• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

NWND said:
Yes, living standards have never been higher, as per people continually living longer.

Food banks are just a new idea to deal with the needy in our society and were brought over from America.

There were more people that needed help or were homeless before food banks even existed in this country
Click to expand...


The average life expectancy in some parts of Glasgow is in the 50's.
 
Last edited:
Roy1983 said:
Read again and see I wrote I'd love to know what %. Cheers.
Click to expand...


That was what is called a rhetorical question. You know, where the answer is assumed. Need to do better than that. Even if it was 100%, many of these people have children. Are they meant to starve because the likes of you deem them unfit to receive support. It's the 21st century mate, time you left your Victorian deserving and undeserving poor distinction back in the 19th century where it belongs. I wonder who you voted for...NOT!
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Those Tories suggesting Tory-Lite for Labour. How enthused would you be, If I suggested that Cameron should nationalise all energy reserves, all public transport and the banks? You would say, well that's not what the Conservative party is about. Quite right too. Neither is Labour about adopting Tory policies. This was all part of Thatcher's evil. She wanted a de facto one party state, where the opposition were a pale shadow of the government. A Tweedele Dum, Tweedle De system. No thanks!
Click to expand...
The public just made it very clear that's not what they want.

They clearly do want a centre right party, so the analogy isn't really relevant.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
That was what is called a rhetorical question. You know, where the answer is assumed. Need to do better than that. Even if it was 100%, many of these people have children. Are they meant to starve because the likes of you deem them unfit to receive support. It's the 21st century mate, time you left your Victorian deserving and undeserving poor distinction back in the 19th century where it belongs. I wonder who you voted for...NOT!
Click to expand...

I voted conservative because they stand for what I believe in more than the others.

I don't believe people should be visiting food banks if they're spending £30-£100 a week on luxuries such as cigarettes and booze and I'm sure you'd agree? Maybe you could put to one side our previous differences, which I'm happy to, and debate sensibly which I'm sure would be better all round? We may disagree but debating is all I'm in this thread for.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
As I said previously, are their kids spending money on cigarettes and drink? of course not, so why should they go hungry?
Click to expand...

Of course it's the parents in the wrong not the kids. Why should men or women be allowed to use food banks after spending £10-£15 in a shop on cigarettes and scratch cards though? Not the kids fault of course. Admittedly, there is no way to police this so those that do this will continue to do so.
 
Roy1983 said:
Of course it's the parents in the wrong not the kids. Why should men or women be allowed to use food banks after spending £10-£15 in a shop on cigarettes and scratch cards though? Not the kids fault of course. Admittedly, there is no way to police this so those that do this will continue to do so.
Click to expand...

Common sense dictates that to be an un acceptable situation. However, there is no way that I would support any party that tried to use that generalized view to justify wholesale cut backs to welfare.
 
I'm sure Cameron wouldn't take that view either no.

There are many more ways to cut back in welfare. I won't go into figures but I work 40-46 hours per week. I have minimal debts. My wife doesn't work. After my rent, council tax and bills etc we're left with £6-800 per month. Yet I'm entitled to £87.00 per fortnight housing benefit. I've declined this due to the fact I don't need it yet I'd imagine I'm in a very small minority. How much are we wasting giving this benefit to people who don't need it?

Just a thought.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Extreme left, what ARE you talking about? This Labour Party is nowhere near as left wing as the Wilson Government, which was itself considered to be pretty right wing by the standards of the day.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
The political spectrum of the UK has moved continually to the right, and labour are still trying to appeal to a bygone era too much and not appealing to the middle ground - the people with a bit of wealth but also a social conscience.
 
Roy1983 said:
I voted conservative because they stand for what I believe in more than the others.

I don't believe people should be visiting food banks if they're spending £30-£100 a week on luxuries such as cigarettes and booze and I'm sure you'd agree? Maybe you could put to one side our previous differences, which I'm happy to, and debate sensibly which I'm sure would be better all round? We may disagree but debating is all I'm in this thread for.
Click to expand...

Politically I disagree with you on most things Roy, but this is an issue I have agreeance with you on.

If children are suffering due to parental excess, that should be classed as neglect and be a criminal offence ( I think it already is). The solution to that would be support rather than criminalisation.

Food banks are charity, so I don't think they should stop helping people in this situation. But I would like to see the social services of govt integrate with them to aid in changes in parental attitude and responsibility.
 
Roy1983 said:
I'm sure Cameron wouldn't take that view either no.

There are many more ways to cut back in welfare. I won't go into figures but I work 40-46 hours per week. I have minimal debts. My wife doesn't work. After my rent, council tax and bills etc we're left with £6-800 per month. Yet I'm entitled to £87.00 per fortnight housing benefit. I've declined this due to the fact I don't need it yet I'd imagine I'm in a very small minority. How much are we wasting giving this benefit to people who don't need it?

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Roy, I appreciate if you don't want to go into detail or would prefer to do it privately - but on what basis are you entitled to housing benefit? Income based? Means tested with a child? The reason I ask is your disposable income is similar to mine but I'm not eligible.
 
monkeybarry said:
Politically I disagree with you on most things Roy, but this is an issue I have agreeance with you on.

If children are suffering due to parental excess, that should be classed as neglect and be a criminal offence ( I think it already is). The solution to that would be support rather than criminalisation.

Food banks are charity, so I don't think they should stop helping people in this situation. But I would like to see the social services of govt integrate with them to aid in changes in parental attitude and responsibility.
Click to expand...
monkeybarry said:
Roy, I appreciate if you don't want to go into detail or would prefer to do it privately - but on what basis are you entitled to housing benefit? Income based? Means tested with a child? The reason I ask is your disposable income is similar to mine but I'm not eligible.
Click to expand...


I've got a 3.5 year old son. Salary is deemed low I guess but at £25k I don't consider it to be especially as I don't waste money and am a keen saver. People tell me I'm mad not to accept £174.00 a month free money but I don't. I'm a strong believer in principles and I won't get it out of principle.
 
Roy1983 said:
I've got a 3.5 year old son. Salary is deemed low I guess but at £25k I don't consider it to be especially as I don't waste money and am a keen saver. People tell me I'm mad not to accept £174.00 a month free money but I don't. I'm a strong believer in principles and I won't get it out of principle.
Click to expand...

And you live in Luton right?
And live in council housing if I remember correctly? Apologies if that is completely wrong
 
monkeybarry said:
And you live in Luton right?
And live in council housing if I remember correctly? Apologies if that is completely wrong
Click to expand...

Thankfully not. I've lived in Tottenham all 31 years of my life bar about 3. I've been staying in The Waltham Cross area with the missus but now we've got our own place in Cheshunt about a year ago.
 
Roy1983 said:
I've got a 3.5 year old son. Salary is deemed low I guess but at £25k I don't consider it to be especially as I don't waste money and am a keen saver. People tell me I'm mad not to accept £174.00 a month free money but I don't. I'm a strong believer in principles and I won't get it out of principle.
Click to expand...
You raise a very interesting point and without wishing to sound patronising I really admire your principles. I must say that it is not only poor people who waste public money. How many rich pensioners turn away the winter fuel allowance? How many well off people give up their child benefit? How much money did the politicians fleece prior to the expenses scandal?
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Those Tories suggesting Tory-Lite for Labour. How enthused would you be, If I suggested that Cameron should nationalise all energy reserves, all public transport and the banks? You would say, well that's not what the Conservative party is about. Quite right too. Neither is Labour about adopting Tory policies. This was all part of Thatcher's evil. She wanted a de facto one party state, where the opposition were a pale shadow of the government. A Tweedele Dum, Tweedle De system. No thanks!
Click to expand...

I don't think they should, but I can't see them getting elected if they don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back