I am genuinely shocked with the view that some seem to hold that owning a TV or a mobile is of more importance than feeding yourself and/or your family.
Surely if you find yourself in a position that you can't afford to eat, you'd firstly cut back on things that are ultimately less important, whether that's a car, a TV, a mobile phone, going out, whatever.
Surely whatever stage of life you are at and whatever your financial position the old roof over your head, clothes on your back and food in your stomach is the number one priority?
My wife daily buys food for her class, some of the parents can be found outside the school gate, car running, on their mobile whilst having a cigarette, yet the kids come in without having eaten, often since school diner the day before. That's not around poverty, but as @stu_of_Kunming says, choices.
Aside from that there are people who have nothing, literally, and therefore have no choice but to visit a food bank or for a number of reasons can have fallen on very difficult times and need additional help, but that should be the exception rather than the rule.
I am genuinely shocked with the view that some seem to hold that owning a TV or a mobile is of more importance than feeding yourself and/or your family.
Surely if you find yourself in a position that you can't afford to eat, you'd firstly cut back on things that are ultimately less important, whether that's a car, a TV, a mobile phone, going out, whatever.
Surely whatever stage of life you are at and whatever your financial position the old roof over your head, clothes on your back and food in your stomach is the number one priority?
My wife daily buys food for her class, some of the parents can be found outside the school gate, car running, on their mobile whilst having a cigarette, yet the kids come in without having eaten, often since school diner the day before. That's not around poverty, but as @stu_of_Kunming says, choices.
Aside from that there are people who have nothing, literally, and therefore have no choice but to visit a food bank or for a number of reasons can have fallen on very difficult times and need additional help, but that should be the exception rather than the rule.
I am genuinely shocked with the view that some seem to hold that owning a TV or a mobile is of more importance than feeding yourself and/or your family.
Surely if you find yourself in a position that you can't afford to eat, you'd firstly cut back on things that are ultimately less important, whether that's a car, a TV, a mobile phone, going out, whatever.
Surely whatever stage of life you are at and whatever your financial position the old roof over your head, clothes on your back and food in your stomach is the number one priority?
My wife daily buys food for her class, some of the parents can be found outside the school gate, car running, on their mobile whilst having a cigarette, yet the kids come in without having eaten, often since school diner the day before. That's not around poverty, but as @stu_of_Kunming says, choices.
Aside from that there are people who have nothing, literally, and therefore have no choice but to visit a food bank or for a number of reasons can have fallen on very difficult times and need additional help, but that should be the exception rather than the rule.
Blaming and shaming the poor for being poor using generalisations- very nice. It isn't the view that owning a TV is more important than eating, it is the lack of understanding of the reality behind that view. You can always find a few people to prove a point - the most useful tool for Conservative governments in recent years are genuine benefit scroungers. They are useful because they distort the real issues real people face and we all like somebody to blame and hate.
So the wanker who has 29 kids and no job will find himself prominently featured in The Sun or Mail prior to the election and battering those that are less fortunate and have terrible lives in poverty becomes a very popular policy. That people commit suicide or become mentally ill as a result is ignored.
We have threads discussing the acquisition of luxury cars that are destroying the planet and frankly, we don't really need and we are more than happy that people should have the bleakest of lives. We can't even allow them the pleasure of watching some tv.
While a tv might be seen as a luxury, I don't think it's bad life choices that people have one. OK they could sell it if they fall on hard times but it's not going to feed them for more than a week or so and then they'll have no TV. It's an easy call for people who go out, go to football/cinema/restaurants etc to lambast the poor for having a decent TV, but if you never go out, that's ALL your entertainment. And as for "real poverty" - poverty is always relative. Societies have mechanisms for dealing with this - charity, alms, government help.
As for mobile phones, without internet access you are going to be steadily excluded from society, certainly from claiming benefits - universal credit requires that you have online access and a bank account.
I get that some people are clearly feckless, but some of you want to tar anyone unlucky enough to need a food-bank as it being their own fault, rather than a screwed up benefits system, poor wages, a systematic war on the disabled, an increase in homelessness and a lack of support for either social or mental health care. Funnily enough, these things are not the fault of the individual who finds themselves on the wrong end of them: they are the choices that the govt has made on our behalf.
Blaming and shaming the poor for being poor using generalisations- very nice. It isn't the view that owning a TV is more important than eating, it is the lack of understanding of the reality behind that view. You can always find a few people to prove a point - the most useful tool for Conservative governments in recent years are genuine benefit scroungers. They are useful because they distort the real issues real people face and we all like somebody to blame and hate.
So the wanker who has 29 kids and no job will find himself prominently featured in The Sun or Mail prior to the election and battering those that are less fortunate and have terrible lives in poverty becomes a very popular policy. That people commit suicide or become mentally ill as a result is ignored.
We have threads discussing the acquisition of luxury cars that are destroying the planet and frankly, we don't really need and we are more than happy that people should have the bleakest of lives. We can't even allow them the pleasure of watching some tv.
While a tv might be seen as a luxury, I don't think it's bad life choices that people have one. OK they could sell it if they fall on hard times but it's not going to feed them for more than a week or so and then they'll have no TV. It's an easy call for people who go out, go to football/cinema/restaurants etc to lambast the poor for having a decent TV, but if you never go out, that's ALL your entertainment. And as for "real poverty" - poverty is always relative. Societies have mechanisms for dealing with this - charity, alms, government help.
As for mobile phones, without internet access you are going to be steadily excluded from society, certainly from claiming benefits - universal credit requires that you have online access and a bank account.
I get that some people are clearly feckless, but some of you want to tar anyone unlucky enough to need a food-bank as it being their own fault, rather than a screwed up benefits system, poor wages, a systematic war on the disabled, an increase in homelessness and a lack of support for either social or mental health care. Funnily enough, these things are not the fault of the individual who finds themselves on the wrong end of them: they are the choices that the govt has made on our behalf.
Also if they're on zero hours contracts, they might need a mobile phone to be told if they're working on any given day.
Blaming and shaming the poor for being poor using generalisations- very nice. It isn't the view that owning a TV is more important than eating, it is the lack of understanding of the reality behind that view. You can always find a few people to prove a point - the most useful tool for Conservative governments in recent years are genuine benefit scroungers. They are useful because they distort the real issues real people face and we all like somebody to blame and hate.
So the wanker who has 29 kids and no job will find himself prominently featured in The Sun or Mail prior to the election and battering those that are less fortunate and have terrible lives in poverty becomes a very popular policy. That people commit suicide or become mentally ill as a result is ignored.
We have threads discussing the acquisition of luxury cars that are destroying the planet and frankly, we don't really need and we are more than happy that people should have the bleakest of lives. We can't even allow them the pleasure of watching some tv.
No one has 'blamed and shamed' the poor and I've not seen anyone on here 'happy that people should have the bleakest of lives' but heh, lets not let facts get in the way.
"You can buy a flat screen tv for £30 second hand. Are we saying they shouldn't be able to watch some tv?"
Damn right, if you can't afford to eat you can't afford to watch TV even if it 'only' costs £30 second hand, plus of course £150 for the TV licence and £20 for electricity for the year. With that £200 I could eat for 3 months or maybe a month If a family of 3/4.
aged 16 I left home with a black plastic bag of clothes and a few personal items and two pounds my nan gave me for a bus fare to my mates house in Bethnal Green and a bag of chips. We didn't have a TV as guess what, had we done so we wouldn't have eaten. Choices.
Roof over your head, clothes on your back and food are the number one priority, always have been always will be, and if people are genuinely struggling to do those three then absolutely society needs to step in and help them out.
Totally agree cars are a luxury, so like any luxury say.....I don't know...... something like a TV, if you can't afford it, don't.
Now you need a mobile phone to claim benefits apparently ........ has no one been in a library lately? or visited CAB .......Jeez....
Blaming and shaming the poor for being poor using generalisations- very nice. It isn't the view that owning a TV is more important than eating, it is the lack of understanding of the reality behind that view. You can always find a few people to prove a point - the most useful tool for Conservative governments in recent years are genuine benefit scroungers. They are useful because they distort the real issues real people face and we all like somebody to blame and hate.
So the wanker who has 29 kids and no job will find himself prominently featured in The Sun or Mail prior to the election and battering those that are less fortunate and have terrible lives in poverty becomes a very popular policy. That people commit suicide or become mentally ill as a result is ignored.
We have threads discussing the acquisition of luxury cars that are destroying the planet and frankly, we don't really need and we are more than happy that people should have the bleakest of lives. We can't even allow them the pleasure of watching some tv.
No one has 'blamed and shamed' the poor and I've not seen anyone on here 'happy that people should have the bleakest of lives' but heh, lets not let facts get in the way.
"You can buy a flat screen tv for £30 second hand. Are we saying they shouldn't be able to watch some tv?"
Damn right, if you can't afford to eat you can't afford to watch TV even if it 'only' costs £30 second hand, plus of course £150 for the TV licence and £20 for electricity for the year. With that £200 I could eat for 3 months or maybe a month If a family of 3/4.
aged 16 I left home with a black plastic bag of clothes and a few personal items and two pounds my nan gave me for a bus fare to my mates house in Bethnal Green and a bag of chips. We didn't have a TV as guess what, had we done so we wouldn't have eaten. Choices.
Roof over your head, clothes on your back and food are the number one priority, always have been always will be, and if people are genuinely struggling to do those three then absolutely society needs to step in and help them out.
Totally agree cars are a luxury, so like any luxury say.....I don't know...... something like a TV, if you can't afford it, don't.
Now you need a mobile phone to claim benefits apparently ........ has no one been in a library lately? or visited CAB .......Jeez....
I don't judge others in the context of my own successes or achievements. Maybe I got some breaks - maybe I was fortunate not to be disabled or have a mental illness. I like a nice car too - my point is when we are talking about all the extras and 4WD monsters we don't really need, and we begrudge people being able to watch some TV, something is wrong!
I don't judge others in the context of my own successes or achievements. Maybe I got some breaks - maybe I was fortunate not to be disabled or have a mental illness. I like a nice car too - my point is when we are talking about all the extras and 4WD monsters we don't really need, and we begrudge people being able to watch some TV, something is wrong!
Where was you in 89 when I didn’t have a TV.
How am I judging others in the context of my own success!? I’d like to think if I am being judgemental it is exactly because I’ve been there, I had the decision in this example of TV or food, funnily enough I chose food but you could equally say I didn’t have a car, didn’t go out, didn’t have a kettle! (For whoever mention it you do realise you can boil water on a hob.......)
I don’t begrudge people watching TV, but if you are doing that over feeding yourself then I would say something is wrong.
@kentaddick last summer for charity a number of us did ‘how cheap can you eat’ for a week with the difference against what you’d usually spend going to charity (YMCA). For a family of 4 we managed just under £2.50 a day, which is roughly 12 weeks at £200. One single guy managed under £2, so it is possible. But whether it’s £2 a day or £5 a day the principle remains. Shelter, food, clothing, Number one priority.
If you was struggling at any time in your life I would have been sympathetic and happy when you were no longer struggling. Many poor People are feeding themselves - often on crap cheap food - so cheap in some cases that it is a contributor to their shorter lives. I'm sure there is an element of fault in cases - maybe it is ignorance in relation to the values they were brought up with. I'd like to think that rather than condemn them, it might be good if we tried to help them.
Maybe some poor soul became ill or disabled and wasn't able to graft their way to something better. Maybe a bit of tv is the only joy some people have in their lives. Maybe that shouldn't be classed as a luxurious life.
Blaming and shaming the poor for being poor using generalisations- very nice. It isn't the view that owning a TV is more important than eating, it is the lack of understanding of the reality behind that view. You can always find a few people to prove a point - the most useful tool for Conservative governments in recent years are genuine benefit scroungers. They are useful because they distort the real issues real people face and we all like somebody to blame and hate.
So the wanker who has 29 kids and no job will find himself prominently featured in The Sun or Mail prior to the election and battering those that are less fortunate and have terrible lives in poverty becomes a very popular policy. That people commit suicide or become mentally ill as a result is ignored.
We have threads discussing the acquisition of luxury cars that are destroying the planet and frankly, we don't really need and we are more than happy that people should have the bleakest of lives. We can't even allow them the pleasure of watching some tv.
No one has 'blamed and shamed' the poor and I've not seen anyone on here 'happy that people should have the bleakest of lives' but heh, lets not let facts get in the way.
"You can buy a flat screen tv for £30 second hand. Are we saying they shouldn't be able to watch some tv?"
Damn right, if you can't afford to eat you can't afford to watch TV even if it 'only' costs £30 second hand, plus of course £150 for the TV licence and £20 for electricity for the year. With that £200 I could eat for 3 months or maybe a month If a family of 3/4.
aged 16 I left home with a black plastic bag of clothes and a few personal items and two pounds my nan gave me for a bus fare to my mates house in Bethnal Green and a bag of chips. We didn't have a TV as guess what, had we done so we wouldn't have eaten. Choices.
Roof over your head, clothes on your back and food are the number one priority, always have been always will be, and if people are genuinely struggling to do those three then absolutely society needs to step in and help them out.
Totally agree cars are a luxury, so like any luxury say.....I don't know...... something like a TV, if you can't afford it, don't.
Now you need a mobile phone to claim benefits apparently ........ has no one been in a library lately? or visited CAB .......Jeez....
If you eat nothing but ramen, perhaps.
Where do you do your food shop? M&S? The missus and I feed ourselves for about £125 a month with ease.
On the library/CAB point - where is the CAB? There used to be one in Catford where I work and there used to queues right round the corner in the morning for people to go in. I've just checked and there is still one in the borough, now in Lewisham near the town centre. It's open between 10-12 four mornings a week and I would be pretty sure that the advisers there are under a lot of stress. There's a freephone service as well, but again, you need a phone. Libraries are still available, but under a lot of stress. It's just been put out that Lewisham council want to either close all bar the central library and/or reduce the opening hours. If you ever go to one, there is often a queue (and a time limit) to use the computers. I write about Lewisham because I know it, but I don't doubt that the situation will be similar in most other boroughs (and significantly worse outside London where public transport is expensive and rubbish). I don't disagree about the general point of prioritising survival over luxuries, but I don't think it's as simple as you paint it: most (all?) people don't just find themselves in a bad situation and think, oh I'll buy a TV rather than food. They think they're OK, buy a TV, then their hours get cut or other things change. And I think you also need to factor in availability of food and/or cooking equipment. If you're in a B&B and all you have is a kettle and a microwave, you are never going to eat on less than £2.50 a day. Likewise, if you live near a market or there is a range of shops and you can cook from ingredients you can save money. If all you have is a corner shop selling jars of sauce and no veg, it's not so easy, especially if you have no mobility (transport costs and not everyone can walk/cycle/has transport).
Corbyn has reached his current position by participating in the Democratic systems in the Labour Party. All out there in plain sight. He overcame his challengers, his party has the largest membership in Europe, and he has campaigned in a way that has been true to the politician he is and enjoyed a degree of success. Corbyn is seen by many as useless, even dangerous, but so far he seems to have been far less duplicitous than most politicians. In the brexit debate there is talk of what is democracy or not, it might be worth comparing and contrasting the elevation of May and Corbyn against a democratic template. What remains is whether or not Corbyn can participate well enough in further democratic action to achieve power. May called an election and has achieved power by bribing the DUP. If the debate is somehow about the wholesomeness of the party leaders in their positions as it stands, Corbyn beats May hands down, that may change if Corbyn actually achieves power, but the regime of Theresa May certainly does not feel like the bar is set very high and Corbyn may continue to surprise. His is closer to a rags to riches political story than most of the Tory leadership born into wealth, power and influence, and the comfort blanket of being part of the establishment.
You seem to be forgetting the influence of momentum in his 'rags to riches' story.
His story might be closer than some of the Tory party, but it's still pretty far away from a rags to riches story.
Works for him and his supporters to perpetuate the myth though...
Momentum was formed after his rise to power, hence the name.
Thanks, I was aware - i guess poorly written on my part, but i'm pretty sure they have influence on keeping him in the 'riches' part of the story...
You are right they do have influence, but his only challenger has been Owen Jones since they were formed. They hardly had to keep him there.
As to that influence, what did Kinnock and Blair do to the party when they took control? Why is it there is such a lack of talent in the party to challenge him? Why is it filled with so many plastic former special advisors? Momentum will be there long after he has gone, it is a movement within the party as the trade unions were.
I think everyone is taking it a bit too literally. Seth clearly says in political/power terms rather than economic/educational background.
Not sure Owen Jones would ever challenge Corbyn!
I'm not convinced Momentum will be there long after he's gone, i'm not sure how many cuddly faces are left there to front them. Without that front, i don't think there is much popular appeal.
There is talent there, but they seem unwilling to move past sniping from the sidelines because it is centrist talent.
My question is, despite their widespread support, how can they not motivate the young people they aim their policies at to actually vote?
I think you are a little confused about who is on the side lines and who is doing the sniping personally.
There were a couple of policies to entice younger people but their platform was mainly social democratic aimed at under 45s.
A very good point. The danger here is that we have a notion presented to us that people put TV before eating, when it isn't like that in reality. Situations are far more complex - they may have had a TV and lost their job for instance or their zero hours contract hours have dried up, or their disability isn't deemed to be affecting them as badly as it really is. Those that seek to demonise the poor chose to move into this ground where it is so simple.
Maybe, just maybe, members of families buy a TV when they are in work and then lose their job. Maybe they were a gift. Lazy bastards making stupid life choices! Same with phones. Can get cheaper than line rental on a mobile as well.
A very good point. The danger here is that we have a notion presented to us that people put TV before eating, when it isn't like that in reality. Situations are far more complex - they may have had a TV and lost their job for instance or their zero hours contract hours have dried up, or their disability isn't deemed to be affecting them as badly as it really is. Those that seek to demonise the poor chose to move into this ground where it is so simple.
No one (on here) is demonising the poor.
Genuine question, if you fell on hard times, to the extent that day to day surviving with what you had became almost impossible. Would you sell something such as a car, a TV, a mobile phone etc to be able to buy food, heat your house, pay the rent? Or not and just not eat etc?
A very good point. The danger here is that we have a notion presented to us that people put TV before eating, when it isn't like that in reality. Situations are far more complex - they may have had a TV and lost their job for instance or their zero hours contract hours have dried up, or their disability isn't deemed to be affecting them as badly as it really is. Those that seek to demonise the poor chose to move into this ground where it is so simple.
No one (on here) is demonising the poor.
Genuine question, if you fell on hard times, to the extent that day to day surviving with what you had became almost impossible. Would you sell something such as a car, a TV, a mobile phone etc to be able to buy food, heat your house, pay the rent? Or not and just not eat etc?
If I answered that question, I would be falling into your trap. Why do you create the circumstance in which to criticise a whole group of people.The choice you put is like a simple choice everybody has when the reality is not so simple.
A very good point. The danger here is that we have a notion presented to us that people put TV before eating, when it isn't like that in reality. Situations are far more complex - they may have had a TV and lost their job for instance or their zero hours contract hours have dried up, or their disability isn't deemed to be affecting them as badly as it really is. Those that seek to demonise the poor chose to move into this ground where it is so simple.
No one (on here) is demonising the poor.
Genuine question, if you fell on hard times, to the extent that day to day surviving with what you had became almost impossible. Would you sell something such as a car, a TV, a mobile phone etc to be able to buy food, heat your house, pay the rent? Or not and just not eat etc?
so you're saying people have to be literally homeless in order for them to "be in poverty"?
A very good point. The danger here is that we have a notion presented to us that people put TV before eating, when it isn't like that in reality. Situations are far more complex - they may have had a TV and lost their job for instance or their zero hours contract hours have dried up, or their disability isn't deemed to be affecting them as badly as it really is. Those that seek to demonise the poor chose to move into this ground where it is so simple.
No one (on here) is demonising the poor.
Genuine question, if you fell on hard times, to the extent that day to day surviving with what you had became almost impossible. Would you sell something such as a car, a TV, a mobile phone etc to be able to buy food, heat your house, pay the rent? Or not and just not eat etc?
If I answered that question, I would be falling into your trap. Why do you create the circumstance in which to criticise a whole group of people.The choice you put is like a simple choice everybody has when the reality is not so simple.
You create the group - those that don't eat or feed their families in favour of having TVs. Then people might say, that is not right - I didn't have a tv once and I did alright - feeding my family is more important - it is their own fault. But the scenario is a simple fabrication of something far more complex. If people debate on your terms they fall into the trap of agreeing people are making these choices and are therefore not really that poor or struggling that much.
There may even be a small group of people that fall into this grouping. All the better if an example or two can be furnished to get the public going. Statistically minute, but enough to demonise the vast majority of the poor that become easier to crap on. Not you here, but that is how the Tories do it prior to every election.
A very good point. The danger here is that we have a notion presented to us that people put TV before eating, when it isn't like that in reality. Situations are far more complex - they may have had a TV and lost their job for instance or their zero hours contract hours have dried up, or their disability isn't deemed to be affecting them as badly as it really is. Those that seek to demonise the poor chose to move into this ground where it is so simple.
No one (on here) is demonising the poor.
Genuine question, if you fell on hard times, to the extent that day to day surviving with what you had became almost impossible. Would you sell something such as a car, a TV, a mobile phone etc to be able to buy food, heat your house, pay the rent? Or not and just not eat etc?
so you're saying people have to be literally homeless in order for them to "be in poverty"?
You create the group - those that don't eat or feed their families in favour of having TVs. Then people might say, that is not right - I didn't have a tv once and I did alright - feeding my family is more important - it is their own fault. But the scenario is a simple fabrication of something far more complex. If people debate on your terms they fall into the trap of agreeing people are making these choices and are therefore not really that poor or struggling that much.
and what do you say?
So this group i've created (see my post at 2:56), do you not believe then that there is a group that may prioritise a number of things (pick from TV, Mobile Phones, Holiday, car, whatever you like) over was I would consider more essential items (roof/clothes/food)? You didn't disagree with that view when you said "You can buy a flat screen tv for £30 second hand. Are we saying they shouldn't be able to watch some tv?" - this was a direct quote around people who are unable to afford to feed themselves/their families and have had to resort to using a food bank.
Your implication from your comment above is that someone who is struggling to make ends meet and unable to afford to feed themselves should still have what a lot of people would consider a luxury/non essential item over an essential item (TV was just one example, believe the quote was flatscreen TV and a mobile). Thats the main where we differ on this subject, for me - food, clothing, shelter are number one priority and I personally would sacrifice whatever I needed to, to provide those, you it would seem don't/wouldn't and I don't believe you would be alone in that (again seems post at 2:56). Thats your choice as it is anyone else who makes that choice, but it would be a choice.
There are then others who simply do not have the luxury of making that choice and without a shadow of a doubt as individuals and as a wider society we should help them.
Private and grammar schools for his entire education, yet only managed two E grades at A-level. He also managed to bomb out of a polytechnic after just a year.
Idiocy to political riches, certainly.
Rags to riches, you're having a laugh.
But this was in the days when they didn't give you an A grade for spelling your name right on top of paper.
Comments
I am genuinely shocked with the view that some seem to hold that owning a TV or a mobile is of more importance than feeding yourself and/or your family.
Surely if you find yourself in a position that you can't afford to eat, you'd firstly cut back on things that are ultimately less important, whether that's a car, a TV, a mobile phone, going out, whatever.
Surely whatever stage of life you are at and whatever your financial position the old roof over your head, clothes on your back and food in your stomach is the number one priority?
My wife daily buys food for her class, some of the parents can be found outside the school gate, car running, on their mobile whilst having a cigarette, yet the kids come in without having eaten, often since school diner the day before. That's not around poverty, but as @stu_of_Kunming says, choices.
Aside from that there are people who have nothing, literally, and therefore have no choice but to visit a food bank or for a number of reasons can have fallen on very difficult times and need additional help, but that should be the exception rather than the rule. 3 of the 4 we didn't have when I was a kid (and no I'm not a war baby!) EDIT, and you can add heating to the list as well!
So the wanker who has 29 kids and no job will find himself prominently featured in The Sun or Mail prior to the election and battering those that are less fortunate and have terrible lives in poverty becomes a very popular policy. That people commit suicide or become mentally ill as a result is ignored.
We have threads discussing the acquisition of luxury cars that are destroying the planet and frankly, we don't really need and we are more than happy that people should have the bleakest of lives. We can't even allow them the pleasure of watching some tv.
As for mobile phones, without internet access you are going to be steadily excluded from society, certainly from claiming benefits - universal credit requires that you have online access and a bank account.
I get that some people are clearly feckless, but some of you want to tar anyone unlucky enough to need a food-bank as it being their own fault, rather than a screwed up benefits system, poor wages, a systematic war on the disabled, an increase in homelessness and a lack of support for either social or mental health care. Funnily enough, these things are not the fault of the individual who finds themselves on the wrong end of them: they are the choices that the govt has made on our behalf.
"You can buy a flat screen tv for £30 second hand. Are we saying they shouldn't be able to watch some tv?"
Damn right, if you can't afford to eat you can't afford to watch TV even if it 'only' costs £30 second hand, plus of course £150 for the TV licence and £20 for electricity for the year. With that £200 I could eat for 3 months or maybe a month If a family of 3/4.
aged 16 I left home with a black plastic bag of clothes and a few personal items and two pounds my nan gave me for a bus fare to my mates house in Bethnal Green and a bag of chips. We didn't have a TV as guess what, had we done so we wouldn't have eaten. Choices.
Roof over your head, clothes on your back and food are the number one priority, always have been always will be, and if people are genuinely struggling to do those three then absolutely society needs to step in and help them out.
Totally agree cars are a luxury, so like any luxury say.....I don't know...... something like a TV, if you can't afford it, don't.
Now you need a mobile phone to claim benefits apparently ........ has no one been in a library lately? or visited CAB .......Jeez....
How am I judging others in the context of my own success!? I’d like to think if I am being judgemental it is exactly because I’ve been there, I had the decision in this example of TV or food, funnily enough I chose food but you could equally say I didn’t have a car, didn’t go out, didn’t have a kettle! (For whoever mention it you do realise you can boil water on a hob.......)
I don’t begrudge people watching TV, but if you are doing that over feeding yourself then I would say something is wrong.
@kentaddick last summer for charity a number of us did ‘how cheap can you eat’ for a week with the difference against what you’d usually spend going to charity (YMCA). For a family of 4 we managed just under £2.50 a day, which is roughly 12 weeks at £200. One single guy managed under £2, so it is possible. But whether it’s £2 a day or £5 a day the principle remains. Shelter, food, clothing, Number one priority.
Maybe some poor soul became ill or disabled and wasn't able to graft their way to something better. Maybe a bit of tv is the only joy some people have in their lives. Maybe that shouldn't be classed as a luxurious life.
Libraries are still available, but under a lot of stress. It's just been put out that Lewisham council want to either close all bar the central library and/or reduce the opening hours. If you ever go to one, there is often a queue (and a time limit) to use the computers.
I write about Lewisham because I know it, but I don't doubt that the situation will be similar in most other boroughs (and significantly worse outside London where public transport is expensive and rubbish).
I don't disagree about the general point of prioritising survival over luxuries, but I don't think it's as simple as you paint it: most (all?) people don't just find themselves in a bad situation and think, oh I'll buy a TV rather than food. They think they're OK, buy a TV, then their hours get cut or other things change. And I think you also need to factor in availability of food and/or cooking equipment. If you're in a B&B and all you have is a kettle and a microwave, you are never going to eat on less than £2.50 a day. Likewise, if you live near a market or there is a range of shops and you can cook from ingredients you can save money. If all you have is a corner shop selling jars of sauce and no veg, it's not so easy, especially if you have no mobility (transport costs and not everyone can walk/cycle/has transport).
There were a couple of policies to entice younger people but their platform was mainly social democratic aimed at under 45s.
Argh just saw mutley posted the same thingd
Genuine question, if you fell on hard times, to the extent that day to day surviving with what you had became almost impossible. Would you sell something such as a car, a TV, a mobile phone etc to be able to buy food, heat your house, pay the rent? Or not and just not eat etc?
What whole group of people am I criticising?
So this group i've created (see my post at 2:56), do you not believe then that there is a group that may prioritise a number of things (pick from TV, Mobile Phones, Holiday, car, whatever you like) over was I would consider more essential items (roof/clothes/food)? You didn't disagree with that view when you said "You can buy a flat screen tv for £30 second hand. Are we saying they shouldn't be able to watch some tv?" - this was a direct quote around people who are unable to afford to feed themselves/their families and have had to resort to using a food bank.
Your implication from your comment above is that someone who is struggling to make ends meet and unable to afford to feed themselves should still have what a lot of people would consider a luxury/non essential item over an essential item (TV was just one example, believe the quote was flatscreen TV and a mobile). Thats the main where we differ on this subject, for me - food, clothing, shelter are number one priority and I personally would sacrifice whatever I needed to, to provide those, you it would seem don't/wouldn't and I don't believe you would be alone in that (again seems post at 2:56). Thats your choice as it is anyone else who makes that choice, but it would be a choice.
There are then others who simply do not have the luxury of making that choice and without a shadow of a doubt as individuals and as a wider society we should help them.