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 amke a difference, with the necessary investment, that will lead to (hopefully permanent) improvement, not matter how incrementally.
That's about the size of it.
I came to the conclusion years ago that certainly in my voting lifetime no political party can or indeed has the will to fix everything. Therefore to an extent it is up to each and everyone one of us to take an element of responsibility and do what we can for fellow man.
That doesn't have to be financial, I've tried to teach my children to look out for those .... and I don't like the term but can't think of anything else right now ..... who are weaker than them.
Not sure my youngest totally understood when she (aged 13 and 5ft 7) stopped an older 'bully' from picking on a smaller girl leading to me getting a call from the head to come and pick her up from school........
I did the dutiful father thing of 'violence doesn't solve anything' etc but equally wasn't too hard on her as she was just stopping someone getting bullied if maybe not 100% in the best way (the bully has since been sent to a 'unit' I might add).
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.
74 Labour 72 Green 71 Liberal Democrat 36 Ukip 31 Tory
However.
The failing of this survey is to connect with those of us who weigh up the individual candidates regardless of party. For example if the choice was between Pragues mate Ed Davey, Diane Abbott, or even James Cleverly, then Diane Abbott would come third in that list for me.
Plaid Cymru - 86% (my love for Leanne just trumps everything else) Labour - 79% Sinn Féin - 77% (abolishing the Monarchy?) Green - 74% SNP - 73% LD - 72%
DU - 41% BNP - 40% (re-nationalising the railways and sending home foreign criminal I would guess) UKIP - 39% Cons - 33%
A little vice I must admit to. I really enjoy listening to Russell Brand - I often check out the Trews on you tube. He is so inciteful and funny. Just saw a clip which was terrific - it relates to a pro rebublican TV host rather than this country or this election. But I think it does resonate with where I see the hard right. That isn't all Conservatives, but these sort of people live in the Conservative party. The Conservatives are always at their best when they marginalise these people. My worry is that they are not marginalised any more. Anyway - like I said, if you maybe lean to the left and realise all the election coverage on the TV is sterile crap, have a laugh. It isn't to do with the election,much! I'm simply posting it because it is hilarious!
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?
No, it isnt. So one actual case (a single mum of 4), one trainee(so, not a nurse) and one bit of hear say. Out of what, 315,000 UK nurses? So, sorry to disappoint you and your followers who think it is enough evidence, but it's not really, is it?
Edit 1 - in checking how many I was surprised by these facts on the NHS site There were 18,432 more NHS nurses in 2014 compared to ten years earlier. The number has increased by an annual average of 0.5 per cent over that period. There were 5,729 more GPs and 1,688 more practice nurses employed by GPs in 2014 than ten years earlier.
Edit 2 - The single mum of 4 has actually just gone on to part time working! From the BBC: ''Murray, whose children are aged 6, 8, 13, and 19, said she had seen her monthly salary drop by £800 after switching to part-time outpatient work''
Nurses are on a higher wage than the grads starting in our agency... Speaking to someone on our grad scheme today and absolutely none of them are using food banks. Why do we always hear that nurses are using food banks?
Because it's a national embarrassment and a disgrace.
No that's not what I mean....
I am saying that nurses earn more money than many other professions who don't seem to use food banks as widely.
My example being a group of graduate ad execs on 18.5k are not using a food bank yet we apparently have tonnes of nurses on more than that who are..
Do get me wrong I don't like to see anyone using food banks but what is the reason? I lived away from home when i was on less than 20k - rented a flat with my mate in Sidcup, lived within my means (which admittedly didn't involve luxuries but that's all I could afford at the time) but was never close to not being able to eat.
Living to your means seems to be the key for me... 13 years later I live on 100k more than that but in many ways I don't 'feel' richer in the sense of having loads of cash left over at the end of every month. The difference being that he holidays, TVs, cars etc that I couldn't afford I now can. So my income has changed - and that's the difference. I have the flex to do the luxury things on top of the basic staples such as rent and food. When I was on less than 20k - well I couldn't afford that so missed out. But was never close to not being able to eat as I made a conscious decision to only do other things I once that was taken care of.
Firstly no one has said there are "tonnes" of nurses using food banks.
Secondly, you do not know for certain whether someone is using a food bank (or not) because they are hardly likely to admit to you, a more senior colleague, if they or another colleague were. People using food banks do so out of desperation and are unlikely to want it known around the office if they are.
Well done on your progression btw.
As the first poster to use the phrase about nurses being forced to use food banks, that's a bit pot/kettle.
So only just looked properly at the highlights of the Conservative manifesto, will read it fully later and how they have costed;
I think ok;
Change to triple lock to double lock, decent compromise. Take away winter fuel from the wealthier (haven't see at what level that is though, but as long as it's at a high enough level makes sense and doesn't cost more to administer than collected) £8bn extra for NHS per year In real terms Free school meals just for those that need it, not sure on the breakfast part £4bn into schools by 2020
Net migration to 100,000... believe it when I see it Simplify the tax system....... yer right.
Not so sure I like the changes to care costs, but we need to do something and fast. It's a difficult balance between the 'user' paying where they are able, or batting it further down the generations to pay via tax etc. Think they need to find a middle ground. I see other parties are up in arms about it and it being a 'death tax' - the same people who wanted to tax heavier people when they die....
The Personal allowance needs to be much more than £12.5k by 2020, they should scrap the 40% to £50k as well and lump it on the Personal allowance (or maybe that's what they mean anyway).
I'd like to have seen more commitment on raising income tax.
overall fairly underwhelming, but no surprise in that I guess. One things for sure, if conservatives get in again we need a strong opposition.
So only just looked properly at the highlights of the Conservative manifesto, will read it fully later and how they have costed;
I think ok;
Change to triple lock to double lock, decent compromise. Take away winter fuel from the wealthier (haven't see at what level that is though, but as long as it's at a high enough level makes sense and doesn't cost more to administer than collected) £8bn extra for NHS per year In real terms Free school meals just for those that need it, not sure on the breakfast part £4bn into schools by 2020
Net migration to 100,000... believe it when I see it Simplify the tax system....... yer right.
Not so sure I like the changes to care costs, but we need to do something and fast. It's a difficult balance between the 'user' paying where they are able, or batting it further down the generations to pay via tax etc. Think they need to find a middle ground. I see other parties are up in arms about it and it being a 'death tax' - the same people who wanted to tax heavier people when they die....
The Personal allowance needs to be much more than £12.5k by 2020, they should scrap the 40% to £50k as well and lump it on the Personal allowance (or maybe that's what they mean anyway).
I'd like to have seen more commitment on raising income tax.
overall fairly underwhelming, but no surprise in that I guess. One things for sure, if conservatives get in again we need a strong opposition.
I think there are some good ideas in there, trouble is, is I can't see anywhere that mentions the costings and how they're going to raise this money?
I have a serious question. Why are virtually all of the people who deny climate change sit on the right? I mean the destruction of the world affects us all, left and right. You may not believe in climate change, but your position shouldn't have anything to do with how you lean politically. So why are the people who deny climate change predominantly sit on the right? I am not accusing everybody on the right of this, but it is a serious question. Any views?
I have a serious question. Why are virtually all of the people who deny climate change sit on the right? I mean the destruction of the world affects us all, left and right. You may not believe in climate change, but your position shouldn't have anything to do with how you lean politically. So why are the people who deny climate change predominantly sit on the right? I am not accusing everybody on the right of this, but it is a serious question. Any views?
I very much dislike Zak Goldsmith, in fact I think he is a bit of a c**t, but I reckon he is concerned about climate change.
I have a serious question. Why are virtually all of the people who deny climate change sit on the right? I mean the destruction of the world affects us all, left and right. You may not believe in climate change, but your position shouldn't have anything to do with how you lean politically. So why are the people who deny climate change predominantly sit on the right? I am not accusing everybody on the right of this, but it is a serious question. Any views?
Are you referring to the leaders of the US and Russia? Rarely see any sane climate change deniers in mainstream UK media.
I have a serious question. Why are virtually all of the people who deny climate change sit on the right? I mean the destruction of the world affects us all, left and right. You may not believe in climate change, but your position shouldn't have anything to do with how you lean politically. So why are the people who deny climate change predominantly sit on the right? I am not accusing everybody on the right of this, but it is a serious question. Any views?
I very much dislike Zak Goldsmith, in fact I think he is a bit of a c**t, but I reckon he is concerned about climate change.
I'm not saying it is everybody - but I am saying why those who deny it or care less about it - and I don't mean politicians - are on the right. Or do people think a lot of people on the left hold similar views. It is something I want to understand. This is a left right question.
So only just looked properly at the highlights of the Conservative manifesto, will read it fully later and how they have costed;
I think ok;
Change to triple lock to double lock, decent compromise. Take away winter fuel from the wealthier (haven't see at what level that is though, but as long as it's at a high enough level makes sense and doesn't cost more to administer than collected) £8bn extra for NHS per year In real terms Free school meals just for those that need it, not sure on the breakfast part £4bn into schools by 2020
Net migration to 100,000... believe it when I see it Simplify the tax system....... yer right.
Not so sure I like the changes to care costs, but we need to do something and fast. It's a difficult balance between the 'user' paying where they are able, or batting it further down the generations to pay via tax etc. Think they need to find a middle ground. I see other parties are up in arms about it and it being a 'death tax' - the same people who wanted to tax heavier people when they die....
The Personal allowance needs to be much more than £12.5k by 2020, they should scrap the 40% to £50k as well and lump it on the Personal allowance (or maybe that's what they mean anyway).
I'd like to have seen more commitment on raising income tax.
overall fairly underwhelming, but no surprise in that I guess. One things for sure, if conservatives get in again we need a strong opposition.
I think there are some good ideas in there, trouble is, is I can't see anywhere that mentions the costings and how they're going to raise this money?
I haven't looked yet, only saw the highlights on BBC. The only bit I saw was the free schools meals making up for some of the additional education monies and the change to paying for care although at a glance that doesn't seem like 'new' money. The removal of winter fuel for the wealthier of course brings in some monies.
I really don't think they should have said no rise in tax/ni though although didn't see how long that guarantee was for.
I heard Michael Gove on the wireless this evening, going on about the Tory manifesto. You could almost smell his desire to get back in coming out of the speakers, despite his denials. 'I don't expect' (promotion) baloney. Is there a breed of slug with chameleon features? At least Diane Abbott is consistent with her uselessness, Gove is so slimy and obsequious he makes Abbott seem positively normal...or at least on one part of the spectrum of normality.
There is pretty much zero costings in the Tory manifesto along with vague "intentions" not to raise taxes. Besides that, yet more cuts to public services.
There is pretty much zero costings in the Tory manifesto along with vague "intentions" not to raise taxes. Besides that, yet more cuts to public services.
Annoying to have to pay for school meals, but glad the pensioners are getting some treatment as well... But seriously, it's not a bad manifesto, seeing as I'll have to live with it (assuming it's acted on for a change). Not exactly a sparkling vision for the future though is it? We are now emerging from the shadow of the global financial crisis. The Tories will be in for age. This should be party time. Making hay with some long term projects. Where is long term plan to upskill our kids the skills of the future? Where is the investment in science and the arts, the two things this country is good at? Don't tell me they know Brexit is a recession in the making
Annoying to have to pay for school fees, but glad the pensioners are getting some treatment as well... But seriously, it's not a bad manifesto, seeing as I'll have to live with it (assuming it's acted on for a change). Not exactly a sparkling vision for the future though is it? We are now emerging from the shadow of the global financial crisis. The Tories will be in for age. This should be party time. Making hay with some long term projects. Where is long term plan to upskill our kids the skills of the future? Where is the investment in science and the arts, the two things this country is good at? Don't tell me they know Brexit is a recession in the making
They've actually gone into a lot of detail in the investment they intend to make in training the next generation, they spoke a lot about investing in the training in science and modern day technology. They declared a number of infrastructures they'll be investing in and also claim that they'll be investing heavily in universities, I can't think of the direct figures right now but I remember reading it thinking
"sounds great but how are we going to raise the costings, especially with the income tax start level being raised and the 40% threshold being moved to start at 50k"
They said they're going to start the United Kingdom shared prosperity fund, which will be funded from the money we don't have to give to the EU (that was my understanding anyway) but I can't see that money covering all they've pledged to do?
Annoying to have to pay for school fees, but glad the pensioners are getting some treatment as well... But seriously, it's not a bad manifesto, seeing as I'll have to live with it (assuming it's acted on for a change). Not exactly a sparkling vision for the future though is it? We are now emerging from the shadow of the global financial crisis. The Tories will be in for age. This should be party time. Making hay with some long term projects. Where is long term plan to upskill our kids the skills of the future? Where is the investment in science and the arts, the two things this country is good at? Don't tell me they know Brexit is a recession in the making
They've actually gone into a lot of detail in the investment they intend to make in training the next generation, they spoke a lot about investing in the training in science and modern day technology. They declared a number of infrastructures they'll be investing in and also claim that they'll be investing heavily in universities, I can't think of the direct figures right now but I remember reading it thinking
"sounds great but how are we going to raise the costings, especially with the income tax start level being raised and the 40% threshold being moved to start at 50k"
They said they're going to start the United Kingdom shared prosperity fund, which will be funded from the money we don't have to give to the EU (that was my understanding anyway) but I can't see that money covering all they've pledged to do?
Good to hear. I'd missed the investment bit thanks
I have a serious question. Why are virtually all of the people who deny climate change sit on the right? I mean the destruction of the world affects us all, left and right. You may not believe in climate change, but your position shouldn't have anything to do with how you lean politically. So why are the people who deny climate change predominantly sit on the right? I am not accusing everybody on the right of this, but it is a serious question. Any views?
I very much dislike Zak Goldsmith, in fact I think he is a bit of a c**t, but I reckon he is concerned about climate change.
I'm not saying it is everybody - but I am saying why those who deny it or care less about it - and I don't mean politicians - are on the right. Or do people think a lot of people on the left hold similar views. It is something I want to understand. This is a left right question.
I have often thought about it, Mutts. Most of the climate deniers among politicians are extreme right. Nigel Lawson for example, nearly all Americans of the breed, and the repugnant Czech version, Vaclav Klaus. They tend to all want too a "small State" , support the tobacco lobby, and hate the EU. Nearly all have no scientific background - Lawson and Klaus are economists, but their towering egos allow them overrule all the careful work of the real scientists.
They, and people who follow them tend to be greedy selfish bastards in my experience. The trouble with climate change is that it potentially restricts them from living how they want. Somebody else telling them how they should conduct themselves, and that is a red rag to a bull.
I have also found that climate change deniers love conspiracy theories generally.
So in short I think the right wing connection is thanks to their twisted ideas of freedom and "liberty".
Nobody with a brain would deny climate change is happening - I would summarise the attitude of the Right in terms of dealing with its consequences rather than trying to stop it in its tracks.
In fairness the right-leaning Economist led with a very worrying piece about Arctic melt a couple of weeks ago.
Comments
I came to the conclusion years ago that certainly in my voting lifetime no political party can or indeed has the will to fix everything. Therefore to an extent it is up to each and everyone one of us to take an element of responsibility and do what we can for fellow man.
That doesn't have to be financial, I've tried to teach my children to look out for those .... and I don't like the term but can't think of anything else right now ..... who are weaker than them.
Not sure my youngest totally understood when she (aged 13 and 5ft 7) stopped an older 'bully' from picking on a smaller girl leading to me getting a call from the head to come and pick her up from school........
I did the dutiful father thing of 'violence doesn't solve anything' etc but equally wasn't too hard on her as she was just stopping someone getting bullied if maybe not 100% in the best way (the bully has since been sent to a 'unit' I might add).
74 Labour
72 Green
71 Liberal Democrat
36 Ukip
31 Tory
However.
The failing of this survey is to connect with those of us who weigh up the individual candidates regardless of party.
For example if the choice was between Pragues mate Ed Davey, Diane Abbott, or even James Cleverly, then Diane Abbott would come third in that list for me.
Plaid Cymru - 86% (my love for Leanne just trumps everything else)
Labour - 79%
Sinn Féin - 77% (abolishing the Monarchy?)
Green - 74%
SNP - 73%
LD - 72%
DU - 41%
BNP - 40% (re-nationalising the railways and sending home foreign criminal I would guess)
UKIP - 39%
Cons - 33%
So one actual case (a single mum of 4), one trainee(so, not a nurse) and one bit of hear say.
Out of what, 315,000 UK nurses?
So, sorry to disappoint you and your followers who think it is enough evidence, but it's not really, is it?
Edit 1 - in checking how many I was surprised by these facts on the NHS site There were 18,432 more NHS nurses in 2014 compared to ten years earlier. The number has increased by an annual average of 0.5 per cent over that period.
There were 5,729 more GPs and 1,688 more practice nurses employed by GPs in 2014 than ten years earlier.
Edit 2 - The single mum of 4 has actually just gone on to part time working! From the BBC:
''Murray, whose children are aged 6, 8, 13, and 19, said she had seen her monthly salary drop by £800 after switching to part-time outpatient work''
I think ok;
Change to triple lock to double lock, decent compromise.
Take away winter fuel from the wealthier (haven't see at what level that is though, but as long as it's at a high enough level makes sense and doesn't cost more to administer than collected)
£8bn extra for NHS per year In real terms
Free school meals just for those that need it, not sure on the breakfast part
£4bn into schools by 2020
Net migration to 100,000... believe it when I see it
Simplify the tax system....... yer right.
Not so sure I like the changes to care costs, but we need to do something and fast. It's a difficult balance between the 'user' paying where they are able, or batting it further down the generations to pay via tax etc. Think they need to find a middle ground. I see other parties are up in arms about it and it being a 'death tax' - the same people who wanted to tax heavier people when they die....
The Personal allowance needs to be much more than £12.5k by 2020, they should scrap the 40% to £50k as well and lump it on the Personal allowance (or maybe that's what they mean anyway).
I'd like to have seen more commitment on raising income tax.
overall fairly underwhelming, but no surprise in that I guess. One things for sure, if conservatives get in again we need a strong opposition.
Rarely see any sane climate change deniers in mainstream UK media.
I really don't think they should have said no rise in tax/ni though although didn't see how long that guarantee was for.
You could almost smell his desire to get back in coming out of the speakers, despite his denials.
'I don't expect' (promotion) baloney.
Is there a breed of slug with chameleon features?
At least Diane Abbott is consistent with her uselessness, Gove is so slimy and obsequious he makes Abbott seem positively normal...or at least on one part of the spectrum of normality.
The best plan is to be rich, not age and to never get ill.
"sounds great but how are we going to raise the costings, especially with the income tax start level being raised and the 40% threshold being moved to start at 50k"
They said they're going to start the United Kingdom shared prosperity fund, which will be funded from the money we don't have to give to the EU (that was my understanding anyway) but I can't see that money covering all they've pledged to do?
Most of the climate deniers among politicians are extreme right. Nigel Lawson for example, nearly all Americans of the breed, and the repugnant Czech version, Vaclav Klaus. They tend to all want too a "small State" , support the tobacco lobby, and hate the EU. Nearly all have no scientific background - Lawson and Klaus are economists, but their towering egos allow them overrule all the careful work of the real scientists.
They, and people who follow them tend to be greedy selfish bastards in my experience. The trouble with climate change is that it potentially restricts them from living how they want. Somebody else telling them how they should conduct themselves, and that is a red rag to a bull.
I have also found that climate change deniers love conspiracy theories generally.
So in short I think the right wing connection is thanks to their twisted ideas of freedom and "liberty".
In fairness the right-leaning Economist led with a very worrying piece about Arctic melt a couple of weeks ago.