusted Tory policy to do this rather than you personally. I don't doubt there are scroungers out there to be found, but they should never be used as a reason or excuse to rabble rouse and hammer vulnerable people.
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.
Understood, and I hope from any of my posts you don't feel I have taken that stance.
If there's one thing I've learnt along the way throwing money at problems doesn't generally solve much in the long term, you need to attack the route cause. If I can give one example;
A young homeless lady who used to sit outside the station. I would always stop and chat on the way to getting the train and on a Friday give her some money. I was usually in a rush so the chat was usually 1 minute of pleasantries.
Well she's not there anymore, she has a job now and a roof over her head. During one of our conversations when SE Trains were being crap as usual I chatted for a bit longer and found out a lot more about her, she said she'd love a job but no one would give her a chance, by her own admission she looked scruffy, had no clothes that she felt was suitable for an interview nor did she know how to write a CV, she was early 20's and had never really worked since leaving care. So for the price of a few starbucks we smartened her up a bit, got her a 1 page CV together (all around what she could offer as a person as there was no exams or work history) and I lined her up with an interview at Pret's main centre (who are fantastic with the homeless by the way).
She didn't get the Pret job, but not long after she did get a job in a shoe shop. I don't see her anymore since she told me and said goodbye but I assume it's working out for her.
None of that progression for her was really anything to do with money, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if she got almost as much money sitting outside the station as she does working at the shoe shop. She needed the help from the homeless charities and people passing by giving her a few pounds to eat and to try to survive, but as good and as necessary as that was it didn't deal with the underlying issue. I literally only gave her a few hours of my time and what I'd probably have given her in money over the next 4-5 Fridays anyway. Some people need that little bit of help, some don't and can do it themselves and some need an awful lot more.
A long winded way of saying it's fine to give people money to help them to survive (as in benefits), but as a society and specifically as individuals we need to help people less fortunate to break that spiral of hand to mouth and to allow them to be able to help themselves. You can't always rely on governments to do that for us 100% of the time, we are all human beings at the end of the day and time costs nothing.
Hence why I am a big fan of taking those on the average salary or less out of taxation. No point taxing them and then having to top up their salaries with benefits, makes no sense in my view. Clearly that's just one small problem, it won't solve all problems, but it's a start for a better future 'for the many and not the few' .
Good to read. I've done crisis now and don't claim to be any expert but the problem with homelessness as I understand it, is that local councils cannot help anymore. It's pretty much on the charities to help. Your point is bang on about not throwing money at it per se, but money will have to be spent if we are able to put together an infrastructure and culture, resources, whatever is needed to do what you did in this example.
How many hard working public sector employees probably want to do what you did here every single day they go into work. Wanting to do it versus doing what they can given the current climate of austerity is probably a million miles away.
Agreed, in the main though what really helped her in the end was actually very little of my time, not money and you can probably thank SE Trains for that . I'd encourage everyone to do something voluntary in their local community......
"In her short reign as prime minister, Theresa May has been warmly supported by many of Britain’s most powerful newspaper groups.
The Daily Mail, the Times and the Daily Express, which have different owners, have mostly been as positive toward her as they have been disobliging about Jeremy Corbyn.
At the same time, these different newspaper groups have campaigned vigorously for the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry, and Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act (which would have required them to pay the legal costs of action taken against them, if they didn’t sign up to an approved regulator) to be scrapped.
The Tory manifesto has agreed to these wishes: both Leveson two and Section 40 won’t materialise."
I mean, really?! This is actually becoming a joke.
It does continue...
"Obviously there is no suggestion or evidence of some kind of deal between the prime minister and the press - but clearly she has a more constructive relationship with many of Britain’s top titles than even her predecessor.
It was David Cameron who, victims of press abuse believe, gave an assurance that Leveson two would go ahead. Those victims feel betrayed today.
Meanwhile at Channel 4, there is bound to be anxiety and dismay among staff that the broadcaster will be relocated outside of London.
For several months, senior executives have argued strongly against such a move.
The most senior, CEO David Abraham, is leaving later this year. Contenders to replace him will have to weigh the uncertainty of not immediately knowing where they will be based."
I would of thought a TV debate of the party leaders should be mandatory for all party leaders to be there.
She's ahead in the polls. This election is hers to lose. What's that old saying ? Better to say nothing a let people think you are an idiot than open your mouth and prove it beyond all doubt. Apologies to the original but you get my drift.
This election for May is about sound bites not debate.
Agree it's a massive own goal for Corbyn not to get himself out there and try to prove he's not the "bogeyman".
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.
Understood, and I hope from any of my posts you don't feel I have taken that stance.
If there's one thing I've learnt along the way throwing money at problems doesn't generally solve much in the long term, you need to attack the route cause. If I can give one example;
A young homeless lady who used to sit outside the station. I would always stop and chat on the way to getting the train and on a Friday give her some money. I was usually in a rush so the chat was usually 1 minute of pleasantries.
Well she's not there anymore, she has a job now and a roof over her head. During one of our conversations when SE Trains were being crap as usual I chatted for a bit longer and found out a lot more about her, she said she'd love a job but no one would give her a chance, by her own admission she looked scruffy, had no clothes that she felt was suitable for an interview nor did she know how to write a CV, she was early 20's and had never really worked since leaving care. So for the price of a few starbucks we smartened her up a bit, got her a 1 page CV together (all around what she could offer as a person as there was no exams or work history) and I lined her up with an interview at Pret's main centre (who are fantastic with the homeless by the way).
She didn't get the Pret job, but not long after she did get a job in a shoe shop. I don't see her anymore since she told me and said goodbye but I assume it's working out for her.
None of that progression for her was really anything to do with money, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if she got almost as much money sitting outside the station as she does working at the shoe shop. She needed the help from the homeless charities and people passing by giving her a few pounds to eat and to try to survive, but as good and as necessary as that was it didn't deal with the underlying issue. I literally only gave her a few hours of my time and what I'd probably have given her in money over the next 4-5 Fridays anyway. Some people need that little bit of help, some don't and can do it themselves and some need an awful lot more.
A long winded way of saying it's fine to give people money to help them to survive (as in benefits), but as a society and specifically as individuals we need to help people less fortunate to break that spiral of hand to mouth and to allow them to be able to help themselves. You can't always rely on governments to do that for us 100% of the time, we are all human beings at the end of the day and time costs nothing.
Hence why I am a big fan of taking those on the average salary or less out of taxation. No point taxing them and then having to top up their salaries with benefits, makes no sense in my view. Clearly that's just one small problem, it won't solve all problems, but it's a start for a better future 'for the many and not the few' .
The argument that you are making (if I read it correctly) is precisely the same as that made by development agencies, both NGO and governmental with regard to their work.
Just as with famine, war and pestilence in Africa, for example, there will be a need for emergency intervention to keep people alive in the short term.
However, everyone recognises that there is a need to address the underlying, long term issues.
It's the whole "Give a man a fish/teach him to fish" thing.
Our problem, in the Western World, is that, while we are more than happy to lecture others about the need for long term planning and development to improve the lot of those suffering, we do not practice what we preach at home.
Because of the electoral cycle (and, trust me, I prefer to have elections - even if imperfect - than not), there is no real incentive to take the strategic decisions to address real poverty and inequality in our society.
This is reinforced, at least in part, by the unlikelihood of the homeless and deprived voting, unlike pensioners (I'm not sure that the Electoral Commission will deliver voting papers to the doorway of Greggs) , so they are not a constituency to which politicians must pander - if even infrequently.
On second, or third, thoughts, I actually think that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to fixing the problems, is that we cannot as a society agree what they are and what causes them.
As a result, there are no glib and easy answers to the problems that combine against the most deprived in our society. Certainly none that I can suggest (in an effort to appear both caring and high minded).
If we are lucky, whoever is in power after the GE will be able to unveil/refresh the right programmes to make a difference, with the necessary investment, that will lead to (hopefully permanent) improvement, not matter how incrementally.
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 Got Labour 57%
If ever there was an example of sitting on the fence I think this is it (the screenshot, that is)
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 Got Labour 57%
If ever there was an example of sitting on the fence I think this is it (the screenshot, that is)
I just gave my answers, the left of centre is where its at Maggie.
Comments
The more he gets his policies out there, the bigger chance he has in my opinion. He could really show up May's complete cowardice at dodging them, yet he's decided to too.
Utter madness, and as infuriating as letting Diane Abbott anywhere near the public eye.
This is the most exciting manifesto I can remember - get the message out in every way you can and lock Abbott away somewhere.
I undertsand he can still change his mind and appear - I hope there are people trying to make that happen.
73% Sinn Fein. Eh?
45% UKIP, 43% BNP, 40% Tory??? WTF??
I'm going to sue.
Unemployment is below 5%, inflation is low and economic growth is satisfactory at this point in the economic cycle - all of these points come with caveats of course (are the jobs good quality? is inflation looming? etc.)
Unfortunately when people think of some halcyon days when things were much better, my sense is that either they have selective memory or they are considering temporary 'boom' parts of the economic cycle (which inevitably precedes a bust as economic growth/spending was pulled forward from future periods via borrowing).
Alternatively they are considering boom periods for their own lives but as you rightly say, one needs to consider the country holistically and not just as a series of individual experiences.
This has not been thought through at all. Well it comes from Jeremy Hunt, so colour me gobsmacked
67% green, 66% UKIP (how the fuck did that happen)
58% Tory
Great I'm 66% UKIP. I feel disgusted with myself
Edit: Here is the link to the index.
If there's one thing I've learnt along the way throwing money at problems doesn't generally solve much in the long term, you need to attack the route cause. If I can give one example;
A young homeless lady who used to sit outside the station. I would always stop and chat on the way to getting the train and on a Friday give her some money. I was usually in a rush so the chat was usually 1 minute of pleasantries.
Well she's not there anymore, she has a job now and a roof over her head. During one of our conversations when SE Trains were being crap as usual I chatted for a bit longer and found out a lot more about her, she said she'd love a job but no one would give her a chance, by her own admission she looked scruffy, had no clothes that she felt was suitable for an interview nor did she know how to write a CV, she was early 20's and had never really worked since leaving care. So for the price of a few starbucks we smartened her up a bit, got her a 1 page CV together (all around what she could offer as a person as there was no exams or work history) and I lined her up with an interview at Pret's main centre (who are fantastic with the homeless by the way).
She didn't get the Pret job, but not long after she did get a job in a shoe shop. I don't see her anymore since she told me and said goodbye but I assume it's working out for her.
None of that progression for her was really anything to do with money, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if she got almost as much money sitting outside the station as she does working at the shoe shop. She needed the help from the homeless charities and people passing by giving her a few pounds to eat and to try to survive, but as good and as necessary as that was it didn't deal with the underlying issue. I literally only gave her a few hours of my time and what I'd probably have given her in money over the next 4-5 Fridays anyway. Some people need that little bit of help, some don't and can do it themselves and some need an awful lot more.
A long winded way of saying it's fine to give people money to help them to survive (as in benefits), but as a society and specifically as individuals we need to help people less fortunate to break that spiral of hand to mouth and to allow them to be able to help themselves. You can't always rely on governments to do that for us 100% of the time, we are all human beings at the end of the day and time costs nothing.
Hence why I am a big fan of taking those on the average salary or less out of taxation. No point taxing them and then having to top up their salaries with benefits, makes no sense in my view. Clearly that's just one small problem, it won't solve all problems, but it's a start for a better future 'for the many and not the few'
Labour 57%
How many hard working public sector employees probably want to do what you did here every single day they go into work. Wanting to do it versus doing what they can given the current climate of austerity is probably a million miles away.
I know some say they donate it to charity.
"In her short reign as prime minister, Theresa May has been warmly supported by many of Britain’s most powerful newspaper groups.
The Daily Mail, the Times and the Daily Express, which have different owners, have mostly been as positive toward her as they have been disobliging about Jeremy Corbyn.
At the same time, these different newspaper groups have campaigned vigorously for the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry, and Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act (which would have required them to pay the legal costs of action taken against them, if they didn’t sign up to an approved regulator) to be scrapped.
The Tory manifesto has agreed to these wishes: both Leveson two and Section 40 won’t materialise."
I mean, really?! This is actually becoming a joke.
It does continue...
"Obviously there is no suggestion or evidence of some kind of deal between the prime minister and the press - but clearly she has a more constructive relationship with many of Britain’s top titles than even her predecessor.
It was David Cameron who, victims of press abuse believe, gave an assurance that Leveson two would go ahead. Those victims feel betrayed today.
Meanwhile at Channel 4, there is bound to be anxiety and dismay among staff that the broadcaster will be relocated outside of London.
For several months, senior executives have argued strongly against such a move.
The most senior, CEO David Abraham, is leaving later this year. Contenders to replace him will have to weigh the uncertainty of not immediately knowing where they will be based."
This election for May is about sound bites not debate.
Agree it's a massive own goal for Corbyn not to get himself out there and try to prove he's not the "bogeyman".
Just as with famine, war and pestilence in Africa, for example, there will be a need for emergency intervention to keep people alive in the short term.
However, everyone recognises that there is a need to address the underlying, long term issues.
It's the whole "Give a man a fish/teach him to fish" thing.
Our problem, in the Western World, is that, while we are more than happy to lecture others about the need for long term planning and development to improve the lot of those suffering, we do not practice what we preach at home.
Because of the electoral cycle (and, trust me, I prefer to have elections - even if imperfect - than not), there is no real incentive to take the strategic decisions to address real poverty and inequality in our society.
This is reinforced, at least in part, by the unlikelihood of the homeless and deprived voting, unlike pensioners (I'm not sure that the Electoral Commission will deliver voting papers to the doorway of Greggs) , so they are not a constituency to which politicians must pander - if even infrequently.
On second, or third, thoughts, I actually think that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to fixing the problems, is that we cannot as a society agree what they are and what causes them.
As a result, there are no glib and easy answers to the problems that combine against the most deprived in our society. Certainly none that I can suggest (in an effort to appear both caring and high minded).
If we are lucky, whoever is in power after the GE will be able to unveil/refresh the right programmes to make a difference, with the necessary investment, that will lead to (hopefully permanent) improvement, not matter how incrementally.
75% Labour
70% SNP
67% Green
50% Lib Dem
40% Tory
25% UKIP