cafcfan is lucky enough to have been a position to accumulate enough wealth to the point where even if he lost his job, his legs, his mind or whatever, he has adequate insurance or cover to ensure he is well looked after, and I imagine a healthy enough retirement plan in place. Good for him.
When you were first starting out, you could have easily been hit by a drunk driver and left paralysed from the neck down or brain-damaged or otherwise left in a position where you are reliant on other people. I imagine if you were in that position your political views would vary greatly from what you believe in now, which appears to be 'poor people choose to be thick and poor, they get what they deserve'.
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
I think this is all pretty basic stuff is it not? It explains the way many people choose to vote.
I had two clear choices back in my youth. Do the regular thing and have a family. Or not. My choice was the latter, primarily because I didn't then get on very well with the idea of owning cars with four doors.
As a consequence I am now relatively well off. I would not have been so if I'd have chosen differently. But why should I now subsidise others' life choices to a degree greater than I do already? It's different when individuals fall on hard times but I don't see, for example, why everybody with a kid should get child benefit. Over £11bn per year. Then there's child tax credits if you've got three or more of the little sods. Why are we rewarding people for bringing more into the world - it's not as if there's a shortage.
So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not. Some seem to strive to be nothing other than a have-not and that's were they start and that's where they end, no matter how much of other people's money is thrown at them.
BTW there is one clear truism to those in poverty. They are more likely to have children. This is no surprise, since you can run a Bentley on what it takes to bring up a child. (Perhaps a statistic that should be made readily available to prospective parents). It will also not be a surprise to know that it is single parent families that make up the largest portion of the poor and a higher percentage of those are women rather than men.
But what may be more of a surprise, is that while single parent families made up more than 30% of the "persistently poor" in 2008, under the uncaring Conservatives, that figure has reduced by half to 15.1% as at the latest figures. It goes with another figure which shows that the number of those categorised as "persistently poor" generally has also been falling. 9.2% women and 7.7% men of the general population in 2008, has gone down to 7.2% and 5.7% respectively in th elatest figures. So, do those figures, do you think, help to make a decision on voting to "help the many rather than the few"? Or would it be better to vote for a party that will inevitably ensure that the Govt. takes a bigger slice of GDP and leaves less of everything, including productive jobs for almost everyone. I'd argue that the choice was not as clear-cut as many would have you believe.
I disagree, you only have money, and that makes you poor.
You have no idea what I have or how content I am with my life. So enough already with the trite unfounded remarks.
Really!, then dont post your bloody opinion on a message forum then, FWIW there was time when I didn't have kids, material possessions meant a great deal to me, but when you have kids and if you have an ounce of emotional intelligence, then the arrival of those kids make you realise how important material things are, they automatically put all your ducks in a row.
FWIW I totally agree with your point about child benefit, and you can add to that Maternity leave and Paternity leave, why the hell should the company people work for and the government pay for people to have kids. Its bloody ridiculous.
Sometimes I don't know what's worse Vegans or parents, so fecking precious. In any event it's not about having kids, it's about whether you can afford to have them without begging for handouts from others.
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
I think this is all pretty basic stuff is it not? It explains the way many people choose to vote.
I had two clear choices back in my youth. Do the regular thing and have a family. Or not. My choice was the latter, primarily because I didn't then get on very well with the idea of owning cars with four doors.
As a consequence I am now relatively well off. I would not have been so if I'd have chosen differently. But why should I now subsidise others' life choices to a degree greater than I do already? It's different when individuals fall on hard times but I don't see, for example, why everybody with a kid should get child benefit. Over £11bn per year. Then there's child tax credits if you've got three or more of the little sods. Why are we rewarding people for bringing more into the world - it's not as if there's a shortage.
So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not. Some seem to strive to be nothing other than a have-not and that's were they start and that's where they end, no matter how much of other people's money is thrown at them.
BTW there is one clear truism to those in poverty. They are more likely to have children. This is no surprise, since you can run a Bentley on what it takes to bring up a child. (Perhaps a statistic that should be made readily available to prospective parents). It will also not be a surprise to know that it is single parent families that make up the largest portion of the poor and a higher percentage of those are women rather than men.
But what may be more of a surprise, is that while single parent families made up more than 30% of the "persistently poor" in 2008, under the uncaring Conservatives, that figure has reduced by half to 15.1% as at the latest figures. It goes with another figure which shows that the number of those categorised as "persistently poor" generally has also been falling. 9.2% women and 7.7% men of the general population in 2008, has gone down to 7.2% and 5.7% respectively in th elatest figures. So, do those figures, do you think, help to make a decision on voting to "help the many rather than the few"? Or would it be better to vote for a party that will inevitably ensure that the Govt. takes a bigger slice of GDP and leaves less of everything, including productive jobs for almost everyone. I'd argue that the choice was not as clear-cut as many would have you believe.
I disagree, you only have money, and that makes you poor.
You have no idea what I have or how content I am with my life. So enough already with the trite unfounded remarks.
Really!, then dont post your bloody opinion on a message forum then, FWIW there was time when I didn't have kids, material possessions meant a great deal to me, but when you have kids and if you have an ounce of emotional intelligence, then the arrival of those kids make you realise how important material things are, they automatically put all your ducks in a row.
FWIW I totally agree with your point about child benefit, and you can add to that Maternity leave and Paternity leave, why the hell should the company people work for and the government pay for people to have kids. Its bloody ridiculous.
Sometimes I don't know what's worse Vegans or parents, so fecking precious. In any event it's not about having kids, it's about whether you can afford to have them without begging for handouts from others.
cafcfan is lucky enough to have been a position to accumulate enough wealth to the point where even if he lost his job, his legs, his mind or whatever, he has adequate insurance or cover to ensure he is well looked after, and I imagine a healthy enough retirement plan in place. Good for him.
When you were first starting out, you could have easily been hit by a drunk driver and left paralysed from the neck down or brain-damaged or otherwise left in a position where you are reliant on other people. I imagine if you were in that position your political views would vary greatly from what you believe in now, which appears to be 'poor people choose to be thick and poor, they get what they deserve'.
I don't think that was his point really, it was more that there needs to be a degree of responsibility placed upon people for their own decisions, and sometimes sacrifices need to be made to allow a better quality of life. At least that was my take away from his post!
I can't say I agree with everything, but I do think there's a few valuable points in there to be honest.
I don't particularly believe that people are getting pregnant for the benefits associated with a child, but if that were the case then it would signal a major social issue IMO - as those children wouldn't stand a chance.
On the other hand, your point is rock solid - and I often lay awake a night thinking about the fact that everything is so very fragile. If I get ill then I lose everything.
cafcfan is lucky enough to have been a position to accumulate enough wealth to the point where even if he lost his job, his legs, his mind or whatever, he has adequate insurance or cover to ensure he is well looked after, and I imagine a healthy enough retirement plan in place. Good for him.
When you were first starting out, you could have easily been hit by a drunk driver and left paralysed from the neck down or brain-damaged or otherwise left in a position where you are reliant on other people. I imagine if you were in that position your political views would vary greatly from what you believe in now, which appears to be 'poor people choose to be thick and poor, they get what they deserve'.
That's why I carefully included in my post on this issue "It's different when individuals fall on hard times".
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
I think this is all pretty basic stuff is it not? It explains the way many people choose to vote.
I had two clear choices back in my youth. Do the regular thing and have a family. Or not. My choice was the latter, primarily because I didn't then get on very well with the idea of owning cars with four doors.
As a consequence I am now relatively well off. I would not have been so if I'd have chosen differently. But why should I now subsidise others' life choices to a degree greater than I do already? It's different when individuals fall on hard times but I don't see, for example, why everybody with a kid should get child benefit. Over £11bn per year. Then there's child tax credits if you've got three or more of the little sods. Why are we rewarding people for bringing more into the world - it's not as if there's a shortage.
So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not. Some seem to strive to be nothing other than a have-not and that's were they start and that's where they end, no matter how much of other people's money is thrown at them.
BTW there is one clear truism to those in poverty. They are more likely to have children. This is no surprise, since you can run a Bentley on what it takes to bring up a child. (Perhaps a statistic that should be made readily available to prospective parents). It will also not be a surprise to know that it is single parent families that make up the largest portion of the poor and a higher percentage of those are women rather than men.
But what may be more of a surprise, is that while single parent families made up more than 30% of the "persistently poor" in 2008, under the uncaring Conservatives, that figure has reduced by half to 15.1% as at the latest figures. It goes with another figure which shows that the number of those categorised as "persistently poor" generally has also been falling. 9.2% women and 7.7% men of the general population in 2008, has gone down to 7.2% and 5.7% respectively in th elatest figures. So, do those figures, do you think, help to make a decision on voting to "help the many rather than the few"? Or would it be better to vote for a party that will inevitably ensure that the Govt. takes a bigger slice of GDP and leaves less of everything, including productive jobs for almost everyone. I'd argue that the choice was not as clear-cut as many would have you believe.
I disagree, you only have money, and that makes you poor.
You have no idea what I have or how content I am with my life. So enough already with the trite unfounded remarks.
Really!, then dont post your bloody opinion on a message forum then, FWIW there was time when I didn't have kids, material possessions meant a great deal to me, but when you have kids and if you have an ounce of emotional intelligence, then the arrival of those kids make you realise how important material things are, they automatically put all your ducks in a row.
FWIW I totally agree with your point about child benefit, and you can add to that Maternity leave and Paternity leave, why the hell should the company people work for and the government pay for people to have kids. Its bloody ridiculous.
Sometimes I don't know what's worse Vegans or parents, so fecking precious. In any event it's not about having kids, it's about whether you can afford to have them without begging for handouts from others.
You seem....delightful
That's not an accusation that anyone has levelled at me.
cafcfan is lucky enough to have been a position to accumulate enough wealth to the point where even if he lost his job, his legs, his mind or whatever, he has adequate insurance or cover to ensure he is well looked after, and I imagine a healthy enough retirement plan in place. Good for him.
When you were first starting out, you could have easily been hit by a drunk driver and left paralysed from the neck down or brain-damaged or otherwise left in a position where you are reliant on other people. I imagine if you were in that position your political views would vary greatly from what you believe in now, which appears to be 'poor people choose to be thick and poor, they get what they deserve'.
I don't think that was his point really, it was more that there needs to be a degree of responsibility placed upon people for their own decisions, and sometimes sacrifices need to be made to allow a better quality of life. At least that was my take away from his post!
I can't say I agree with everything, but I do think there's a few valuable points in there to be honest.
I don't particularly believe that people are getting pregnant for the benefits associated with a child, but if that were the case then it would signal a major social issue IMO - as those children wouldn't stand a chance.
On the other hand, your point is rock solid - and I often lay awake a night thinking about the fact that everything is so very fragile. If I get ill then I lose everything.
cafcfan is lucky enough to have been a position to accumulate enough wealth to the point where even if he lost his job, his legs, his mind or whatever, he has adequate insurance or cover to ensure he is well looked after, and I imagine a healthy enough retirement plan in place. Good for him.
When you were first starting out, you could have easily been hit by a drunk driver and left paralysed from the neck down or brain-damaged or otherwise left in a position where you are reliant on other people. I imagine if you were in that position your political views would vary greatly from what you believe in now, which appears to be 'poor people choose to be thick and poor, they get what they deserve'.
That's why I carefully included in my post on this issue "It's different when individuals fall on hard times".
You also carefully included this in your post:
"So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not."
This indicated to me that now you have accumulated your wealth, you do not wish to share it with anyone, even though you could have easily have ended up in the same position those people are in. Unless you have a different definition of altruistic than I do.
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
I think this is all pretty basic stuff is it not? It explains the way many people choose to vote.
I had two clear choices back in my youth. Do the regular thing and have a family. Or not. My choice was the latter, primarily because I didn't then get on very well with the idea of owning cars with four doors.
As a consequence I am now relatively well off. I would not have been so if I'd have chosen differently. But why should I now subsidise others' life choices to a degree greater than I do already? It's different when individuals fall on hard times but I don't see, for example, why everybody with a kid should get child benefit. Over £11bn per year. Then there's child tax credits if you've got three or more of the little sods. Why are we rewarding people for bringing more into the world - it's not as if there's a shortage.
So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not. Some seem to strive to be nothing other than a have-not and that's were they start and that's where they end, no matter how much of other people's money is thrown at them.
BTW there is one clear truism to those in poverty. They are more likely to have children. This is no surprise, since you can run a Bentley on what it takes to bring up a child. (Perhaps a statistic that should be made readily available to prospective parents). It will also not be a surprise to know that it is single parent families that make up the largest portion of the poor and a higher percentage of those are women rather than men.
But what may be more of a surprise, is that while single parent families made up more than 30% of the "persistently poor" in 2008, under the uncaring Conservatives, that figure has reduced by half to 15.1% as at the latest figures. It goes with another figure which shows that the number of those categorised as "persistently poor" generally has also been falling. 9.2% women and 7.7% men of the general population in 2008, has gone down to 7.2% and 5.7% respectively in th elatest figures. So, do those figures, do you think, help to make a decision on voting to "help the many rather than the few"? Or would it be better to vote for a party that will inevitably ensure that the Govt. takes a bigger slice of GDP and leaves less of everything, including productive jobs for almost everyone. I'd argue that the choice was not as clear-cut as many would have you believe.
I guess it is not your favourite subject, but what has happened to child poverty in that same period? The government is currently trying to fix the definition, rather than the problem.
@IA hit the nail on head. The figures are completely misleading.
cafcfan is lucky enough to have been a position to accumulate enough wealth to the point where even if he lost his job, his legs, his mind or whatever, he has adequate insurance or cover to ensure he is well looked after, and I imagine a healthy enough retirement plan in place. Good for him.
When you were first starting out, you could have easily been hit by a drunk driver and left paralysed from the neck down or brain-damaged or otherwise left in a position where you are reliant on other people. I imagine if you were in that position your political views would vary greatly from what you believe in now, which appears to be 'poor people choose to be thick and poor, they get what they deserve'.
That's why I carefully included in my post on this issue "It's different when individuals fall on hard times".
You also carefully included this in your post:
"So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not."
This indicated to me that now you have accumulated your wealth, you do not wish to share it with anyone, even though you could have easily have ended up in the same position those people are in. Unless you have a different definition of altruistic than I do.
To be fair he is, though, prepared to give up all that wealth to pay for his own care. Well, that's how I read it.
Just checking back in after yesterday's disppointment between fiiish and lucky reds. I'm pleased to see it's bubbling up again quite nicely though. C'mon keep pushing everyone, I'm sure we can get that argument alert thread glowing again
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
I think this is all pretty basic stuff is it not? It explains the way many people choose to vote.
I had two clear choices back in my youth. Do the regular thing and have a family. Or not. My choice was the latter, primarily because I didn't then get on very well with the idea of owning cars with four doors.
As a consequence I am now relatively well off. I would not have been so if I'd have chosen differently. But why should I now subsidise others' life choices to a degree greater than I do already? It's different when individuals fall on hard times but I don't see, for example, why everybody with a kid should get child benefit. Over £11bn per year. Then there's child tax credits if you've got three or more of the little sods. Why are we rewarding people for bringing more into the world - it's not as if there's a shortage.
So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not. Some seem to strive to be nothing other than a have-not and that's were they start and that's where they end, no matter how much of other people's money is thrown at them.
BTW there is one clear truism to those in poverty. They are more likely to have children. This is no surprise, since you can run a Bentley on what it takes to bring up a child. (Perhaps a statistic that should be made readily available to prospective parents). It will also not be a surprise to know that it is single parent families that make up the largest portion of the poor and a higher percentage of those are women rather than men.
But what may be more of a surprise, is that while single parent families made up more than 30% of the "persistently poor" in 2008, under the uncaring Conservatives, that figure has reduced by half to 15.1% as at the latest figures. It goes with another figure which shows that the number of those categorised as "persistently poor" generally has also been falling. 9.2% women and 7.7% men of the general population in 2008, has gone down to 7.2% and 5.7% respectively in th elatest figures. So, do those figures, do you think, help to make a decision on voting to "help the many rather than the few"? Or would it be better to vote for a party that will inevitably ensure that the Govt. takes a bigger slice of GDP and leaves less of everything, including productive jobs for almost everyone. I'd argue that the choice was not as clear-cut as many would have you believe.
Of course, when you are old and a drain on society, your medical care etc... will be paid for by the taxes of other people's children.
No they won't.
Tell us how you KNOW this?
I have full fat medical insurance and belong (pay into) to a charitable fund which coughs up if I were to need additional help.
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
I think this is all pretty basic stuff is it not? It explains the way many people choose to vote.
I had two clear choices back in my youth. Do the regular thing and have a family. Or not. My choice was the latter, primarily because I didn't then get on very well with the idea of owning cars with four doors.
As a consequence I am now relatively well off. I would not have been so if I'd have chosen differently. But why should I now subsidise others' life choices to a degree greater than I do already? It's different when individuals fall on hard times but I don't see, for example, why everybody with a kid should get child benefit. Over £11bn per year. Then there's child tax credits if you've got three or more of the little sods. Why are we rewarding people for bringing more into the world - it's not as if there's a shortage.
So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not. Some seem to strive to be nothing other than a have-not and that's were they start and that's where they end, no matter how much of other people's money is thrown at them.
BTW there is one clear truism to those in poverty. They are more likely to have children. This is no surprise, since you can run a Bentley on what it takes to bring up a child. (Perhaps a statistic that should be made readily available to prospective parents). It will also not be a surprise to know that it is single parent families that make up the largest portion of the poor and a higher percentage of those are women rather than men.
But what may be more of a surprise, is that while single parent families made up more than 30% of the "persistently poor" in 2008, under the uncaring Conservatives, that figure has reduced by half to 15.1% as at the latest figures. It goes with another figure which shows that the number of those categorised as "persistently poor" generally has also been falling. 9.2% women and 7.7% men of the general population in 2008, has gone down to 7.2% and 5.7% respectively in th elatest figures. So, do those figures, do you think, help to make a decision on voting to "help the many rather than the few"? Or would it be better to vote for a party that will inevitably ensure that the Govt. takes a bigger slice of GDP and leaves less of everything, including productive jobs for almost everyone. I'd argue that the choice was not as clear-cut as many would have you believe.
I guess it is not your favourite subject, but what has happened to child poverty in that same period? The government is currently trying to fix the definition, rather than the problem.
@IA hit the nail on head. The figures are completely misleading.
Ian Duncan Smith did indeed try to change the definition of child poverty but was stopped by the Lords.
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
........... but I don't see, for example, why everybody with a kid should get child benefit. Over £11bn per year. Then there's child tax credits if you've got three or more of the little sods. Why are we rewarding people for bringing more into the world - it's not as if there's a shortage.
not everybody with a 'kid' gets Child Benefit, I have two children and get none, neither do I get child tax credit. It's called means testing.......... (and I'm not complaining for not getting it, I think it's right to means test certain benefits, which is why I've always been surprised that my father gets the winter fuel allowance when his pension is twice the average annual wage).
Almost all the current strike actions in the public eye are caused by employers trying to tear up legally binding contracts to change working conditions. In the case of Southern Rail, it is in their interest for strikes to take place so they don't pay drivers/guards and their income is fixed.
I feel as if marooned on a sandbank in the middle of the electoral ocean, peering despairingly to left and right for a glimpse of land where I could bring myself to place my cross. Invisible to the left is the Labour continent. This is subject to major erosion due to being led by a serial rebel still living in the 60s, defined only by 1001 things he disagrees with rather than any remotely practicable set of policies. To the right is the Tory continent. This seems to be subject to major continental drift, fast eroding out of sight on the side which used to be visible from my sandbank but simultaneously accreting territory on the side even further away from me as it joins philosophically with former off-shore islands beyond its farther shores such as the one occupied by the wild UKIP tribe.
In past times I could have tried to make it to the island not too far from my sandbank known as Liberal but that has now shrunk to little more than an inconsequential atoll. Its leader Tiny Tim seems a nice enough chap but he doesn't have much appeal as a potential major statesman.
I'm not alone here. There are millions of us on this sandbank. The distant continental leaders need to reach out beyond their in-bred tribes and approach our sandbank in the middle of the ocean with sensible consensual policies to garner enough votes to win elections with decent majorities. But what hope of that? All I expect to hear are the same old predictable, tribal, patronising sound bites.
Last time it was chucking "chaos" around as much as possible. This time the Tories have doubled it up with "strong economy and stable leadership"...whatever that's supposed to mean.
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
I think this is all pretty basic stuff is it not? It explains the way many people choose to vote.
I had two clear choices back in my youth. Do the regular thing and have a family. Or not. My choice was the latter, primarily because I didn't then get on very well with the idea of owning cars with four doors.
As a consequence I am now relatively well off. I would not have been so if I'd have chosen differently. 1) But why should I now subsidise others' life choices to a degree greater than I do already? 2) It's different when individuals fall on hard times but I don't see, for example, why everybody with a kid should get child benefit. Over £11bn per year. Then there's child tax credits if you've got three or more of the little sods. Why are we rewarding people for bringing more into the world - it's not as if there's a shortage.
So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not. 3) Some seem to strive to be nothing other than a have-not and that's were they start and that's where they end, no matter how much of other people's money is thrown at them.
BTW there is one clear truism to those in poverty. They are more likely to have children. This is no surprise, since you can run a Bentley on what it takes to bring up a child. (Perhaps a statistic that should be made readily available to prospective parents). 4) It will also not be a surprise to know that it is single parent families that make up the largest portion of the poor and a higher percentage of those are women rather than men.
But what may be more of a surprise, is that while single parent families made up more than 30% of the "persistently poor" in 2008, under the uncaring Conservatives, that figure has reduced by half to 15.1% as at the latest figures. It goes with another figure which shows that the number of those categorised as "persistently poor" generally has also been falling. 9.2% women and 7.7% men of the general population in 2008, has gone down to 7.2% and 5.7% respectively in th elatest figures. So, do those figures, do you think, help to make a decision on voting to "help the many rather than the few"? Or would it be better to vote for a party that will inevitably ensure that the Govt. takes a bigger slice of GDP and leaves less of everything, including productive jobs for almost everyone. I'd argue that the choice was not as clear-cut as many would have you believe.
1) Where did my friend mention life style choices? The post was very much about point 2) people falling on hard times. Nothing to do with lifestyle choices, cafcfan. 3) I don't think anyone strives to be a "have not", I think there are lazy bastards out there, who cannot be arsed to put a days graft in to become a "have", who milk the system, same as there are greedy bastards at the other end of the scale who milk the tax system. A number of them have never put in a days graft either, they just happened upon family wealth. They are as bad as each other I reckon.
4) Exactly the kind of hard times that can befall someone. Some have kids out of wedlock to become benefit Mums, absolutely. But others are left high and dry by partners who don't care, or die, or end up inside, or whatever, through absolutely no fault of their own.
The massaged figures you mention have been dealt with elsewhere.
You are fortunate enough to have been given a set of life skills that have enabled you to accumulate wealth and like me you and your partner have decided you/we didn't want children. You might ask why anyone cannot be as successful as you, well I ask why you are not a world famous artist, or a top footballer, or a best selling author? Because you were not given the talent to be any of those things, of course. And the same applies to whatever it is that you do, that you are so successful at. If anyone could do it to the level you can, your skills would be ten-a-penny and you would be rewarded accordingly. Somewhere on the planet is the worlds best tea-lady, she is number one in her field, there may be 50 people on earth who do your job better than you. Does that make you a failure? She earns a lot less than you, because tea-ladies are "ten-a-penny", but she is better at her job than you are at yours.
What I am getting at, is that most people who struggle are not lazy, or scroungers. They deserve a break. To prevent that from happening because one in ten of them pisses you off, is disingenuous.
Your life is ringfenced, even though you admit you will have to rely on "charity" if the shit really does hit the fan. Your worries are over. You are now in more of a position where you can help the less well off than most people, why spend your life resenting when you can be helping?
All the best to ya fella. Lets hope all our dreams come true and Roland fucks off, then we can all be happy together!
"I so often see the difference between the haves and have nots when discussing politics and I just wish that I could make people understand that you are a have, until you are a have not. We pretty much ALL have the ability to lose everything, health, wealth, job, position, home. Nothing is guaranteed. So please don't vote just based on your current situation, think about a society that would look after you at your most vulnerable, when you're at your sickest, poorest, on your knees, when no other avenues are open, wouldn't you want society/govt to help you. You know the one you've paid for all your life, the NHS you've paid for all your life, social security, pension all that. Just think, that's all I ask, you may not always be in the cushy position you are in right now. I vote to help the many not the few."
I think this is all pretty basic stuff is it not? It explains the way many people choose to vote.
I had two clear choices back in my youth. Do the regular thing and have a family. Or not. My choice was the latter, primarily because I didn't then get on very well with the idea of owning cars with four doors.
As a consequence I am now relatively well off. I would not have been so if I'd have chosen differently. But why should I now subsidise others' life choices to a degree greater than I do already? It's different when individuals fall on hard times but I don't see, for example, why everybody with a kid should get child benefit. Over £11bn per year. Then there's child tax credits if you've got three or more of the little sods. Why are we rewarding people for bringing more into the world - it's not as if there's a shortage.
So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not. Some seem to strive to be nothing other than a have-not and that's were they start and that's where they end, no matter how much of other people's money is thrown at them.
BTW there is one clear truism to those in poverty. They are more likely to have children. This is no surprise, since you can run a Bentley on what it takes to bring up a child. (Perhaps a statistic that should be made readily available to prospective parents). It will also not be a surprise to know that it is single parent families that make up the largest portion of the poor and a higher percentage of those are women rather than men.
But what may be more of a surprise, is that while single parent families made up more than 30% of the "persistently poor" in 2008, under the uncaring Conservatives, that figure has reduced by half to 15.1% as at the latest figures. It goes with another figure which shows that the number of those categorised as "persistently poor" generally has also been falling. 9.2% women and 7.7% men of the general population in 2008, has gone down to 7.2% and 5.7% respectively in th elatest figures. So, do those figures, do you think, help to make a decision on voting to "help the many rather than the few"? Or would it be better to vote for a party that will inevitably ensure that the Govt. takes a bigger slice of GDP and leaves less of everything, including productive jobs for almost everyone. I'd argue that the choice was not as clear-cut as many would have you believe.
Of course, when you are old and a drain on society, your medical care etc... will be paid for by the taxes of other people's children.
No they won't.
Tell us how you KNOW this?
I have full fat medical insurance and belong (pay into) to a charitable fund which coughs up if I were to need additional help.
The Masons?
I would rather poke my eyes out with a sharp stick.
It's actually "a discretionary mutual aid fund". with a small(ish) membership of just over 2,000 individuals. If it's running at a surplus which it currently is, the excess funds are donated to hospitals and other worthy causes.
Under the Labour government there was an education service based initiative attempting to reduce teenage pregnancy, and hence the number of single parent families depending on benefits. I don't know all the details, but one aspect was inviting teenage girls to carry around a 'baby' all day and 'care' for it. This initiative has avoided around 50,000 extra births that would have happened if the trends continued. I don't know if the initiative happened in Grammar, Free or Private schools. The initiative required some spending but it is widely hailed as a pretty spectacular success. I mention it because of the comments above about benefit claimants. However it was initiated under Labour in schools that are now having spectacular per pupil funding cuts. It is a preventative rather than a reactive strategy, and investment in young people in our society if you like. Well done Labour, and shame on the Tories for the education cuts they are making. Mind you for Tories who have or aspire to having private education, private health, private security, gated communities and so on, do not seem to want to benefit the whole community but have a mindset that wants to keep the wider community at bay and keep as much as they can for themselves alone.
He is disgusting and a shameful excuse of a man who has managed to become a celbrity because a) he doesn't mind taking the pee out of himself, and b) he is a caricature of a bumbling toff that on one level is funny. Of course, it isn't funny how he made an opportunistic decision to put his future above the country's and it isn't funny what he allowed to be said about he Hillsborough families. He is a disgusting digrace of a human being, as dodgy as the day is long, and whilst he has got away with it, more and more people are figuring it out.
He is disgusting and a shameful excuse of a man who has managed to become a celbrity because a) he doesn't mind taking the pee out of himself, and b) he is a caricature of a bumbling toff that on one level is funny. Of course, it isn't funny how he made an opportunistic decision to put his future above the country's and it isn't funny what he allowed to be said about he Hillsborough families. He is a disgusting digrace of a human being, as dodgy as the day is long, and whilst he has got away with it, more and more people are figuring it out.
Are you saying Her Majesty's (God bless you ma'am) Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is a complete and utter c**t with no redeeming qualities that the people of London should be ashamed of having voted in as erstwhile Mayor?
It goes with another figure which shows that the number of those categorised as "persistently poor" generally has also been falling. 9.2% women and 7.7% men of the general population in 2008, has gone down to 7.2% and 5.7% respectively in th elatest figures.
It would probably help if you had linked to the ONS report you are referring to, which would show that you misunderstand the detail on single parent families.
The ONS report states clearly at the bottom of section 2 that "it is important to understand that the at-risk-of-poverty rate is a relative indicator, measuring income compared with other people, so does not in itself necessarily imply a low standard of living". Poverty and persistent poverty . are defined as having disposable income of less than 60% of the median disposable income, nothing more The median disposable income has grown by 3.85% for 2008 to March 2016 whereas the price index has grown by 20% between March 2008 and March 2016. That means that if someone was just below the poverty line in 2008 and had their household income rise in line with inflation (ie they can buy exactly what they could buy in 2008 and so their living standards are kept constant), that person would now be considerably above the 'poverty line' despite no improvement in living standards.
Numbers can be deceiving. While the figures may make it appear that people are moving out of poverty, living standards are getting worse for those around and below the poverty line.
Yes, you are right, numbers can be deceiving. I was well aware of the 60% measure. And therein lies the dilemma. Merely by trashing the economy and reducing the net average disposable income, a Labour Govt. could claim that they had completely wiped out poverty. The fact we'd all be much worse off would be neither here nor there. Of course, the opposite would be true if the economy improved.
I should point out that the figures I quoted (the most recent I could find) were for ye 2014 so the CPI measure would be a little less than you quote. However I question the value of the CPI and its relevance to poor people. For example while "food and non-alcoholic beverages" make up 11.2% of the CPI weighting, "restaurants and hotels" make up 11.4%. (Go figure!) The highest constituents are "transport costs" 16.2% and "housing and household services" 14.4%. Next comes "Recreation and culture" at 13.4%. Now my expectation is that the poorest among us in society tend to spend much higher percentages of their disposable income on "housing and household services" than they do on "transport", staying in hotels or attending cultural events. So I don't know whether their personal price index would be worse or better. But I'm fairly convinced that it would be quite different.
Anyway, I'm going to ask two questions. First some background. Jeremy Corbyn is the next Prime Minister. Labour will be funding extra spending on worthy causes by increasing corporation tax. You are the CEO of a large UK-based multi-national company. You are well aware that the Companies Act places upon you a legal requirement contained in S172 to " act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole." (members = shareholders) And while there are other responsibilities that is the primary one.
The first question is do you diminish the profitability of the company by sticking with the UK or do you move your headquarters (and therefore your corporation tax liability) to somewhere more benign, like Ireland or maybe the USA once Trump has reduced corporation tax rates? The second question is what do you think other CEOs will be doing?
I heard him on Radio 4 this morning. What a dreadful man. He's completed the transmogrifation from bumbling, entertaining, performing bear to patronising, dangerous, scheming malignancy.
I heard him on Radio 4 this morning. What a dreadful man. He's completed the transmogrifation from bumbling, entertaining, performing bear to patronising, dangerous, scheming malignancy.
Horrible, horrible man.
I always felt that he had nothing but contempt for Londoners. Still he is very good at changing the conversation
He is disgusting and a shameful excuse of a man who has managed to become a celbrity because a) he doesn't mind taking the pee out of himself, and b) he is a caricature of a bumbling toff that on one level is funny. Of course, it isn't funny how he made an opportunistic decision to put his future above the country's and it isn't funny what he allowed to be said about he Hillsborough families. He is a disgusting digrace of a human being, as dodgy as the day is long, and whilst he has got away with it, more and more people are figuring it out.
Agreed. Unfortunately there are probably quite a lot of people out there (I know a few), that go 'oh I quite like Boris, he's so silly etc', without realising what a p**** he is
Comments
When you were first starting out, you could have easily been hit by a drunk driver and left paralysed from the neck down or brain-damaged or otherwise left in a position where you are reliant on other people. I imagine if you were in that position your political views would vary greatly from what you believe in now, which appears to be 'poor people choose to be thick and poor, they get what they deserve'.
I can't say I agree with everything, but I do think there's a few valuable points in there to be honest.
I don't particularly believe that people are getting pregnant for the benefits associated with a child, but if that were the case then it would signal a major social issue IMO - as those children wouldn't stand a chance.
On the other hand, your point is rock solid - and I often lay awake a night thinking about the fact that everything is so very fragile. If I get ill then I lose everything.
"So, your friend seems very altruistic. I'm afraid I am not."
This indicated to me that now you have accumulated your wealth, you do not wish to share it with anyone, even though you could have easily have ended up in the same position those people are in. Unless you have a different definition of altruistic than I do.
@IA hit the nail on head. The figures are completely misleading.
independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/child-poverty-increases-low-income-families-tory-cuts-conservative-government-austerity-a7340466.html
Levels of child poverty, who can do nothing about their situation, reached 1 in 5 under the coalition.
Is he writing a couple of articles, one supporting either party, before determining which side he's going to support in the campaign?
In past times I could have tried to make it to the island not too far from my sandbank known as Liberal but that has now shrunk to little more than an inconsequential atoll. Its leader Tiny Tim seems a nice enough chap but he doesn't have much appeal as a potential major statesman.
I'm not alone here. There are millions of us on this sandbank. The distant continental leaders need to reach out beyond their in-bred tribes and approach our sandbank in the middle of the ocean with sensible consensual policies to garner enough votes to win elections with decent majorities. But what hope of that? All I expect to hear are the same old predictable, tribal, patronising sound bites.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-39724827/can-you-guess-the-tories-slogan
3) I don't think anyone strives to be a "have not", I think there are lazy bastards out there, who cannot be arsed to put a days graft in to become a "have", who milk the system, same as there are greedy bastards at the other end of the scale who milk the tax system. A number of them have never put in a days graft either, they just happened upon family wealth. They are as bad as each other I reckon.
4) Exactly the kind of hard times that can befall someone. Some have kids out of wedlock to become benefit Mums, absolutely. But others are left high and dry by partners who don't care, or die, or end up inside, or whatever, through absolutely no fault of their own.
The massaged figures you mention have been dealt with elsewhere.
You are fortunate enough to have been given a set of life skills that have enabled you to accumulate wealth and like me you and your partner have decided you/we didn't want children. You might ask why anyone cannot be as successful as you, well I ask why you are not a world famous artist, or a top footballer, or a best selling author? Because you were not given the talent to be any of those things, of course. And the same applies to whatever it is that you do, that you are so successful at. If anyone could do it to the level you can, your skills would be ten-a-penny and you would be rewarded accordingly. Somewhere on the planet is the worlds best tea-lady, she is number one in her field, there may be 50 people on earth who do your job better than you. Does that make you a failure? She earns a lot less than you, because tea-ladies are "ten-a-penny", but she is better at her job than you are at yours.
What I am getting at, is that most people who struggle are not lazy, or scroungers. They deserve a break. To prevent that from happening because one in ten of them pisses you off, is disingenuous.
Your life is ringfenced, even though you admit you will have to rely on "charity" if the shit really does hit the fan. Your worries are over. You are now in more of a position where you can help the less well off than most people, why spend your life resenting when you can be helping?
All the best to ya fella. Lets hope all our dreams come true and Roland fucks off, then we can all be happy together!
It's actually "a discretionary mutual aid fund". with a small(ish) membership of just over 2,000 individuals. If it's running at a surplus which it currently is, the excess funds are donated to hospitals and other worthy causes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39727489
I don't know if the initiative happened in Grammar, Free or Private schools. The initiative required some spending but it is widely hailed as a pretty spectacular success.
I mention it because of the comments above about benefit claimants. However it was initiated under Labour in schools that are now having spectacular per pupil funding cuts. It is a preventative rather than a reactive strategy, and investment in young people in our society if you like.
Well done Labour, and shame on the Tories for the education cuts they are making.
Mind you for Tories who have or aspire to having private education, private health, private security, gated communities and so on, do not seem to want to benefit the whole community but have a mindset that wants to keep the wider community at bay and keep as much as they can for themselves alone.
I should point out that the figures I quoted (the most recent I could find) were for ye 2014 so the CPI measure would be a little less than you quote. However I question the value of the CPI and its relevance to poor people. For example while "food and non-alcoholic beverages" make up 11.2% of the CPI weighting, "restaurants and hotels" make up 11.4%. (Go figure!) The highest constituents are "transport costs" 16.2% and "housing and household services" 14.4%. Next comes "Recreation and culture" at 13.4%. Now my expectation is that the poorest among us in society tend to spend much higher percentages of their disposable income on "housing and household services" than they do on "transport", staying in hotels or attending cultural events. So I don't know whether their personal price index would be worse or better. But I'm fairly convinced that it would be quite different.
Anyway, I'm going to ask two questions. First some background. Jeremy Corbyn is the next Prime Minister. Labour will be funding extra spending on worthy causes by increasing corporation tax.
You are the CEO of a large UK-based multi-national company. You are well aware that the Companies Act places upon you a legal requirement contained in S172 to " act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole." (members = shareholders) And while there are other responsibilities that is the primary one.
The first question is do you diminish the profitability of the company by sticking with the UK or do you move your headquarters (and therefore your corporation tax liability) to somewhere more benign, like Ireland or maybe the USA once Trump has reduced corporation tax rates?
The second question is what do you think other CEOs will be doing?
Horrible, horrible man.