• 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

glorygloryeze said:
It would seem from this BBC link from last year that the Trussel Trust DO account for repeat visitors: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27032642
Click to expand...
They've republished their figures then as they were heavily criticised for trying to claim 1m as individuals.

As I said about the increase though, taking figures from a single charity that is rapidly increasing its presence is at best going to find a correlation but is unlikely to even show that properly.
 
glorygloryeze said:
Erm, they are saying they need to appeal to a broader spectrum of the electorate. I don't see how this means they are making no attempt to appeal to the poor working class. Labour appealed to this group and it wasn't enough on Thursday to get them elected (perhaps because not enough of them actually vote...)
Click to expand...

No they spoke for them not to them.
 
scaramanga said:
They've republished their figures then as they were heavily criticised for trying to claim 1m as individuals.

As I said about the increase though, taking figures from a single charity that is rapidly increasing its presence is at best going to find a correlation but is unlikely to even show that properly.
Click to expand...

I wonder if this is a critique you are referencing: https://fullfact.org/factcheck/economy/food_bank_number-40853

Whilst it highlights the pitfulls of using The Trussell Trust data and and that better clarity is needed about the limitations of the evidence, it does recognise that "the increase in use and number of food banks is associated with spending cuts, benefit sanctions and unemployment, based on recent analysis in the British Medical Journal, which accounts for changes in the number of food bank numbers and for how long each food bank has been open."

We are certainly a relatively compassionate society on the whole, but i don't think it's true at all to say "Food banks have NOT sprung up because they are needed, but because we are just a compassionate bunch". Its no doubt quite a bit of effort to run a food bank and if most people never had it so good, i doubt their number and presence would increase.

Certainly food for thought (if you excuse the pun)..
 
I think somebody earlier in this thread listed football clubs by the political party of the constituency the ground was based..apologies i can't remember who did it...but any chance that an update can be produced after Friday's GE result?
 
If NWND has been banned, i doubt if it's for anything he wrote in this thread.

Seems combustable though and i wouldn't be surprised if he called someone a clam and got too many points in one of the other threads though lol
 
I agree with DZA there is a lot of help available for people who are very poor. My view despite being a Labour supporter has been that benefits should only be there as a fall back to prevent people starving or becoming homeless.They appear to have ballooned away from that. An example is child benefit paid to relatively well off people or to subsidise large families where the parents should have lived within their means. I am a passionate defender of public services as they should provide means to both protect our citizens and to get people into a position where they can be self sufficient. My fundamental issue with the Tories is that they couldn't give 2 boots about decent public services.
 
I see the issue is the definition of poverty. As it stands you are 'in poverty' if you earn 60% or less of median earnings, which is a measure of 'relative poverty'. This means that people can cross the 'poverty' threshold even as their quality of life, living standards and spending power increase if the median earnings increase faster.

Absolute poverty is what the welfare state should be aiming to eradicate, everyone in this country should have a roof over their head and be able to feed themselves. We can debate what people should be able to afford beyond the necessities of living, access to the internet is a good example, but judging how poor someone is by simply decided if they have a certain amount less than the median person is not very informative, it measures pretty much the same thing as income inequality.
 
glorygloryeze said:
To me this election shows us how much deep-down much of the UK populace are Royalist and/or are used to being ruled by the Elite Establishment that are closely linked to the Royal Family. Remember that the Tories in principle seek to keep the established order (hence the title Conservative Party) and the Tories inherently will always seek to make sure that the Royal and Elite Establishments stay as such, regardless of whatever happens to the general populace (or the Hoi Polloi/Peasants as many of them would refer to it).

It was mostly those cut from this cloth that created and ran the British Empire/Commonwealth and it is these types who seek to take steps to bring about such a 'Golden Age' and make Britain 'Great' again, no doubt with all its inherent inequalities (Lords and Serfs, followed by New World slave trading followed by Child labourers in mines and factories etc); no doubt that is the reason why shows harking back to such Lord and Serf times such as Downton Abbey are actually so popular.
Click to expand...

Kin nora.
 
Robspur12 said:
I agree with DZA there is a lot of help available for people who are very poor. My view despite being a Labour supporter has been that benefits should only be there as a fall back to prevent people starving or becoming homeless.They appear to have ballooned away from that. An example is child benefit paid to relatively well off people or to subsidise large families where the parents should have lived within their means. I am a passionate defender of public services as they should provide means to both protect our citizens and to get people into a position where they can be self sufficient. My fundamental issue with the Tories is that they couldn't give 2 boots about decent public services.
Click to expand...

I agree with the sentiment of that whole heartedly, however there is the issue of the next generation - bringing new children into the world and raising them properly is expensive in the context of standard household bills ( I'm not saying poor kids are inferior) and requires two ft working adults.

With current living costs being high even for the middle classes we should be looking to help raise the kids that will pay our pensions. I don't agree throwing money at parents is the way to do that - but I can't see us implementing any socially progressive policies anytime soon to do so.
 
Richie said:
I see the issue is the definition of poverty. As it stands you are 'in poverty' if you earn 60% or less of median earnings, which is a measure of 'relative poverty'. This means that people can cross the 'poverty' threshold even as their quality of life, living standards and spending power increase if the median earnings increase faster.

Absolute poverty is what the welfare state should be aiming to eradicate, everyone in this country should have a roof over their head and be able to feed themselves. We can debate what people should be able to afford beyond the necessities of living, access to the internet is a good example, but judging how poor someone is by simply decided if they have a certain amount less than the median person is not very informative, it measures pretty much the same thing as income inequality.
Click to expand...

I agree and we should focus on absolute poverty, however we also need a mixture of help and opportunity to ensure people can achieve a base line of social standard - and that should be above just roof over their head and food on the table - that is a Victorian standard.
A baseline standard for living in 2015 must include the internet and a mobile phone - not having these two things will (do) exclude people from the job market and, to a lesser extent, society.
These are no longer luxury items.
 
monkeybarry said:
I agree and we should focus on absolute poverty, however we also need a mixture of help and opportunity to ensure people can achieve a base line of social standard - and that should be above just roof over their head and food on the table - that is a Victorian standard.
A baseline standard for living in 2015 must include the internet and a mobile phone - not having these two things will (do) exclude people from the job market and, to a lesser extent, society.
These are no longer luxury items.
Click to expand...

I must be careful not to stereotype people on benefits, but There is a particular common housing benefit fraud where a couple claim to live apart and therefore claim housing benefit on one income only despite them actually living together. It infuriates me and takes away from needy people. These people can often afford items like iPhones etc because they are not needy yet being subsidized by the state and yet not enough is done to clamp down on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back