FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > 300,000 more UK children fell into absolute poverty
300,000 more UK children fell into absolute poverty
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"300,000 more UK children fell into absolute poverty at height of cost of living crisis https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/21/poorest-uk-families-hardest-hit-cost-living-crisis-official-figures" So annoying when definitions change. I have no idea when it changed. Absolute poverty used to be about those in other countries who didn't have the basics - shelter, food, clothing/warmth, water. And relative poverty was about the poor/deprived in this country. I've certainly not seen dirty children in rags at side of the road with a begging bowl. That's not to say that poverty should or should not exist just because of definitions. I'm sure people are grateful for food banks, but they shouldn't need them in this "wealthy" country. | |||
"So? In the UK this is defined as having an income less than 60% of the median. If the average wage rises then this notional line rises. The question is why are the parents letting themselves get into this situation?" For some it'll be because they smoke/drink. | |||
"So? In the UK this is defined as having an income less than 60% of the median. If the average wage rises then this notional line rises. The question is why are the parents letting themselves get into this situation?" "Why don't poor people just buy more money?" | |||
"I've certainly not seen dirty children in rags at side of the road with a begging bowl. " So in your view anything less than Dickensian misery isn't proper poverty? | |||
"I've certainly not seen dirty children in rags at side of the road with a begging bowl." "So in your view anything less than Dickensian misery isn't proper poverty?" That was what 'absolute poverty' used to mean. It would appear that the definition has changed. I would certainly argue that a figure based on household income with no account taken of outgoings is not a proper measure of poverty. | |||
| |||
"I've certainly not seen dirty children in rags at side of the road with a begging bowl. So in your view anything less than Dickensian misery isn't proper poverty? That was what 'absolute poverty' used to mean. It would appear that the definition has changed. I would certainly argue that a figure based on household income with no account taken of outgoings is not a proper measure of poverty." Yeah, I mean you're making it sound like these people are frivolously overspending their way into the statistic. That's not really how it works. | |||
"**actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves?" Exactly, most of a child's education should come from the parents. It is their job to teach about life, morals, society etc. and also to supplement the basic academic education given in schools. Too many people think it is up to others to do everything for them. Children older than 2 arriving in nursery unable to use a knife and fork, or not potty trained, is shocking. They should also have been taught the basics of reading by then as well. Later in life, things like sex education, puberty, relationships etc. are also the responsibility of the parents but again too many people fail. These poor parental attitudes then becomes the norm in the next generation. | |||
| |||
"I've certainly not seen dirty children in rags at side of the road with a begging bowl." "So in your view anything less than Dickensian misery isn't proper poverty?" "That was what 'absolute poverty' used to mean. It would appear that the definition has changed. I would certainly argue that a figure based on household income with no account taken of outgoings is not a proper measure of poverty." "Yeah, I mean you're making it sound like these people are frivolously overspending their way into the statistic. That's not really how it works." I've not said anything of the sort. You're probably confusing me with the other poster. | |||
"**actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? Exactly, most of a child's education should come from the parents. It is their job to teach about life, morals, society etc. and also to supplement the basic academic education given in schools. Too many people think it is up to others to do everything for them. Children older than 2 arriving in nursery unable to use a knife and fork, or not potty trained, is shocking. They should also have been taught the basics of reading by then as well. Later in life, things like sex education, puberty, relationships etc. are also the responsibility of the parents but again too many people fail. These poor parental attitudes then becomes the norm in the next generation." Some people who believe very strongly that parents have a responsibility towards society but society has no equivalent responsibility towards them. It's not a mystery that there's a strong correlation between economic deprivation in childhood and social difficulties later in life, including parenting difficulties. The right-wing attitude is to slash what meager support for these people there is and tell them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Unsurprisingly it doesn't work. We've known for centuries that a strong and nurturing educational sector is what helps this demographic lift itself up and improve its outcomes. My suspicion is the strong resistance to that in this country is down to much of the ruling class having been educated in schools that only the very rich can afford to go to. | |||
| |||
" It's not a mystery that there's a strong correlation between economic deprivation in childhood and social difficulties later in life, including parenting difficulties. " This can be fixed by wanting to fix it as an individual. I grew up deprived but had great parents who encouraged me to be the best I could with the hand dealt. This means as an adult I'm better off than my parents were. Going forward, my children will get a better education than I, hopefully enabling her to do better than I. There needs to be a want to change, it's not just 'oh they're deprived, it must be Govts fault' | |||
"Yet 1 in 4 kids are obese. Strange." Yeah, amazingly, obesity doesn't come from eating caviar and smoked salmon. Wealthier kids tend more to have healthy balanced diets. Kids are getting obese because budget supermarkets offer bulk deals on the lowest-quality food imaginable and that's what poor people buy to stretch their money as far as possible. | |||
"Yet 1 in 4 kids are obese. Strange. Yeah, amazingly, obesity doesn't come from eating caviar and smoked salmon. Wealthier kids tend more to have healthy balanced diets. Kids are getting obese because budget supermarkets offer bulk deals on the lowest-quality food imaginable and that's what poor people buy to stretch their money as far as possible." Always somebody else's fault eh? | |||
" It's not a mystery that there's a strong correlation between economic deprivation in childhood and social difficulties later in life, including parenting difficulties. This can be fixed by wanting to fix it as an individual. I grew up deprived but had great parents who encouraged me to be the best I could with the hand dealt. This means as an adult I'm better off than my parents were. Going forward, my children will get a better education than I, hopefully enabling her to do better than I. There needs to be a want to change, it's not just 'oh they're deprived, it must be Govts fault'" That may have been your situation. However the evidence is that when governments substantially intervene in education and social programs to support and nurture children in their early stages (and their parents), the outcomes for those children dramatically improve. Telling people they have to want it, unsurprisingly, doesn't actually do much good. | |||
"Yet 1 in 4 kids are obese. Strange. Yeah, amazingly, obesity doesn't come from eating caviar and smoked salmon. Wealthier kids tend more to have healthy balanced diets. Kids are getting obese because budget supermarkets offer bulk deals on the lowest-quality food imaginable and that's what poor people buy to stretch their money as far as possible. Always somebody else's fault eh?" There's pretty widely available evidence that shows it is in fact somebody else's fault. But I'd be interested to know what your solution would be. | |||
"Yet 1 in 4 kids are obese. Strange. Yeah, amazingly, obesity doesn't come from eating caviar and smoked salmon. Wealthier kids tend more to have healthy balanced diets. Kids are getting obese because budget supermarkets offer bulk deals on the lowest-quality food imaginable and that's what poor people buy to stretch their money as far as possible." Complete rubbish. We do all our shopping in Lidl and eat healthy, balanced meals made from scratch with basic ingredients. These cost less than processed rubbish. There are actually very few offers on ready made food, the first thing you see as you go in is the fresh fruit and vegetable offers. | |||
" It's not a mystery that there's a strong correlation between economic deprivation in childhood and social difficulties later in life, including parenting difficulties. This can be fixed by wanting to fix it as an individual. I grew up deprived but had great parents who encouraged me to be the best I could with the hand dealt. This means as an adult I'm better off than my parents were. Going forward, my children will get a better education than I, hopefully enabling her to do better than I. There needs to be a want to change, it's not just 'oh they're deprived, it must be Govts fault' That may have been your situation. However the evidence is that when governments substantially intervene in education and social programs to support and nurture children in their early stages (and their parents), the outcomes for those children dramatically improve. Telling people they have to want it, unsurprisingly, doesn't actually do much good." The Govt already 'substantially intervene' by way of school and pre-school. What do you want? The Govt to actually control children? People do need to want change, the problem is 'its too much like hard work'. | |||
"Yet 1 in 4 kids are obese. Strange. Yeah, amazingly, obesity doesn't come from eating caviar and smoked salmon. Wealthier kids tend more to have healthy balanced diets. Kids are getting obese because budget supermarkets offer bulk deals on the lowest-quality food imaginable and that's what poor people buy to stretch their money as far as possible. Always somebody else's fault eh? There's pretty widely available evidence that shows it is in fact somebody else's fault. But I'd be interested to know what your solution would be." Individual responsibility would be a good start, no? | |||
"Yet 1 in 4 kids are obese. Strange. Yeah, amazingly, obesity doesn't come from eating caviar and smoked salmon. Wealthier kids tend more to have healthy balanced diets. Kids are getting obese because budget supermarkets offer bulk deals on the lowest-quality food imaginable and that's what poor people buy to stretch their money as far as possible. Complete rubbish. We do all our shopping in Lidl and eat healthy, balanced meals made from scratch with basic ingredients. These cost less than processed rubbish. There are actually very few offers on ready made food, the first thing you see as you go in is the fresh fruit and vegetable offers." I keep having this discussion with people. Firstly it is not true that whole fresh ingredients are the cheapest way, meal-for-meal, to eat. Secondly, you KNOW what to do with basic fresh ingredients. You know what to buy, what to do with it, how to make it taste good. You have the time to do it. You have, presumably, a kitchen nice enough to do it in, and enough money for the gas and electric. You've obviously got yourself an internet connection to look for new recipes on. Thirdly, you KNOW what the nutritional difference is between fresh whole ingredients and own-brand potato waffles. You fully understand the long term implications of eating nutritious foods vs. foods packed with sugars and vegetable fats. It's easy to sneer at people at the bottom of the ladder from a slightly higher rung as if it's all their fault. The problem is that there are people a few rungs above you who think that all YOUR problems are down to your personal choice to not be as rich and smart as they are. | |||
"Yet 1 in 4 kids are obese. Strange. Yeah, amazingly, obesity doesn't come from eating caviar and smoked salmon. Wealthier kids tend more to have healthy balanced diets. Kids are getting obese because budget supermarkets offer bulk deals on the lowest-quality food imaginable and that's what poor people buy to stretch their money as far as possible. Always somebody else's fault eh? There's pretty widely available evidence that shows it is in fact somebody else's fault. But I'd be interested to know what your solution would be. Individual responsibility would be a good start, no?" Yeah, that's not a solution though, is it? Because what "individual responsibility" really means is "you're on your own", and that is precisely ZERO help to people who already feel that way. I would add that "individual responsibility" is a refrain habitually adopted by people who have had far more support to get to where they are than they are prepared to admit. | |||
"So? In the UK this is defined as having an income less than 60% of the median. If the average wage rises then this notional line rises. The question is why are the parents letting themselves get into this situation?" that's relative standard of living. This is absolute. Which is based on 2011 standard of living. Today's average wage wouldn't affect it. | |||
"The Govt already 'substantially intervene' by way of school and pre-school. What do you want? The Govt to actually control children? People do need to want change, the problem is 'its too much like hard work'." I want better schools. More, better-paid teachers. Affordable childcare. After-school programs. Social outreach programs. For a start. And again, there you go. Calling people lazy fixes exactly fuck-all. You're not offering a solution. You just want to feel like you don't need to care about them because they've done it to themselves. You want to feel like the real difference between you and them is they're lazy and you therefore must be hard-working. It achieves nothing at all. | |||
"The Govt already 'substantially intervene' by way of school and pre-school. What do you want? The Govt to actually control children? People do need to want change, the problem is 'its too much like hard work'. I want better schools. More, better-paid teachers. Affordable childcare. After-school programs. Social outreach programs. For a start. And again, there you go. Calling people lazy fixes exactly fuck-all. You're not offering a solution. You just want to feel like you don't need to care about them because they've done it to themselves. You want to feel like the real difference between you and them is they're lazy and you therefore must be hard-working. It achieves nothing at all." Of course you want all of that, I'm not arguing against it. I am calling people lazy because people are fucking lazy. It acheives nothing to deny this and constantly say 'it's not their fault'. The issue you have here is you're only looking at one side and fail to see that plenty of people could help themselves, if they chose to. And guess what, if they did, there would be more to go round those who actually, genuinely need help. | |||
"The Govt already 'substantially intervene' by way of school and pre-school. What do you want? The Govt to actually control children? People do need to want change, the problem is 'its too much like hard work'. I want better schools. More, better-paid teachers. Affordable childcare. After-school programs. Social outreach programs. For a start. And again, there you go. Calling people lazy fixes exactly fuck-all. You're not offering a solution. You just want to feel like you don't need to care about them because they've done it to themselves. You want to feel like the real difference between you and them is they're lazy and you therefore must be hard-working. It achieves nothing at all." We all want those things, but they're not heaven sent. They come from taxes from a vibrant economy. Yet 1 in 5 Brits of working age are not even seeking employment. | |||
"So? In the UK this is defined as having an income less than 60% of the median. If the average wage rises then this notional line rises. The question is why are the parents letting themselves get into this situation?that's relative standard of living. This is absolute. Which is based on 2011 standard of living. Today's average wage wouldn't affect it. " It is based on the 2011 data adjusted for inflation. | |||
"So? In the UK this is defined as having an income less than 60% of the median. If the average wage rises then this notional line rises. The question is why are the parents letting themselves get into this situation?that's relative standard of living. This is absolute. Which is based on 2011 standard of living. Today's average wage wouldn't affect it. It is based on the 2011 data adjusted for inflation." agreed. Doesn't change my point. Today's medium can do what it want and the numbers won't change unless it's the poorest income that changes. | |||
" Of course you want all of that, I'm not arguing against it. I am calling people lazy because people are fucking lazy. It acheives nothing to deny this and constantly say 'it's not their fault'. The issue you have here is you're only looking at one side and fail to see that plenty of people could help themselves, if they chose to. And guess what, if they did, there would be more to go round those who actually, genuinely need help. " You and I have a very different idea of what achieving something means. I'm proposing substantial investment that would, demonstrably, improve things. You're proposing to... I guess insult these people until they go out and take the apparently countless opportunities for wealth and success? | |||
"Yet 1 in 4 kids are obese. Strange. Yeah, amazingly, obesity doesn't come from eating caviar and smoked salmon. Wealthier kids tend more to have healthy balanced diets. Kids are getting obese because budget supermarkets offer bulk deals on the lowest-quality food imaginable and that's what poor people buy to stretch their money as far as possible. Complete rubbish. We do all our shopping in Lidl and eat healthy, balanced meals made from scratch with basic ingredients. These cost less than processed rubbish. There are actually very few offers on ready made food, the first thing you see as you go in is the fresh fruit and vegetable offers. I keep having this discussion with people. Firstly it is not true that whole fresh ingredients are the cheapest way, meal-for-meal, to eat. Secondly, you KNOW what to do with basic fresh ingredients. You know what to buy, what to do with it, how to make it taste good. You have the time to do it. You have, presumably, a kitchen nice enough to do it in, and enough money for the gas and electric. You've obviously got yourself an internet connection to look for new recipes on. Thirdly, you KNOW what the nutritional difference is between fresh whole ingredients and own-brand potato waffles. You fully understand the long term implications of eating nutritious foods vs. foods packed with sugars and vegetable fats. It's easy to sneer at people at the bottom of the ladder from a slightly higher rung as if it's all their fault. The problem is that there are people a few rungs above you who think that all YOUR problems are down to your personal choice to not be as rich and smart as they are." The knowledge is the point of the patental discussion above. I never said anything about using entirely whole fresh ingredients, I said basic ingredients. These include tinned (tomatoes, beans, lentils, chickpeas etc.) and frozen. Some fresh as well, particularly if there are the £1.50 for 5kg veg boxes available. As for the kitchen, yes we have a very nice kitchen, however the slow cooker is the thing that gets the most use, followed by the air fryer. Those can be used almost anywhere anduse very little power. We cook in the same way in the motorhome, in a small basic kitchen with a very small fridge. | |||
"The Govt already 'substantially intervene' by way of school and pre-school. What do you want? The Govt to actually control children? People do need to want change, the problem is 'its too much like hard work'. I want better schools. More, better-paid teachers. Affordable childcare. After-school programs. Social outreach programs. For a start. And again, there you go. Calling people lazy fixes exactly fuck-all. You're not offering a solution. You just want to feel like you don't need to care about them because they've done it to themselves. You want to feel like the real difference between you and them is they're lazy and you therefore must be hard-working. It achieves nothing at all. We all want those things, but they're not heaven sent. They come from taxes from a vibrant economy. Yet 1 in 5 Brits of working age are not even seeking employment. " What we do and don't spend on is primarily a choice, not a case of unavailable cash. Let's not pretend that the current government, or any government of the last fifteen years, has had any appetite to reinject serious cash into services that would contribute to social mobility for the poor. Also the ONS has unemployment at just under 4%. How do you arrive at one in five can't be bothered to even look for a job? | |||
" The knowledge is the point of the patental discussion above. I never said anything about using entirely whole fresh ingredients, I said basic ingredients. These include tinned (tomatoes, beans, lentils, chickpeas etc.) and frozen. Some fresh as well, particularly if there are the £1.50 for 5kg veg boxes available. As for the kitchen, yes we have a very nice kitchen, however the slow cooker is the thing that gets the most use, followed by the air fryer. Those can be used almost anywhere anduse very little power. We cook in the same way in the motorhome, in a small basic kitchen with a very small fridge." So you, the self-described owner of a very nice kitchen, and a motorhome with its own kitchen to boot, are using your own circumstances to illustrate how poor people should just invest in a slow cooker and an air fryer to cook their lentils and chickpeas in? Yeah, the knowledge is the point. The imagination too, apparently. | |||
" Of course you want all of that, I'm not arguing against it. I am calling people lazy because people are fucking lazy. It acheives nothing to deny this and constantly say 'it's not their fault'. The issue you have here is you're only looking at one side and fail to see that plenty of people could help themselves, if they chose to. And guess what, if they did, there would be more to go round those who actually, genuinely need help. You and I have a very different idea of what achieving something means. I'm proposing substantial investment that would, demonstrably, improve things. You're proposing to... I guess insult these people until they go out and take the apparently countless opportunities for wealth and success?" Oh course we have different ideas, isn't that what makes this society what it is. How do you propose we make this substantial investment? Taxes? | |||
" Of course you want all of that, I'm not arguing against it. I am calling people lazy because people are fucking lazy. It acheives nothing to deny this and constantly say 'it's not their fault'. The issue you have here is you're only looking at one side and fail to see that plenty of people could help themselves, if they chose to. And guess what, if they did, there would be more to go round those who actually, genuinely need help. You and I have a very different idea of what achieving something means. I'm proposing substantial investment that would, demonstrably, improve things. You're proposing to... I guess insult these people until they go out and take the apparently countless opportunities for wealth and success? Oh course we have different ideas, isn't that what makes this society what it is. How do you propose we make this substantial investment? Taxes?" That is typically how the government gets money, yes. | |||
" Of course you want all of that, I'm not arguing against it. I am calling people lazy because people are fucking lazy. It acheives nothing to deny this and constantly say 'it's not their fault'. The issue you have here is you're only looking at one side and fail to see that plenty of people could help themselves, if they chose to. And guess what, if they did, there would be more to go round those who actually, genuinely need help. You and I have a very different idea of what achieving something means. I'm proposing substantial investment that would, demonstrably, improve things. You're proposing to... I guess insult these people until they go out and take the apparently countless opportunities for wealth and success? Oh course we have different ideas, isn't that what makes this society what it is. How do you propose we make this substantial investment? Taxes? That is typically how the government gets money, yes." What do you propose we cut back on tro acheive this? | |||
| |||
" Of course you want all of that, I'm not arguing against it. I am calling people lazy because people are fucking lazy. It acheives nothing to deny this and constantly say 'it's not their fault'. The issue you have here is you're only looking at one side and fail to see that plenty of people could help themselves, if they chose to. And guess what, if they did, there would be more to go round those who actually, genuinely need help. You and I have a very different idea of what achieving something means. I'm proposing substantial investment that would, demonstrably, improve things. You're proposing to... I guess insult these people until they go out and take the apparently countless opportunities for wealth and success? Oh course we have different ideas, isn't that what makes this society what it is. How do you propose we make this substantial investment? Taxes? That is typically how the government gets money, yes. What do you propose we cut back on tro acheive this?" How about tax breaks and decomissioning subsidies for oil and gas companies? I mean, just for a start. | |||
"Same as the other thread, people need to live within their means. Bluntly, some young females see having rafts of kids as an easy way to freeload by getting a free house, free food, free skytv, free booze, free fags and don't say it doesn't happen because it does." It's like Andrew Tate is actually in the room. | |||
" Of course you want all of that, I'm not arguing against it. I am calling people lazy because people are fucking lazy. It acheives nothing to deny this and constantly say 'it's not their fault'. The issue you have here is you're only looking at one side and fail to see that plenty of people could help themselves, if they chose to. And guess what, if they did, there would be more to go round those who actually, genuinely need help. You and I have a very different idea of what achieving something means. I'm proposing substantial investment that would, demonstrably, improve things. You're proposing to... I guess insult these people until they go out and take the apparently countless opportunities for wealth and success? Oh course we have different ideas, isn't that what makes this society what it is. How do you propose we make this substantial investment? Taxes? That is typically how the government gets money, yes. What do you propose we cut back on tro acheive this? How about tax breaks and decomissioning subsidies for oil and gas companies? I mean, just for a start." How much will that raise? | |||
" Of course you want all of that, I'm not arguing against it. I am calling people lazy because people are fucking lazy. It acheives nothing to deny this and constantly say 'it's not their fault'. The issue you have here is you're only looking at one side and fail to see that plenty of people could help themselves, if they chose to. And guess what, if they did, there would be more to go round those who actually, genuinely need help. You and I have a very different idea of what achieving something means. I'm proposing substantial investment that would, demonstrably, improve things. You're proposing to... I guess insult these people until they go out and take the apparently countless opportunities for wealth and success? Oh course we have different ideas, isn't that what makes this society what it is. How do you propose we make this substantial investment? Taxes? That is typically how the government gets money, yes. What do you propose we cut back on tro acheive this? How about tax breaks and decomissioning subsidies for oil and gas companies? I mean, just for a start. How much will that raise?" Low eleven figures. Like I said, it's just a start. The government spaffs money you wouldn't believe on stuff that extremely rich people should really be taking individual responsibility for. Big businesses are the worst welfare freeloaders out there. | |||
"Yet 1 in 5 Brits of working age are not even seeking employment." "... the ONS has unemployment at just under 4%. How do you arrive at one in five can't be bothered to even look for a job?" The unemployment figure is those people looking for a job that can't find one. The 20% figure is those people that don't have a job, and aren't looking for one. The 20% includes all retired people, and stay-at-home parents. | |||
 | |||
" Of course you want all of that, I'm not arguing against it. I am calling people lazy because people are fucking lazy. It acheives nothing to deny this and constantly say 'it's not their fault'. The issue you have here is you're only looking at one side and fail to see that plenty of people could help themselves, if they chose to. And guess what, if they did, there would be more to go round those who actually, genuinely need help. You and I have a very different idea of what achieving something means. I'm proposing substantial investment that would, demonstrably, improve things. You're proposing to... I guess insult these people until they go out and take the apparently countless opportunities for wealth and success? Oh course we have different ideas, isn't that what makes this society what it is. How do you propose we make this substantial investment? Taxes? That is typically how the government gets money, yes. What do you propose we cut back on tro acheive this? How about tax breaks and decomissioning subsidies for oil and gas companies? I mean, just for a start. How much will that raise? Low eleven figures. Like I said, it's just a start. The government spaffs money you wouldn't believe on stuff that extremely rich people should really be taking individual responsibility for. Big businesses are the worst welfare freeloaders out there." Of course it's just a start. That's how communism starts | |||
" The knowledge is the point of the patental discussion above. I never said anything about using entirely whole fresh ingredients, I said basic ingredients. These include tinned (tomatoes, beans, lentils, chickpeas etc.) and frozen. Some fresh as well, particularly if there are the £1.50 for 5kg veg boxes available. As for the kitchen, yes we have a very nice kitchen, however the slow cooker is the thing that gets the most use, followed by the air fryer. Those can be used almost anywhere anduse very little power. We cook in the same way in the motorhome, in a small basic kitchen with a very small fridge. So you, the self-described owner of a very nice kitchen, and a motorhome with its own kitchen to boot, are using your own circumstances to illustrate how poor people should just invest in a slow cooker and an air fryer to cook their lentils and chickpeas in? Yeah, the knowledge is the point. The imagination too, apparently." A healthy nutritious meal can be cooked from basic ingredients for £1 a portion without trying too hard. we do it most of the time. Learning how to do it was easy, if you can't afford new books or Internet then charity shops usually have books for a few pence. If people can't be bothered to learn basic life skills then there's not much hope for society. Throwing money at it (which has to be raised from taxes) won't work at all if people aren't interested in learning. | |||
"It is someone else’s fault. The bloody boomers! Pillaged the Earth’s resources, lived the high life, enjoyed being a bunch of drug taking hippy swingers before transforming into Thatcherite me first fuck society types as they rode the wave of wealth growth driven by house prices, tinkered with society with do-gooder schemes (to pretend they are still those community minded hippies) to the point it has started becoming unfunctional and and lacks common sense anymore, and clearly in many cases shit parents and role models to GenX and Millenials who now haven’t got a clue how to raise the boomers grandchildren! It is all their fault! "Never was a truer word spoken in jest. | |||
" The knowledge is the point of the patental discussion above. I never said anything about using entirely whole fresh ingredients, I said basic ingredients. These include tinned (tomatoes, beans, lentils, chickpeas etc.) and frozen. Some fresh as well, particularly if there are the £1.50 for 5kg veg boxes available. As for the kitchen, yes we have a very nice kitchen, however the slow cooker is the thing that gets the most use, followed by the air fryer. Those can be used almost anywhere anduse very little power. We cook in the same way in the motorhome, in a small basic kitchen with a very small fridge. So you, the self-described owner of a very nice kitchen, and a motorhome with its own kitchen to boot, are using your own circumstances to illustrate how poor people should just invest in a slow cooker and an air fryer to cook their lentils and chickpeas in? Yeah, the knowledge is the point. The imagination too, apparently. A healthy nutritious meal can be cooked from basic ingredients for £1 a portion without trying too hard. we do it most of the time. Learning how to do it was easy, if you can't afford new books or Internet then charity shops usually have books for a few pence. If people can't be bothered to learn basic life skills then there's not much hope for society. Throwing money at it (which has to be raised from taxes) won't work at all if people aren't interested in learning. " £1!!!!! 30p Lee wants a word! | |||
" Of course you want all of that, I'm not arguing against it. I am calling people lazy because people are fucking lazy. It acheives nothing to deny this and constantly say 'it's not their fault'. The issue you have here is you're only looking at one side and fail to see that plenty of people could help themselves, if they chose to. And guess what, if they did, there would be more to go round those who actually, genuinely need help. You and I have a very different idea of what achieving something means. I'm proposing substantial investment that would, demonstrably, improve things. You're proposing to... I guess insult these people until they go out and take the apparently countless opportunities for wealth and success? Oh course we have different ideas, isn't that what makes this society what it is. How do you propose we make this substantial investment? Taxes? That is typically how the government gets money, yes. What do you propose we cut back on tro acheive this? How about tax breaks and decomissioning subsidies for oil and gas companies? I mean, just for a start. How much will that raise? Low eleven figures. Like I said, it's just a start. The government spaffs money you wouldn't believe on stuff that extremely rich people should really be taking individual responsibility for. Big businesses are the worst welfare freeloaders out there. Of course it's just a start. That's how communism starts "I do realise that not giving billions of tax money free and clear to gigantic profit-making privaate companies to do things they should pay to do themselves is really just a stone's throw from out-and-out Stalinism. | |||
" The knowledge is the point of the patental discussion above. I never said anything about using entirely whole fresh ingredients, I said basic ingredients. These include tinned (tomatoes, beans, lentils, chickpeas etc.) and frozen. Some fresh as well, particularly if there are the £1.50 for 5kg veg boxes available. As for the kitchen, yes we have a very nice kitchen, however the slow cooker is the thing that gets the most use, followed by the air fryer. Those can be used almost anywhere anduse very little power. We cook in the same way in the motorhome, in a small basic kitchen with a very small fridge. So you, the self-described owner of a very nice kitchen, and a motorhome with its own kitchen to boot, are using your own circumstances to illustrate how poor people should just invest in a slow cooker and an air fryer to cook their lentils and chickpeas in? Yeah, the knowledge is the point. The imagination too, apparently. A healthy nutritious meal can be cooked from basic ingredients for £1 a portion without trying too hard. we do it most of the time. Learning how to do it was easy, if you can't afford new books or Internet then charity shops usually have books for a few pence. If people can't be bothered to learn basic life skills then there's not much hope for society. Throwing money at it (which has to be raised from taxes) won't work at all if people aren't interested in learning. " So, like, a huge amount of the money is directly spent on getting them interested in learning. And a lot more indirectly. Did you not catch the emphasis on education? | |||
"The Govt already 'substantially intervene' by way of school and pre-school. What do you want? The Govt to actually control children? People do need to want change, the problem is 'its too much like hard work'. I want better schools. More, better-paid teachers. Affordable childcare. After-school programs. Social outreach programs. For a start. And again, there you go. Calling people lazy fixes exactly fuck-all. You're not offering a solution. You just want to feel like you don't need to care about them because they've done it to themselves. You want to feel like the real difference between you and them is they're lazy and you therefore must be hard-working. It achieves nothing at all. We all want those things, but they're not heaven sent. They come from taxes from a vibrant economy. Yet 1 in 5 Brits of working age are not even seeking employment. What we do and don't spend on is primarily a choice, not a case of unavailable cash. Let's not pretend that the current government, or any government of the last fifteen years, has had any appetite to reinject serious cash into services that would contribute to social mobility for the poor. Also the ONS has unemployment at just under 4%. How do you arrive at one in five can't be bothered to even look for a job?" From ONS, the UK's economic inactivity rate was 21.8% Nov to Jan past. | |||
"What do you propose we cut back on to acheive this?" "How about tax breaks and decomissioning subsidies for oil and gas companies? I mean, just for a start." Oil and gas companies don't get any special tax breaks, only the same tax reliefs that are available to all UK companies. Nor do they get subsidies for decommissioning. They do get a tax break on decommissioning, but that's because they aren't allowed to depreciate their assets like all other companies do. If you got rid of the decommissioning rules, they'd be able to get more tax relief in depreciation. | |||
"Yet 1 in 5 Brits of working age are not even seeking employment. ... the ONS has unemployment at just under 4%. How do you arrive at one in five can't be bothered to even look for a job? The unemployment figure is those people looking for a job that can't find one. The 20% figure is those people that don't have a job, and aren't looking for one. The 20% includes all retired people, and stay-at-home parents." I think the stats are based on age 16 to 64, so some (early) retirees maybe but most retired people excluded. | |||
"The Govt already 'substantially intervene' by way of school and pre-school. What do you want? The Govt to actually control children? People do need to want change, the problem is 'its too much like hard work'. I want better schools. More, better-paid teachers. Affordable childcare. After-school programs. Social outreach programs. For a start. And again, there you go. Calling people lazy fixes exactly fuck-all. You're not offering a solution. You just want to feel like you don't need to care about them because they've done it to themselves. You want to feel like the real difference between you and them is they're lazy and you therefore must be hard-working. It achieves nothing at all. We all want those things, but they're not heaven sent. They come from taxes from a vibrant economy. Yet 1 in 5 Brits of working age are not even seeking employment. What we do and don't spend on is primarily a choice, not a case of unavailable cash. Let's not pretend that the current government, or any government of the last fifteen years, has had any appetite to reinject serious cash into services that would contribute to social mobility for the poor. Also the ONS has unemployment at just under 4%. How do you arrive at one in five can't be bothered to even look for a job? From ONS, the UK's economic inactivity rate was 21.8% Nov to Jan past." Okay, but economically inactive includes stay at home parents, wealthy enough to not need a job, long-term sickness and disability, and so on. That's not "can't be arsed to work". Either way, the economically inactive not paying income tax doesn't mean we couldn't afford to improve government investment in outcomes for children in lower-income families. | |||
"What do you propose we cut back on to acheive this? How about tax breaks and decomissioning subsidies for oil and gas companies? I mean, just for a start. Oil and gas companies don't get any special tax breaks, only the same tax reliefs that are available to all UK companies. Nor do they get subsidies for decommissioning. They do get a tax break on decommissioning, but that's because they aren't allowed to depreciate their assets like all other companies do. If you got rid of the decommissioning rules, they'd be able to get more tax relief in depreciation." Lol. Yeah, sure. | |||
| |||
"Oh the beauty of ideologies, it’s what sells advertising space on your preferred news platform…. Communism seems to be the empathetic view but what people with those antiquated views fail to acknowledge is the total disaster that approach has brought to millions of people across the globe, it literally failed in our lifetime. " And what a lot of other people fail to acknowledge is that you'd have to look very hard to find an actual communist or advocate of communism. Most people in what we talk about as "the left" are barely socialists in the traditional definition of it. | |||
"Oh the beauty of ideologies, it’s what sells advertising space on your preferred news platform…. Communism seems to be the empathetic view but what people with those antiquated views fail to acknowledge is the total disaster that approach has brought to millions of people across the globe, it literally failed in our lifetime. And what a lot of other people fail to acknowledge is that you'd have to look very hard to find an actual communist or advocate of communism. Most people in what we talk about as "the left" are barely socialists in the traditional definition of it." Out of interest where is Starmer and his Labour Party? Centre left or creeping centre right? | |||
| |||
"Oh the beauty of ideologies, it’s what sells advertising space on your preferred news platform…. Communism seems to be the empathetic view but what people with those antiquated views fail to acknowledge is the total disaster that approach has brought to millions of people across the globe, it literally failed in our lifetime. " Boomers again! Loved a bit of socialism and collectivism (not sure re full blown communism) during their hippy days, then did a 180 after watching Wall St. | |||
| |||
"You can give a man a fish to feed him for a day or you can buy him a fishing rod but the lazy baestweard won't use it so begs fish from his neighbours " So, like, I get what you're trying to say but the second half of the expression is "teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime". You have to take the trouble to teach people. Not sit there claiming they're just lazy freeloaders and it's all their fault. | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? " When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world? | |||
"You can give a man a fish to feed him for a day or you can buy him a fishing rod but the lazy baestweard won't use it so begs fish from his neighbours So, like, I get what you're trying to say but the second half of the expression is "teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime". You have to take the trouble to teach people. Not sit there claiming they're just lazy freeloaders and it's all their fault." You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink | |||
"You can give a man a fish to feed him for a day or you can buy him a fishing rod but the lazy baestweard won't use it so begs fish from his neighbours So, like, I get what you're trying to say but the second half of the expression is "teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime". You have to take the trouble to teach people. Not sit there claiming they're just lazy freeloaders and it's all their fault." Why? Cooking is easy. People need to take personal responsibility. | |||
"You can give a man a fish to feed him for a day or you can buy him a fishing rod but the lazy baestweard won't use it so begs fish from his neighbours So, like, I get what you're trying to say but the second half of the expression is "teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime". You have to take the trouble to teach people. Not sit there claiming they're just lazy freeloaders and it's all their fault. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" You can lead a guy to logic but you can't make him think. | |||
"Cooking is easy. People need to take personal responsibility." It's worse when snowflakes defend their right to have everything given to them like it's some divine right | |||
"You can give a man a fish to feed him for a day or you can buy him a fishing rod but the lazy baestweard won't use it so begs fish from his neighbours So, like, I get what you're trying to say but the second half of the expression is "teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime". You have to take the trouble to teach people. Not sit there claiming they're just lazy freeloaders and it's all their fault. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink You can lead a guy to logic but you can't make him think." The logic being ? Can't say I've come across that proverb .. | |||
"You can give a man a fish to feed him for a day or you can buy him a fishing rod but the lazy baestweard won't use it so begs fish from his neighbours So, like, I get what you're trying to say but the second half of the expression is "teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime". You have to take the trouble to teach people. Not sit there claiming they're just lazy freeloaders and it's all their fault. Why? Cooking is easy. People need to take personal responsibility." Cooking is easy when you know how and you can afford the equipment and time and food. I don't know why people refuse to accept that a lot of people lack some or all of those things. Actually that's not true, I do know. | |||
"You can give a man a fish to feed him for a day or you can buy him a fishing rod but the lazy baestweard won't use it so begs fish from his neighbours So, like, I get what you're trying to say but the second half of the expression is "teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime". You have to take the trouble to teach people. Not sit there claiming they're just lazy freeloaders and it's all their fault. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink You can lead a guy to logic but you can't make him think. The logic being ? Can't say I've come across that proverb .." The logic being that it doesn't make sense to keep asserting that people who are extremely badly off have done it to themselves when it's evidently not true and doesn't achieve anything positive. | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world?" Google “is the UK the fifth richest country in the World” and you’ll have your answer. | |||
"You can give a man a fish to feed him for a day or you can buy him a fishing rod but the lazy baestweard won't use it so begs fish from his neighbours So, like, I get what you're trying to say but the second half of the expression is "teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime". You have to take the trouble to teach people. Not sit there claiming they're just lazy freeloaders and it's all their fault. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink You can lead a guy to logic but you can't make him think. The logic being ? Can't say I've come across that proverb .. The logic being that it doesn't make sense to keep asserting that people who are extremely badly off have done it to themselves when it's evidently not true and doesn't achieve anything positive." I don't think anyone has said that all those who are extremely badly off have done it entirely to themselves. However, there are plenty of things we can do personally to improve our own situations. It would be illogical to think otherwise. | |||
"I don't think anyone has said that all those who are extremely badly off have done it entirely to themselves. However, there are plenty of things we can do personally to improve our own situations. It would be illogical to think otherwise. " That statement would have a bit more credibility if any of the "personal responsibility" lot had at any point acknowledged that sometimes (often, if not mostly) "personal responsibility" means fuck-all when you've got close to nothing to work with, and that without outside intervention and support there are millions of people who would have completely horrible lives and then die in misery. And no, it doesn't go without saying. You have to acknowledge that explicitly before you can start complaining about the minuscule minority of people who are freeloading by choice. | |||
"Oh the beauty of ideologies, it’s what sells advertising space on your preferred news platform…. Communism seems to be the empathetic view but what people with those antiquated views fail to acknowledge is the total disaster that approach has brought to millions of people across the globe, it literally failed in our lifetime. Boomers again! Loved a bit of socialism and collectivism (not sure re full blown communism) during their hippy days, then did a 180 after watching Wall St." Or simply look at countries that have now become more capitalist in their approach, people starting to thrive and along with it their countries. Egalitarian societies fail, and if people think we have poverty now, following that direction will land pretty much everyone who can’t escape it in the same boat. | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world? Google “is the UK the fifth richest country in the World” and you’ll have your answer." Lol. That's based on total GDP. By that logic, India is the 6th richest country. Both of us know the problem with this metric. | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world? Google “is the UK the fifth richest country in the World” and you’ll have your answer. Lol. That's based on total GDP. By that logic, India is the 6th richest country. Both of us know the problem with this metric." Erm ok you can pick a fight on your own as I am not interested in rabbit holes around how we define whether a country is rich! | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world? Google “is the UK the fifth richest country in the World” and you’ll have your answer. Lol. That's based on total GDP. By that logic, India is the 6th richest country. Both of us know the problem with this metric." We are now 6th on GDP. 9th on purchasing power in 2022. | |||
" Or simply look at countries that have now become more capitalist in their approach, people starting to thrive and along with it their countries. Egalitarian societies fail, and if people think we have poverty now, following that direction will land pretty much everyone who can’t escape it in the same boat. " It takes some stones, to be fair, to look at the world around us and assert that what's really going to sort us out is more capitalism. | |||
" Or simply look at countries that have now become more capitalist in their approach, people starting to thrive and along with it their countries. Egalitarian societies fail, and if people think we have poverty now, following that direction will land pretty much everyone who can’t escape it in the same boat. It takes some stones, to be fair, to look at the world around us and assert that what's really going to sort us out is more capitalism." What do you suggest to be a better way forward, other than capitalism? | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world? Google “is the UK the fifth richest country in the World” and you’ll have your answer. Lol. That's based on total GDP. By that logic, India is the 6th richest country. Both of us know the problem with this metric. Erm ok you can pick a fight on your own as I am not interested in rabbit holes around how we define whether a country is rich!" If you are talking about richness of people in a country, GDP per capita, though not perfect, is obviously a better measure than total GDP of a country? UK ranks 27th when it comes to GDP per capita. | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world? Google “is the UK the fifth richest country in the World” and you’ll have your answer. Lol. That's based on total GDP. By that logic, India is the 6th richest country. Both of us know the problem with this metric. We are now 6th on GDP. 9th on purchasing power in 2022." And if we calculate it per capita, we are at 27th. | |||
" Or simply look at countries that have now become more capitalist in their approach, people starting to thrive and along with it their countries. Egalitarian societies fail, and if people think we have poverty now, following that direction will land pretty much everyone who can’t escape it in the same boat. It takes some stones, to be fair, to look at the world around us and assert that what's really going to sort us out is more capitalism. What do you suggest to be a better way forward, other than capitalism? " I'm not an anticapitalist. I'm in favour of capitalism strongly regulated by a strong government that prioritises its social function. My position is private influence in government should be strictly limited and business should be held to a far higher standard of social responsibility. | |||
" Or simply look at countries that have now become more capitalist in their approach, people starting to thrive and along with it their countries. Egalitarian societies fail, and if people think we have poverty now, following that direction will land pretty much everyone who can’t escape it in the same boat. It takes some stones, to be fair, to look at the world around us and assert that what's really going to sort us out is more capitalism. What do you suggest to be a better way forward, other than capitalism? I'm not an anticapitalist. I'm in favour of capitalism strongly regulated by a strong government that prioritises its social function. My position is private influence in government should be strictly limited and business should be held to a far higher standard of social responsibility." We hear a lot of statements like this. Philosophically I agree with this. But can you tell us the kind of policies that you actually want? | |||
" Or simply look at countries that have now become more capitalist in their approach, people starting to thrive and along with it their countries. Egalitarian societies fail, and if people think we have poverty now, following that direction will land pretty much everyone who can’t escape it in the same boat. It takes some stones, to be fair, to look at the world around us and assert that what's really going to sort us out is more capitalism. What do you suggest to be a better way forward, other than capitalism? I'm not an anticapitalist. I'm in favour of capitalism strongly regulated by a strong government that prioritises its social function. My position is private influence in government should be strictly limited and business should be held to a far higher standard of social responsibility. We hear a lot of statements like this. Philosophically I agree with this. But can you tell us the kind of policies that you actually want?" I'd be happy to, what kind of sector would you like to hear about? | |||
" Or simply look at countries that have now become more capitalist in their approach, people starting to thrive and along with it their countries. Egalitarian societies fail, and if people think we have poverty now, following that direction will land pretty much everyone who can’t escape it in the same boat. It takes some stones, to be fair, to look at the world around us and assert that what's really going to sort us out is more capitalism. What do you suggest to be a better way forward, other than capitalism? I'm not an anticapitalist. I'm in favour of capitalism strongly regulated by a strong government that prioritises its social function. My position is private influence in government should be strictly limited and business should be held to a far higher standard of social responsibility. We hear a lot of statements like this. Philosophically I agree with this. But can you tell us the kind of policies that you actually want? I'd be happy to, what kind of sector would you like to hear about?" Any sector that you are comfortable with. How about airlines? Or the internet? Or power. | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world? Google “is the UK the fifth richest country in the World” and you’ll have your answer. Lol. That's based on total GDP. By that logic, India is the 6th richest country. Both of us know the problem with this metric. Erm ok you can pick a fight on your own as I am not interested in rabbit holes around how we define whether a country is rich! If you are talking about richness of people in a country, GDP per capita, though not perfect, is obviously a better measure than total GDP of a country? UK ranks 27th when it comes to GDP per capita." And if you look at my post you quoted and check out the *footnote you’ll see why these few posts are pointless. | |||
" Or simply look at countries that have now become more capitalist in their approach, people starting to thrive and along with it their countries. Egalitarian societies fail, and if people think we have poverty now, following that direction will land pretty much everyone who can’t escape it in the same boat. It takes some stones, to be fair, to look at the world around us and assert that what's really going to sort us out is more capitalism. What do you suggest to be a better way forward, other than capitalism? I'm not an anticapitalist. I'm in favour of capitalism strongly regulated by a strong government that prioritises its social function. My position is private influence in government should be strictly limited and business should be held to a far higher standard of social responsibility. We hear a lot of statements like this. Philosophically I agree with this. But can you tell us the kind of policies that you actually want? I'd be happy to, what kind of sector would you like to hear about? Any sector that you are comfortable with. How about airlines? Or the internet? Or power." Utilities are a good one to start with. First thing I'd do is create a cabinet post for it and nationalise 51% of the sharehold across the market. Infrastructure would be state-owned. Set a minimum threshold for reinvestment in sustainable domestic energy production and clean water plans including sewage recycling. I'd set more ambitious goals for phasing out fossil fuels and impose penalties for sub-targets not achieved. The entire sector would be made to operate on an open-book system. Utilities, like health, are an indispensable necessity so should be aggressively socialised while remaining productive and affordable, but profit should be contingent on community goals being met. I don't know enough about airlines to have formulated a proper policy. Re: Internet, it's clear nobody in government has a proper sense of the implications. Again it should have its own cabinet post, a task force for security (not just national but at local police level), and a separate department to oversee business and media in conjunction with the dept. of trade and HMRC. This is primarily to ensure compliance but also to clamp down on disinformation. It goes on and on, I could talk for hours in way more detail. | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world? Google “is the UK the fifth richest country in the World” and you’ll have your answer. Lol. That's based on total GDP. By that logic, India is the 6th richest country. Both of us know the problem with this metric. Erm ok you can pick a fight on your own as I am not interested in rabbit holes around how we define whether a country is rich! If you are talking about richness of people in a country, GDP per capita, though not perfect, is obviously a better measure than total GDP of a country? UK ranks 27th when it comes to GDP per capita. And if you look at my post you quoted and check out the *footnote you’ll see why these few posts are pointless." I actually read your footnote hoping to see some explanation of how UK magically turned out to be the 5th richest country. But it did not explain that. You were talking about wealth concentration. UK is very far from being the 5th richest country. By your metric, India is right now richer than UK and France. If we are using GDP as a signal of wealth, we should be taking population into account and that puts UK at 27th rank. As for wealth concentration, I created a separate thread about it. Anyway here is the statistics about what % of a country's total wealth is owned by top 1% https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/1758578249922224370 Among European countries, UK stands at third from bottom in this metric. So it looks like we do a muct better job at controlling wealth concentration compared to many other European nations? | |||
"I don't think anyone has said that all those who are extremely badly off have done it entirely to themselves. However, there are plenty of things we can do personally to improve our own situations. It would be illogical to think otherwise. That statement would have a bit more credibility if any of the "personal responsibility" lot had at any point acknowledged that sometimes (often, if not mostly) "personal responsibility" means fuck-all when you've got close to nothing to work with, and that without outside intervention and support there are millions of people who would have completely horrible lives and then die in misery. And no, it doesn't go without saying. You have to acknowledge that explicitly before you can start complaining about the minuscule minority of people who are freeloading by choice." We do not have to explicitly acknowledge, your issue here is that you think anyone who talks about personal responsibility doesn't already understand that some people do genuinely have it harder than others. No one thinks all of those are a freeloaders, but there are plenty who think things are 'hard work' so don't bother. I've already told you there is already outside intervention for people who need it. For example, in my area there are community initiatives around cooking. | |||
" Utilities are a good one to start with. First thing I'd do is create a cabinet post for it and nationalise 51% of the sharehold across the market. Infrastructure would be state-owned. Set a minimum threshold for reinvestment in sustainable domestic energy production and clean water plans including sewage recycling. I'd set more ambitious goals for phasing out fossil fuels and impose penalties for sub-targets not achieved. The entire sector would be made to operate on an open-book system. " When it comes to utilities, what advantage do you see in nationalising them. Wherever the utility bills have been reduced through nationalisation, the difference is more than compensated through higher tax rates. Who do you want to impose penalties on for not phasing out fossil fuels if you anyway want to nationalise it? " Utilities, like health, are an indispensable necessity so should be aggressively socialised while remaining productive and affordable, but profit should be contingent on community goals being met. " There is no such thing as free lunch. If you socialise it, you are only indirectly paying through taxes. So "affordability" isn't really a thing here. " Re: Internet, it's clear nobody in government has a proper sense of the implications. Again it should have its own cabinet post, a task force for security (not just national but at local police level), and a separate department to oversee business and media in conjunction with the dept. of trade and HMRC. This is primarily to ensure compliance but also to clamp down on disinformation. " The problem with misinformation has always been about inability to find a source of trust. Do you think that the government deciding what's true and what's not true is a good idea? That's basically what CCP does and you know how it works. | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world? Google “is the UK the fifth richest country in the World” and you’ll have your answer. Lol. That's based on total GDP. By that logic, India is the 6th richest country. Both of us know the problem with this metric. Erm ok you can pick a fight on your own as I am not interested in rabbit holes around how we define whether a country is rich! If you are talking about richness of people in a country, GDP per capita, though not perfect, is obviously a better measure than total GDP of a country? UK ranks 27th when it comes to GDP per capita. And if you look at my post you quoted and check out the *footnote you’ll see why these few posts are pointless. I actually read your footnote hoping to see some explanation of how UK magically turned out to be the 5th richest country. But it did not explain that. You were talking about wealth concentration. UK is very far from being the 5th richest country. By your metric, India is right now richer than UK and France. If we are using GDP as a signal of wealth, we should be taking population into account and that puts UK at 27th rank. As for wealth concentration, I created a separate thread about it. Anyway here is the statistics about what % of a country's total wealth is owned by top 1% https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/1758578249922224370 Among European countries, UK stands at third from bottom in this metric. So it looks like we do a muct better job at controlling wealth concentration compared to many other European nations?" That’s all lovely and I am not disputing your thinking. However, I think we can agree the UK is a wealthy country and should not be experiencing child poverty. Or are you saying we are a poor country and should accept child poverty? Not sure of why this tangential conversation is necessary or particularly relevant? | |||
"I think we can agree the UK is a wealthy country and should not be experiencing child poverty." The easiest way to end child poverty is just to stop poor people from having children. Not the most popular policy perhaps, but if we actually care about the children, the best policy is to make everyone apply for a childbirth licence and then means-test those applications. Unless of course the real aim of this discussion is just to bash the government with no real intention of reducing child suffering. | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world? Google “is the UK the fifth richest country in the World” and you’ll have your answer. Lol. That's based on total GDP. By that logic, India is the 6th richest country. Both of us know the problem with this metric. Erm ok you can pick a fight on your own as I am not interested in rabbit holes around how we define whether a country is rich! If you are talking about richness of people in a country, GDP per capita, though not perfect, is obviously a better measure than total GDP of a country? UK ranks 27th when it comes to GDP per capita. And if you look at my post you quoted and check out the *footnote you’ll see why these few posts are pointless. I actually read your footnote hoping to see some explanation of how UK magically turned out to be the 5th richest country. But it did not explain that. You were talking about wealth concentration. UK is very far from being the 5th richest country. By your metric, India is right now richer than UK and France. If we are using GDP as a signal of wealth, we should be taking population into account and that puts UK at 27th rank. As for wealth concentration, I created a separate thread about it. Anyway here is the statistics about what % of a country's total wealth is owned by top 1% https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/1758578249922224370 Among European countries, UK stands at third from bottom in this metric. So it looks like we do a muct better job at controlling wealth concentration compared to many other European nations? That’s all lovely and I am not disputing your thinking. However, I think we can agree the UK is a wealthy country and should not be experiencing child poverty. Or are you saying we are a poor country and should accept child poverty? Not sure of why this tangential conversation is necessary or particularly relevant? " How is a child in poverty? They should be receiving free meals, uniforms, their parents housing will be paid for and benefits to help. Are we saying this help does not exist and children are not eating and starving? | |||
| |||
" We do not have to explicitly acknowledge, your issue here is that you think anyone who talks about personal responsibility doesn't already understand that some people do genuinely have it harder than others. No one thinks all of those are a freeloaders, but there are plenty who think things are 'hard work' so don't bother. I've already told you there is already outside intervention for people who need it. For example, in my area there are community initiatives around cooking. " You do have to acknowledge it. When you come onto a thread about children in poverty to spout the most antediluvian thatcherite bollocks about personal responsibility, nobody's just going to assume on your behalf that your point of view is in fact way more nuanced than it sounds. There ARE people who think they are all freeloaders, some of them are on here, and you've literally only been talking about people who think things are hard work and don't bother as if they were the sum total of the issue. And specifically because when these conversations come up there are so many people like you, who prat on about personal responsibility as if you were born naked in a ditch and nobody so much as held a door for you in your life, the "outside intervention" available to those people is laughable and under permanent attack from those who would rather see their taxes spaffed on a Gulag in Central Africa, and doesn't begin to make a single dent in the poverty some of the people we're actually talking about have to endure. "Community cooking", is it? Oh, well then, never mind lads, might as well bin the entire safety net and get back to giving our mates massive contracts for imaginary PPE. | |||
"Poverty is down to lack of money supply, most people have duel energy gas and leccy the standing charge alone is nearly a pound a day for both and that is without using any energy, when money is tight a pound a day can be the difference of having a meal or not." That is literally the most sensible thing I've ever seen you say. | |||
"You can give a man a fish to feed him for a day or you can buy him a fishing rod but the lazy baestweard won't use it so begs fish from his neighbours So, like, I get what you're trying to say but the second half of the expression is "teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime". You have to take the trouble to teach people. Not sit there claiming they're just lazy freeloaders and it's all their fault. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink You can lead a guy to logic but you can't make him think. The logic being ? Can't say I've come across that proverb .. The logic being that it doesn't make sense to keep asserting that people who are extremely badly off have done it to themselves when it's evidently not true and doesn't achieve anything positive." Not everyone has deliberately made themselves poor that's for sure, however many if not most can't and won't live within their means | |||
" We do not have to explicitly acknowledge, your issue here is that you think anyone who talks about personal responsibility doesn't already understand that some people do genuinely have it harder than others. No one thinks all of those are a freeloaders, but there are plenty who think things are 'hard work' so don't bother. I've already told you there is already outside intervention for people who need it. For example, in my area there are community initiatives around cooking. You do have to acknowledge it. When you come onto a thread about children in poverty to spout the most antediluvian thatcherite bollocks about personal responsibility, nobody's just going to assume on your behalf that your point of view is in fact way more nuanced than it sounds. There ARE people who think they are all freeloaders, some of them are on here, and you've literally only been talking about people who think things are hard work and don't bother as if they were the sum total of the issue. And specifically because when these conversations come up there are so many people like you, who prat on about personal responsibility as if you were born naked in a ditch and nobody so much as held a door for you in your life, the "outside intervention" available to those people is laughable and under permanent attack from those who would rather see their taxes spaffed on a Gulag in Central Africa, and doesn't begin to make a single dent in the poverty some of the people we're actually talking about have to endure. "Community cooking", is it? Oh, well then, never mind lads, might as well bin the entire safety net and get back to giving our mates massive contracts for imaginary PPE." There's definitely someone 'spouting' on this thread, it isn't me 
I'm not sure why you're taking it so personal, as I've already said, I acknowledge my parents helped me, just as I help my children. We've also had help from Govt with various things, I think health and education wiuld be the 2 largest so I don't know what bollocks you're talking about.
You've been speaking about 'education's in cooking to another poster, all I've done is pointed out that it actually exists in my area.
Maybe, just maybe, take a minute to get out of your bubble and see what the real world is like instead of just blaming others. | |||
"Poverty is down to lack of money supply, most people have duel energy gas and leccy the standing charge alone is nearly a pound a day for both and that is without using any energy, when money is tight a pound a day can be the difference of having a meal or not. That is literally the most sensible thing I've ever seen you say." Really or are you being obnoxious. | |||
"When it comes to utilities, what advantage do you see in nationalising them. Wherever the utility bills have been reduced through nationalisation, the difference is more than compensated through higher tax rates. Who do you want to impose penalties on for not phasing out fossil fuels if you anyway want to nationalise it?" The advantage comes through control and decision making. It's not about the money. For example, a company under government supervision might decide against covering beaches with human shit. And it's only 51% public. The remaining 49% have an interest in not being penalised. "There is no such thing as free lunch. If you socialise it, you are only indirectly paying through taxes. So "affordability" isn't really a thing here." Again, if you stop thinking as if "money" is the only objective here, then you'll see how affordability is not just a case of the amount on your bill but the corollary benefits of a critical sector not being run by people whose only goal is to financially profit from it. "The problem with misinformation has always been about inability to find a source of trust. Do you think that the government deciding what's true and what's not true is a good idea? That's basically what CCP does and you know how it works." Yes, because authoritarian states are the only examples we can think of of people keeping tabs on the integrity of information sources... Fact-checking is not a rare or difficult thing. It happens all the time. The problem is that it isn't far-reaching enough and too much unqualified crap gets through. I'm proposing more power to deal with for example vodka-flavoured interests buying ad space on social media during our referendums or elections. Or the power to boot Newscorp out of the country once and for all once it emerged they knowingly broadcast lies on national television about the outcome of an election in a NATO member state. That kind of thing. | |||
"Poverty is down to lack of money supply, most people have duel energy gas and leccy the standing charge alone is nearly a pound a day for both and that is without using any energy, when money is tight a pound a day can be the difference of having a meal or not. That is literally the most sensible thing I've ever seen you say. Really or are you being obnoxious. " Totally honest. What you just said is absolutely true. | |||
" instead of just blaming others. " ....really? | |||
"You can give a man a fish to feed him for a day or you can buy him a fishing rod but the lazy baestweard won't use it so begs fish from his neighbours So, like, I get what you're trying to say but the second half of the expression is "teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime". You have to take the trouble to teach people. Not sit there claiming they're just lazy freeloaders and it's all their fault. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink You can lead a guy to logic but you can't make him think. The logic being ? Can't say I've come across that proverb .. The logic being that it doesn't make sense to keep asserting that people who are extremely badly off have done it to themselves when it's evidently not true and doesn't achieve anything positive. Not everyone has deliberately made themselves poor that's for sure, however many if not most can't and won't live within their means" "Many if not most"? I'd be absolutely fascinated to see your data on that. | |||
"I think we can agree the UK is a wealthy country and should not be experiencing child poverty. The easiest way to end child poverty is just to stop poor people from having children. Not the most popular policy perhaps, but if we actually care about the children, the best policy is to make everyone apply for a childbirth licence and then means-test those applications. Unless of course the real aim of this discussion is just to bash the government with no real intention of reducing child suffering." Actually I do believe if you can’t afford it don’t have it. Although people’s circumstances do change as well. | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world? Google “is the UK the fifth richest country in the World” and you’ll have your answer. Lol. That's based on total GDP. By that logic, India is the 6th richest country. Both of us know the problem with this metric. Erm ok you can pick a fight on your own as I am not interested in rabbit holes around how we define whether a country is rich! If you are talking about richness of people in a country, GDP per capita, though not perfect, is obviously a better measure than total GDP of a country? UK ranks 27th when it comes to GDP per capita. And if you look at my post you quoted and check out the *footnote you’ll see why these few posts are pointless. I actually read your footnote hoping to see some explanation of how UK magically turned out to be the 5th richest country. But it did not explain that. You were talking about wealth concentration. UK is very far from being the 5th richest country. By your metric, India is right now richer than UK and France. If we are using GDP as a signal of wealth, we should be taking population into account and that puts UK at 27th rank. As for wealth concentration, I created a separate thread about it. Anyway here is the statistics about what % of a country's total wealth is owned by top 1% https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/1758578249922224370 Among European countries, UK stands at third from bottom in this metric. So it looks like we do a muct better job at controlling wealth concentration compared to many other European nations? That’s all lovely and I am not disputing your thinking. However, I think we can agree the UK is a wealthy country and should not be experiencing child poverty. Or are you saying we are a poor country and should accept child poverty? Not sure of why this tangential conversation is necessary or particularly relevant? How is a child in poverty? They should be receiving free meals, uniforms, their parents housing will be paid for and benefits to help. Are we saying this help does not exist and children are not eating and starving? " I knew I should not have used the word “poverty” because it just opens up tangential threads about the meaning and context of words. Sorry NotMe but it is all rather tiresome. Just go back to my first post at top of this quote reply. | |||
" The advantage comes through control and decision making. It's not about the money. For example, a company under government supervision might decide against covering beaches with human shit. " You have a high bar for politicians. " Again, if you stop thinking as if "money" is the only objective here, then you'll see how affordability is not just a case of the amount on your bill but the corollary benefits of a critical sector not being run by people whose only goal is to financially profit from it. " I am not talking about money here. It has been repeatedly proven throughout history that private sector with good competition hands on does a way better job than government run sectors. I am not talking about money again. It's the man power and resources getting wasted in government sector. " Yes, because authoritarian states are the only examples we can think of of people keeping tabs on the integrity of information sources... " It is naive to think information controlled by government would actually focus on helping out the people. Politicians are power hungry people, no matter which country they belong to. The last thing you want is to let them control information flow. " Fact-checking is not a rare or difficult thing. It happens all the time. The problem is that it isn't far-reaching enough and too much unqualified crap gets through. " Fact checking is indeed a difficult thing. In case you haven't noticed, there are multiple "fact-checking" companies which have competing views on same news. These fact checking companies also need money to run. " I'm proposing more power to deal with for example vodka-flavoured interests buying ad space on social media during our referendums or elections. Or the power to boot Newscorp out of the country once and for all once it emerged they knowingly broadcast lies on national television about the outcome of an election in a NATO member state. That kind of thing. " You don't see the paradox with giving the power to politicians to stop others from getting access to media? You are too optimistic to assume that the politicians will always be on your side. One day another group of politicians that you don't like will have this exact same power. How do you think they will use it? | |||
" Not everyone has deliberately made themselves poor that's for sure, however many if not most can't and won't live within their means" Honest question here, not a gotcha or trying to be antagonistic. What if last year or five years ago the person was able to live within their means but today they can’t? What if the basics (rent, utilities, food) didn’t used to take up all their income but now amount to more than their income? What if their circumstances changed. Salary or hours cut to keep a job? Landlord increased the rent. Utilities and food costs dramatically increased? How does that person live within their means? | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world? Google “is the UK the fifth richest country in the World” and you’ll have your answer. Lol. That's based on total GDP. By that logic, India is the 6th richest country. Both of us know the problem with this metric. Erm ok you can pick a fight on your own as I am not interested in rabbit holes around how we define whether a country is rich! If you are talking about richness of people in a country, GDP per capita, though not perfect, is obviously a better measure than total GDP of a country? UK ranks 27th when it comes to GDP per capita. And if you look at my post you quoted and check out the *footnote you’ll see why these few posts are pointless. I actually read your footnote hoping to see some explanation of how UK magically turned out to be the 5th richest country. But it did not explain that. You were talking about wealth concentration. UK is very far from being the 5th richest country. By your metric, India is right now richer than UK and France. If we are using GDP as a signal of wealth, we should be taking population into account and that puts UK at 27th rank. As for wealth concentration, I created a separate thread about it. Anyway here is the statistics about what % of a country's total wealth is owned by top 1% https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/1758578249922224370 Among European countries, UK stands at third from bottom in this metric. So it looks like we do a muct better job at controlling wealth concentration compared to many other European nations? That’s all lovely and I am not disputing your thinking. However, I think we can agree the UK is a wealthy country and should not be experiencing child poverty. Or are you saying we are a poor country and should accept child poverty? Not sure of why this tangential conversation is necessary or particularly relevant? " You based your argument on an assumption that UK is the 5th richest country, when it looks like we are at about 27th place. 27th is really far from 5th. You also said that the problem is wealth concentration. We are doing much better than most other countries in Europe there too. I would question what your definition if child poverty is, before arguing whether it's reasonable for a country that's 27th richest in the world. | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world? Google “is the UK the fifth richest country in the World” and you’ll have your answer. Lol. That's based on total GDP. By that logic, India is the 6th richest country. Both of us know the problem with this metric. Erm ok you can pick a fight on your own as I am not interested in rabbit holes around how we define whether a country is rich! If you are talking about richness of people in a country, GDP per capita, though not perfect, is obviously a better measure than total GDP of a country? UK ranks 27th when it comes to GDP per capita. And if you look at my post you quoted and check out the *footnote you’ll see why these few posts are pointless. I actually read your footnote hoping to see some explanation of how UK magically turned out to be the 5th richest country. But it did not explain that. You were talking about wealth concentration. UK is very far from being the 5th richest country. By your metric, India is right now richer than UK and France. If we are using GDP as a signal of wealth, we should be taking population into account and that puts UK at 27th rank. As for wealth concentration, I created a separate thread about it. Anyway here is the statistics about what % of a country's total wealth is owned by top 1% https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/1758578249922224370 Among European countries, UK stands at third from bottom in this metric. So it looks like we do a muct better job at controlling wealth concentration compared to many other European nations? That’s all lovely and I am not disputing your thinking. However, I think we can agree the UK is a wealthy country and should not be experiencing child poverty. Or are you saying we are a poor country and should accept child poverty? Not sure of why this tangential conversation is necessary or particularly relevant? You based your argument on an assumption that UK is the 5th richest country, when it looks like we are at about 27th place. 27th is really far from 5th. You also said that the problem is wealth concentration. We are doing much better than most other countries in Europe there too. I would question what your definition if child poverty is, before arguing whether it's reasonable for a country that's 27th richest in the world." Go back and read my first post at top of this quote. I don’t need a definition of poverty. I don’t need to willy wave over statistics and definitions of what makes a country richer or poorer than another country. The UK is objectively a wealthy country. A first world country. As I have already said…I don’t understand why children in this country are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. You can argue over bollocks and definitions all you like. What remains is there are kids in the UK in this position. That is what actually matters, so let’s discuss that rather than simply trying to win a hollow victory  | |||
"You have a high bar for politicians." It would be hard to do worse than the current lot, to be honest, but they have outdone themselves lately. "I am not talking about money here. It has been repeatedly proven throughout history that private sector with good competition hands on does a way better job than government run sectors. I am not talking about money again. It's the man power and resources getting wasted in government sector." I disagree that history systematically gives the free market the edge over government in terms of running sectors. Sometimes yes, but not always. Health services, case in point, can be exceptionally well run by governments and do not tend to benefit from being handed over to private enterprise (at least not in terms of patient outcomes). Our railways are another example of a service that was ideologically privatised and is not only giving passengers an objectively terrible service, but still sucking down a huge amount of taxpayer money as well. "It is naive to think information controlled by government would actually focus on helping out the people. Politicians are power hungry people, no matter which country they belong to. The last thing you want is to let them control information flow." I'm sorry, but you don't think that captains of industry are power-hungry? You think information flow is better left to Murdoch, Musk, Zuckerberg & Co. to control? Again, it's not about restricting the flow of information. It's about managing how it's presented. "You don't see the paradox with giving the power to politicians to stop others from getting access to media? You are too optimistic to assume that the politicians will always be on your side. One day another group of politicians that you don't like will have this exact same power. How do you think they will use it?" I think you're too pessimistic in assuming that the outcomes of a government taking a responsible interest in ensuring the population isn't constantly lied to by outside forces would necessarily be dark and sinister. Once more there is no reason to assume that major players in the free market have our interests at heart either. The difference is they aren't elected or held accountable and will do whatever nets them the most capital. Either way, to address it I would pass transparency laws to guarantee that anything that isn't a matter of national security would be available unredacted to the media and the general public without needing to submit a FOIR. | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world? Google “is the UK the fifth richest country in the World” and you’ll have your answer. Lol. That's based on total GDP. By that logic, India is the 6th richest country. Both of us know the problem with this metric. Erm ok you can pick a fight on your own as I am not interested in rabbit holes around how we define whether a country is rich! If you are talking about richness of people in a country, GDP per capita, though not perfect, is obviously a better measure than total GDP of a country? UK ranks 27th when it comes to GDP per capita. And if you look at my post you quoted and check out the *footnote you’ll see why these few posts are pointless. I actually read your footnote hoping to see some explanation of how UK magically turned out to be the 5th richest country. But it did not explain that. You were talking about wealth concentration. UK is very far from being the 5th richest country. By your metric, India is right now richer than UK and France. If we are using GDP as a signal of wealth, we should be taking population into account and that puts UK at 27th rank. As for wealth concentration, I created a separate thread about it. Anyway here is the statistics about what % of a country's total wealth is owned by top 1% https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/1758578249922224370 Among European countries, UK stands at third from bottom in this metric. So it looks like we do a muct better job at controlling wealth concentration compared to many other European nations? That’s all lovely and I am not disputing your thinking. However, I think we can agree the UK is a wealthy country and should not be experiencing child poverty. Or are you saying we are a poor country and should accept child poverty? Not sure of why this tangential conversation is necessary or particularly relevant? You based your argument on an assumption that UK is the 5th richest country, when it looks like we are at about 27th place. 27th is really far from 5th. You also said that the problem is wealth concentration. We are doing much better than most other countries in Europe there too. I would question what your definition if child poverty is, before arguing whether it's reasonable for a country that's 27th richest in the world. Go back and read my first post at top of this quote. I don’t need a definition of poverty. I don’t need to willy wave over statistics and definitions of what makes a country richer or poorer than another country. The UK is objectively a wealthy country. A first world country. As I have already said…I don’t understand why children in this country are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. You can argue over bollocks and definitions all you like. What remains is there are kids in the UK in this position. That is what actually matters, so let’s discuss that rather than simply trying to win a hollow victory "You can't make an "objective" statement without showing any evidence. If you are saying UK is "objectively" a wealthy country, you need to show what makes it objectively wealthy. The problem with UK and Europe is that their respective economies have been stagnating for a while and yet people haven't really come to terms with that. It's a combination of ageing population, low birth rates and terrible policies because of which productivity isn't as much as it is supposed to be. There is no point of just having money if you don't have people to actually do the work. You want to spend all the resources on children? Sure, but that has to come at the cost of taking resources away from some other welfare service. Which one do you want to take it away from? | |||
" I disagree that history systematically gives the free market the edge over government in terms of running sectors. Sometimes yes, but not always. Health services, case in point, can be exceptionally well run by governments and do not tend to benefit from being handed over to private enterprise (at least not in terms of patient outcomes). Our railways are another example of a service that was ideologically privatised and is not only giving passengers an objectively terrible service, but still sucking down a huge amount of taxpayer money as well. " If you take into account the money going into healthcare, it has been shown that government run healthcare is just inefficient and wasteful. The only reason I support government run healthcare is for moral - We shouldn't be letting people die due to lack of healthcare just because it's wasteful. But the truth is it's wasteful. " I'm sorry, but you don't think that captains of industry are power-hungry? You think information flow is better left to Murdoch, Musk, Zuckerberg & Co. to control? Again, it's not about restricting the flow of information. It's about managing how it's presented. " When you have multiple private players, you get the choice to read news from all side and reach a conclusion. How exactly are you going to "manage" information without restricting it? " I think you're too pessimistic in assuming that the outcomes of a government taking a responsible interest in ensuring the population isn't constantly lied to by outside forces would necessarily be dark and sinister. " I am not pessimistic. I am just pragmatic. If you let government control information. Why would they allow a newspaper publish an article about their own corruption? " Once more there is no reason to assume that major players in the free market have our interests at heart either. The difference is they aren't elected or held accountable and will do whatever nets them the most capital. Either way, to address it I would pass transparency laws to guarantee that anything that isn't a matter of national security would be available unredacted to the media and the general public without needing to submit a FOIR." They don't have our interests in heart. But we could take a measured stance if we receive news from both sides instead of just having one side(government) control it | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world? Google “is the UK the fifth richest country in the World” and you’ll have your answer. Lol. That's based on total GDP. By that logic, India is the 6th richest country. Both of us know the problem with this metric. Erm ok you can pick a fight on your own as I am not interested in rabbit holes around how we define whether a country is rich! If you are talking about richness of people in a country, GDP per capita, though not perfect, is obviously a better measure than total GDP of a country? UK ranks 27th when it comes to GDP per capita. And if you look at my post you quoted and check out the *footnote you’ll see why these few posts are pointless. I actually read your footnote hoping to see some explanation of how UK magically turned out to be the 5th richest country. But it did not explain that. You were talking about wealth concentration. UK is very far from being the 5th richest country. By your metric, India is right now richer than UK and France. If we are using GDP as a signal of wealth, we should be taking population into account and that puts UK at 27th rank. As for wealth concentration, I created a separate thread about it. Anyway here is the statistics about what % of a country's total wealth is owned by top 1% https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/1758578249922224370 Among European countries, UK stands at third from bottom in this metric. So it looks like we do a muct better job at controlling wealth concentration compared to many other European nations? That’s all lovely and I am not disputing your thinking. However, I think we can agree the UK is a wealthy country and should not be experiencing child poverty. Or are you saying we are a poor country and should accept child poverty? Not sure of why this tangential conversation is necessary or particularly relevant? You based your argument on an assumption that UK is the 5th richest country, when it looks like we are at about 27th place. 27th is really far from 5th. You also said that the problem is wealth concentration. We are doing much better than most other countries in Europe there too. I would question what your definition if child poverty is, before arguing whether it's reasonable for a country that's 27th richest in the world. Go back and read my first post at top of this quote. I don’t need a definition of poverty. I don’t need to willy wave over statistics and definitions of what makes a country richer or poorer than another country. The UK is objectively a wealthy country. A first world country. As I have already said…I don’t understand why children in this country are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. You can argue over bollocks and definitions all you like. What remains is there are kids in the UK in this position. That is what actually matters, so let’s discuss that rather than simply trying to win a hollow victory
You can't make an "objective" statement without showing any evidence. If you are saying UK is "objectively" a wealthy country, you need to show what makes it objectively wealthy.
The problem with UK and Europe is that their respective economies have been stagnating for a while and yet people haven't really come to terms with that. It's a combination of ageing population, low birth rates and terrible policies because of which productivity isn't as much as it is supposed to be. There is no point of just having money if you don't have people to actually do the work.
You want to spend all the resources on children? Sure, but that has to come at the cost of taking resources away from some other welfare service. Which one do you want to take it away from?"Nice attempt at shifting goalposts and trying to take us down a tangential pathway. Nah not playing. Are you honestly going to try and say the UK isn’t a rich country? It isn’t first world? LMFAO
Have you ever spent any time in the third world? No not on safari or sunning on a beach with a cocktail. Actually spent some time away from the tourist spots? Don’t tell me the UK isn’t a rich country! And there is no way we should have hungry, unhealthy children in this country. | |||
"If you take into account the money going into healthcare, it has been shown that government run healthcare is just inefficient and wasteful. The only reason I support government run healthcare is for moral - We shouldn't be letting people die due to lack of healthcare just because it's wasteful. But the truth is it's wasteful." I don't disagree. There is money spent on some things that could be spent elsewhere. But I would contend that in terms of patient outcome, under a private system any profits not reinvested into medical care (i.e. typically the majority of profits) are also wasted. "Waste" is not something unmanageable by government if there is the proper will to do so - rather than, say, letting it happen and pretending it's inherent to public management. "When you have multiple private players, you get the choice to read news from all side and reach a conclusion. How exactly are you going to "manage" information without restricting it?" All sides, including the conspiracy theories, the propaganda, the foreign interference, with social media algorithms designed to keep people in an echo chamber - is that working well in your view, leaving the general public to reach their own conclusions from whatever loose collection of sources happen across their social media feed? As I mention, you start managing information towards having some sort of integrity by excluding those sources that are verifiably attempting to mislead the public, e.g. Newscorp, as mentioned above. Or, you know, the Russian government. Then you can get into developing an IPSO-style body, but not self-regulating, and actually give it some teeth. I could go on, but there are plenty of ways of doing it that aren't borrowed from the PRC. "I am not pessimistic. I am just pragmatic. If you let government control information. Why would they allow a newspaper publish an article about their own corruption?" You aren't being pragmatic. The government does control information. All the time. The government despite this does allow articles about their own corruption, all the time. Governments don't systematically aspire to totalitarianism. "They don't have our interests in heart. But we could take a measured stance if we receive news from both sides instead of just having one side(government) control it " Again you're talking like this is some fascist playbook. The aim here isn't to silence the opposition. The aim is to identify things that are verifiably not true and signpost them with evidence of their lack of integrity, or, where appropriate, disempower their sources. Do you have any idea how pervasive covid denial was and still is? That's the tip of the iceberg in terms of what dangerous fringe shit people believe, and most of it comes from stuff that was published online without any kind of qualification. | |||
"Poverty is down to lack of money supply, most people have duel energy gas and leccy the standing charge alone is nearly a pound a day for both and that is without using any energy, when money is tight a pound a day can be the difference of having a meal or not. That is literally the most sensible thing I've ever seen you say. Really or are you being obnoxious. Totally honest. What you just said is absolutely true." I cant say the same, the post about the pre payment meter top ups i made that was picked up by Mr martin lewis you must of missed. | |||
" Not everyone has deliberately made themselves poor that's for sure, however many if not most can't and won't live within their means Honest question here, not a gotcha or trying to be antagonistic. What if last year or five years ago the person was able to live within their means but today they can’t? What if the basics (rent, utilities, food) didn’t used to take up all their income but now amount to more than their income? What if their circumstances changed. Salary or hours cut to keep a job? Landlord increased the rent. Utilities and food costs dramatically increased? How does that person live within their means?" I understand and agree, that's why my first sentence states "not everyone has deliberately made themselves poor" People can have life changing accidents, they can become ill, they can lose their jobs and that's what benefits should be for. They seem to be used by plenty of people as an alternative to work, a career in unemployment and some of those same people are baby making machines. Didn't benefits rise by 10% last year ? How much this year I didn't take aot of interest. Did minimum wage increase ? State pensions increased ? Inflation and energy costs has affected my life, I've made changes to accommodate these additional costs but I wouldn't expect you to chip in so I can carry on as if it hadn't happened and those on low pay and benefits should alter their spending | |||
" The aim here isn't to silence the opposition. " You say this but also say NewsCorp should be banished. If that isn't silencing the opposition then what is? | |||
" The aim here isn't to silence the opposition. You say this but also say NewsCorp should be banished. If that isn't silencing the opposition then what is?" Newscorp isn't the opposition. | |||
" The aim here isn't to silence the opposition. You say this but also say NewsCorp should be banished. If that isn't silencing the opposition then what is? Newscorp isn't the opposition." What are they then? | |||
" The aim here isn't to silence the opposition. You say this but also say NewsCorp should be banished. If that isn't silencing the opposition then what is? Newscorp isn't the opposition. What are they then?" Sorry, are you serious? | |||
" The aim here isn't to silence the opposition. You say this but also say NewsCorp should be banished. If that isn't silencing the opposition then what is? Newscorp isn't the opposition. What are they then? Sorry, are you serious?" Very | |||
" The aim here isn't to silence the opposition. You say this but also say NewsCorp should be banished. If that isn't silencing the opposition then what is? Newscorp isn't the opposition. What are they then? Sorry, are you serious? Very" Newscorp is a media company. | |||
" The aim here isn't to silence the opposition. You say this but also say NewsCorp should be banished. If that isn't silencing the opposition then what is? Newscorp isn't the opposition. What are they then? Sorry, are you serious? Very Newscorp is a media company." Yes. Who are a private company, who are indeed the opposition to Govt in this discussion (data), one which you would like banished because you don't agree with them. ie. silencing. Which you say isn't the aim. | |||
" The aim here isn't to silence the opposition. You say this but also say NewsCorp should be banished. If that isn't silencing the opposition then what is? Newscorp isn't the opposition. What are they then? Sorry, are you serious? Very Newscorp is a media company. Yes. Who are a private company, who are indeed the opposition to Govt in this discussion (data), one which you would like banished because you don't agree with them. ie. silencing. Which you say isn't the aim. " ... in your tiny little mind. | |||
" The aim here isn't to silence the opposition. You say this but also say NewsCorp should be banished. If that isn't silencing the opposition then what is? Newscorp isn't the opposition. What are they then? Sorry, are you serious? Very Newscorp is a media company. Yes. Who are a private company, who are indeed the opposition to Govt in this discussion (data), one which you would like banished because you don't agree with them. ie. silencing. Which you say isn't the aim. ... in your tiny little mind." Why do you insist on insulting me when you're wrong? You're giving me typical leftie vibes here  | |||
" The aim here isn't to silence the opposition. You say this but also say NewsCorp should be banished. If that isn't silencing the opposition then what is? Newscorp isn't the opposition. What are they then? Sorry, are you serious? Very Newscorp is a media company. Yes. Who are a private company, who are indeed the opposition to Govt in this discussion (data), one which you would like banished because you don't agree with them. ie. silencing. Which you say isn't the aim. ... in your tiny little mind. Why do you insist on insulting me when you're wrong? You're giving me typical leftie vibes here "Look, if you want to fabricate a little narrative and decide that it makes me wrong, you go right ahead. Don't expect me to humour it, however. | |||
" The aim here isn't to silence the opposition. You say this but also say NewsCorp should be banished. If that isn't silencing the opposition then what is? Newscorp isn't the opposition. What are they then? Sorry, are you serious? Very Newscorp is a media company. Yes. Who are a private company, who are indeed the opposition to Govt in this discussion (data), one which you would like banished because you don't agree with them. ie. silencing. Which you say isn't the aim. ... in your tiny little mind. Why do you insist on insulting me when you're wrong? You're giving me typical leftie vibes here
Look, if you want to fabricate a little narrative and decide that it makes me wrong, you go right ahead. Don't expect me to humour it, however.
Its all there to read. You argue Govt should control the narrative instead of private media. Ergo, opposition.
Honestly, I'm not sure it can be any clearer.
If you mean something different then be explicit in what you mean, is that what you ask of others?"I ask of others that they not misquote me to make their tedious, small-minded little bullshit points. But they do it anyway, because they are, ultimately, just boring trolls. | |||
" The aim here isn't to silence the opposition. You say this but also say NewsCorp should be banished. If that isn't silencing the opposition then what is? Newscorp isn't the opposition. What are they then? Sorry, are you serious? Very Newscorp is a media company. Yes. Who are a private company, who are indeed the opposition to Govt in this discussion (data), one which you would like banished because you don't agree with them. ie. silencing. Which you say isn't the aim. ... in your tiny little mind. Why do you insist on insulting me when you're wrong? You're giving me typical leftie vibes here
Look, if you want to fabricate a little narrative and decide that it makes me wrong, you go right ahead. Don't expect me to humour it, however.
Its all there to read. You argue Govt should control the narrative instead of private media. Ergo, opposition.
Honestly, I'm not sure it can be any clearer.
If you mean something different then be explicit in what you mean, is that what you ask of others?
I ask of others that they not misquote me to make their tedious, small-minded little bullshit points. But they do it anyway, because they are, ultimately, just boring trolls."Do you ask others to be explicit in what they mean? Pretty sure I read that from you. | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world? Google “is the UK the fifth richest country in the World” and you’ll have your answer. Lol. That's based on total GDP. By that logic, India is the 6th richest country. Both of us know the problem with this metric. Erm ok you can pick a fight on your own as I am not interested in rabbit holes around how we define whether a country is rich! If you are talking about richness of people in a country, GDP per capita, though not perfect, is obviously a better measure than total GDP of a country? UK ranks 27th when it comes to GDP per capita. And if you look at my post you quoted and check out the *footnote you’ll see why these few posts are pointless. I actually read your footnote hoping to see some explanation of how UK magically turned out to be the 5th richest country. But it did not explain that. You were talking about wealth concentration. UK is very far from being the 5th richest country. By your metric, India is right now richer than UK and France. If we are using GDP as a signal of wealth, we should be taking population into account and that puts UK at 27th rank. As for wealth concentration, I created a separate thread about it. Anyway here is the statistics about what % of a country's total wealth is owned by top 1% https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/1758578249922224370 Among European countries, UK stands at third from bottom in this metric. So it looks like we do a muct better job at controlling wealth concentration compared to many other European nations? That’s all lovely and I am not disputing your thinking. However, I think we can agree the UK is a wealthy country and should not be experiencing child poverty. Or are you saying we are a poor country and should accept child poverty? Not sure of why this tangential conversation is necessary or particularly relevant? You based your argument on an assumption that UK is the 5th richest country, when it looks like we are at about 27th place. 27th is really far from 5th. You also said that the problem is wealth concentration. We are doing much better than most other countries in Europe there too. I would question what your definition if child poverty is, before arguing whether it's reasonable for a country that's 27th richest in the world. Go back and read my first post at top of this quote. I don’t need a definition of poverty. I don’t need to willy wave over statistics and definitions of what makes a country richer or poorer than another country. The UK is objectively a wealthy country. A first world country. As I have already said…I don’t understand why children in this country are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. You can argue over bollocks and definitions all you like. What remains is there are kids in the UK in this position. That is what actually matters, so let’s discuss that rather than simply trying to win a hollow victory
You can't make an "objective" statement without showing any evidence. If you are saying UK is "objectively" a wealthy country, you need to show what makes it objectively wealthy.
The problem with UK and Europe is that their respective economies have been stagnating for a while and yet people haven't really come to terms with that. It's a combination of ageing population, low birth rates and terrible policies because of which productivity isn't as much as it is supposed to be. There is no point of just having money if you don't have people to actually do the work.
You want to spend all the resources on children? Sure, but that has to come at the cost of taking resources away from some other welfare service. Which one do you want to take it away from?
Nice attempt at shifting goalposts and trying to take us down a tangential pathway. Nah not playing.
Are you honestly going to try and say the UK isn’t a rich country? It isn’t first world? LMFAO
Have you ever spent any time in the third world? No not on safari or sunning on a beach with a cocktail. Actually spent some time away from the tourist spots? Don’t tell me the UK isn’t a rich country! And there is no way we should have hungry, unhealthy children in this country."Not sure where I shifted goal posts. Is UK rich now? Compared to many other countries, it is. But is it in a position to run a social welfare system like used to? No. Same as most European countries. Ageing population, low birth rates, stagnant economy and productivity has put lot of pressure social welfare. It means these countries have to make a choice. You either fuck the old people and focus your welfare on the young or vice versa. Unfortunately no one is willing to have this honest conversation. Instead, everyone is talking like the spoilt kids of families which used to be rich but or going downhill and still believing that they can spend the way they used to spend. In the end, it's the electorate that decides who gets the social welfare investment. The tories are more inclined to help the old people by protecting their pensions because that's where all their votes lie. | |||
" The aim here isn't to silence the opposition. You say this but also say NewsCorp should be banished. If that isn't silencing the opposition then what is? Newscorp isn't the opposition. What are they then? Sorry, are you serious? Very Newscorp is a media company. Yes. Who are a private company, who are indeed the opposition to Govt in this discussion (data), one which you would like banished because you don't agree with them. ie. silencing. Which you say isn't the aim. ... in your tiny little mind. Why do you insist on insulting me when you're wrong? You're giving me typical leftie vibes here
Look, if you want to fabricate a little narrative and decide that it makes me wrong, you go right ahead. Don't expect me to humour it, however.
Its all there to read. You argue Govt should control the narrative instead of private media. Ergo, opposition.
Honestly, I'm not sure it can be any clearer.
If you mean something different then be explicit in what you mean, is that what you ask of others?
I ask of others that they not misquote me to make their tedious, small-minded little bullshit points. But they do it anyway, because they are, ultimately, just boring trolls.
Do you ask others to be explicit in what they mean? Pretty sure I read that from you. "There is a lot of little's in these posts is someone looking at or feeling something between a finger and thumb. | |||
" The aim here isn't to silence the opposition. You say this but also say NewsCorp should be banished. If that isn't silencing the opposition then what is? Newscorp isn't the opposition." You are saying that the government should "regulate" the news on some vague rules about misinformation. It goes straight against freedom of journalism and Media, something that's the foundation of a democracy. If Newscorp publishes some news about corruption of the government, the government right now doesn't have the right to take it down. But with your idea, they can just call it misinformation and take it down. No matter what model you choose, there will always be an authority of power somewhere. If that authority is government, you are monopolizing the power. Instead, if there are multiple newspapers which are allowed to function independently, the power is spread across and people have multiple options like we have now. They can compare the news coverage of these events and arrive at their own conclusion. | |||
". Not sure where I shifted goal posts. Is UK rich now? Compared to many other countries, it is. But is it in a position to run a social welfare system like used to? No. Same as most European countries. Ageing population, low birth rates, stagnant economy and productivity has put lot of pressure social welfare. It means these countries have to make a choice. You either fuck the old people and focus your welfare on the young or vice versa. Unfortunately no one is willing to have this honest conversation. Instead, everyone is talking like the spoilt kids of families which used to be rich but or going downhill and still believing that they can spend the way they used to spend. In the end, it's the electorate that decides who gets the social welfare investment. The tories are more inclined to help the old people by protecting their pensions because that's where all their votes lie." I've said this elsewhere, I reject the assertion that there isn't the money to properly fund social welfare. The money is there, it's a political choice to say no, more austerity, more cuts and so on. The conversation that no one is willing to have is the one about how much potential tax revenue is somehow failing to reach HMRC, and what should be done about it. | |||
"Yet 1 in 4 kids are obese. Strange." Not strange at all. Malnutrition is often present in over nutrition as well as under nutrition. | |||
"Yet 1 in 4 kids are obese. Strange. Yeah, amazingly, obesity doesn't come from eating caviar and smoked salmon. Wealthier kids tend more to have healthy balanced diets. Kids are getting obese because budget supermarkets offer bulk deals on the lowest-quality food imaginable and that's what poor people buy to stretch their money as far as possible." Spot on, calories are better than starving. | |||
" You are saying that the government should "regulate" the news on some vague rules about misinformation. It goes straight against freedom of journalism and Media, something that's the foundation of a democracy. If Newscorp publishes some news about corruption of the government, the government right now doesn't have the right to take it down. But with your idea, they can just call it misinformation and take it down. No matter what model you choose, there will always be an authority of power somewhere. If that authority is government, you are monopolizing the power. Instead, if there are multiple newspapers which are allowed to function independently, the power is spread across and people have multiple options like we have now. They can compare the news coverage of these events and arrive at their own conclusion." I'm not gonna keep explaining it. Your attitude to government means you can't or won't entertain a positive outcome and instead interpret everything as an authoritarian extreme. There are countries every bit as democratic as ours where you can go to jail for denying the Holocaust. They take the view that it isn't necessary for people to be able to advertise that. And yet the exposure by the press of government corruption still happens daily. Nobody's using it to stamp out their political rivals. Go figure. | |||
"Yet 1 in 4 kids are obese. Strange. Yeah, amazingly, obesity doesn't come from eating caviar and smoked salmon. Wealthier kids tend more to have healthy balanced diets. Kids are getting obese because budget supermarkets offer bulk deals on the lowest-quality food imaginable and that's what poor people buy to stretch their money as far as possible. Complete rubbish. We do all our shopping in Lidl and eat healthy, balanced meals made from scratch with basic ingredients. These cost less than processed rubbish. There are actually very few offers on ready made food, the first thing you see as you go in is the fresh fruit and vegetable offers. I keep having this discussion with people. Firstly it is not true that whole fresh ingredients are the cheapest way, meal-for-meal, to eat. Secondly, you KNOW what to do with basic fresh ingredients. You know what to buy, what to do with it, how to make it taste good. You have the time to do it. You have, presumably, a kitchen nice enough to do it in, and enough money for the gas and electric. You've obviously got yourself an internet connection to look for new recipes on. Thirdly, you KNOW what the nutritional difference is between fresh whole ingredients and own-brand potato waffles. You fully understand the long term implications of eating nutritious foods vs. foods packed with sugars and vegetable fats. It's easy to sneer at people at the bottom of the ladder from a slightly higher rung as if it's all their fault. The problem is that there are people a few rungs above you who think that all YOUR problems are down to your personal choice to not be as rich and smart as they are."  | |||
". Not sure where I shifted goal posts. Is UK rich now? Compared to many other countries, it is. But is it in a position to run a social welfare system like used to? No. Same as most European countries. Ageing population, low birth rates, stagnant economy and productivity has put lot of pressure social welfare. It means these countries have to make a choice. You either fuck the old people and focus your welfare on the young or vice versa. Unfortunately no one is willing to have this honest conversation. Instead, everyone is talking like the spoilt kids of families which used to be rich but or going downhill and still believing that they can spend the way they used to spend. In the end, it's the electorate that decides who gets the social welfare investment. The tories are more inclined to help the old people by protecting their pensions because that's where all their votes lie. I've said this elsewhere, I reject the assertion that there isn't the money to properly fund social welfare. The money is there, it's a political choice to say no, more austerity, more cuts and so on. The conversation that no one is willing to have is the one about how much potential tax revenue is somehow failing to reach HMRC, and what should be done about it." Money is where? In case you haven't noticed, the problem is same across most European countries. France had riots over rising retirement age. Here is the state of healthcare in other European countries: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/dec/14/a-ticking-time-bomb-healthcare-under-threat-across-western-europe I wonder why no one ever tried the magical solution you propose. | |||
"The Govt already 'substantially intervene' by way of school and pre-school. What do you want? The Govt to actually control children? People do need to want change, the problem is 'its too much like hard work'. I want better schools. More, better-paid teachers. Affordable childcare. After-school programs. Social outreach programs. For a start. And again, there you go. Calling people lazy fixes exactly fuck-all. You're not offering a solution. You just want to feel like you don't need to care about them because they've done it to themselves. You want to feel like the real difference between you and them is they're lazy and you therefore must be hard-working. It achieves nothing at all." That's why workhouses sprung up - the poor are lazy! | |||
" You are saying that the government should "regulate" the news on some vague rules about misinformation. It goes straight against freedom of journalism and Media, something that's the foundation of a democracy. If Newscorp publishes some news about corruption of the government, the government right now doesn't have the right to take it down. But with your idea, they can just call it misinformation and take it down. No matter what model you choose, there will always be an authority of power somewhere. If that authority is government, you are monopolizing the power. Instead, if there are multiple newspapers which are allowed to function independently, the power is spread across and people have multiple options like we have now. They can compare the news coverage of these events and arrive at their own conclusion. I'm not gonna keep explaining it. Your attitude to government means you can't or won't entertain a positive outcome and instead interpret everything as an authoritarian extreme. There are countries every bit as democratic as ours where you can go to jail for denying the Holocaust. They take the view that it isn't necessary for people to be able to advertise that. And yet the exposure by the press of government corruption still happens daily. Nobody's using it to stamp out their political rivals. Go figure." My attitude towards government is based on history. No government ever has had that much power without becoming authoritarian. Politicians are power hungry people. It's surprising that you haven't realised it yet. Holocaust denial is a specific issue that can be clearly written as law. But saying that "misinformation" should be controlled by government is akin to giving them a free reign to do whatever the fuck they want. There is a reason why free-press is a crucial factor when we measure a country's score on democracy. | |||
". I wonder why no one ever tried the magical solution you propose." Their ideas were drowned out by a loud and persistent chorus of conservatism. There's government money for all manner of stupid shit. Yet more money never seems to make it from expanding corporate pockets into the pot. When the money "runs out" though, who gets it taken away from them? The people who had none to give in the first place. What amazes me is that people still insist, despite the circumstances, that capitalism is working brilliantly. Although in many ways I guess it's working precisely as intended. | |||
" My attitude towards government is based on history. No government ever has had that much power without becoming authoritarian. Politicians are power hungry people. It's surprising that you haven't realised it yet." I mean, that's fundamentally and demonstrably not true. Both points in fact. Authoritarian governments misuse these kind of powers. Having these kinds of powers does not make governments authoritarian. And it's a crass exaggeration and cynical oversimplification to describe all politicians as power-hungry. "Holocaust denial is a specific issue that can be clearly written as law. But saying that "misinformation" should be controlled by government is akin to giving them a free reign to do whatever the fuck they want. There is a reason why free-press is a crucial factor when we measure a country's score on democracy." Oh, so Holocaust denial can be written in law but other conspiracy theories can't? Why not? And once more, hopefully for the last time, having a body that roots out actors who go against basic principles of ethical journalism is not incompatible with freedom of the press. It's not remotely the same as giving the government free reign, and nor does it remotely follow that a government would automatically attempt to abuse the power. | |||
". I wonder why no one ever tried the magical solution you propose. Their ideas were drowned out by a loud and persistent chorus of conservatism. There's government money for all manner of stupid shit. Yet more money never seems to make it from expanding corporate pockets into the pot. When the money "runs out" though, who gets it taken away from them? The people who had none to give in the first place. What amazes me is that people still insist, despite the circumstances, that capitalism is working brilliantly. Although in many ways I guess it's working precisely as intended." Capitalism is indeed working well. As long as science finds a problem to a solution, capitalism does a great job in bringing it to the masses. Like how air travel, cell phone usage and internet were all an upper class luxury in the past and now pretty much everyone does it. I recommend going through the gapminder project. The percentage of people under poverty keeps reducing overall in most countries. People vastly underestimate how much the population has increased in the last few decades. If you had asked anyone three decades back to predict our situation today, they would have said massive hunger and starvation. Mass tragedies due to population explosion was a widely believed doomsday theory then. The only fields were scientific progress hasn't caught up with population explosion and needs are real estate and energy. We tried building high rise apartments. But they aren't enough. You solve housing and energy problems, most other problems would automatically solve themselves. I do believe we will solve the energy problem soon. But real estate not much. The other option is well.. Socialism. Do I need to tell you how destructive that was? | |||
" My attitude towards government is based on history. No government ever has had that much power without becoming authoritarian. Politicians are power hungry people. It's surprising that you haven't realised it yet. I mean, that's fundamentally and demonstrably not true. Both points in fact. Authoritarian governments misuse these kind of powers. Having these kinds of powers does not make governments authoritarian. And it's a crass exaggeration and cynical oversimplification to describe all politicians as power-hungry. Holocaust denial is a specific issue that can be clearly written as law. But saying that "misinformation" should be controlled by government is akin to giving them a free reign to do whatever the fuck they want. There is a reason why free-press is a crucial factor when we measure a country's score on democracy. Oh, so Holocaust denial can be written in law but other conspiracy theories can't? Why not? And once more, hopefully for the last time, having a body that roots out actors who go against basic principles of ethical journalism is not incompatible with freedom of the press. It's not remotely the same as giving the government free reign, and nor does it remotely follow that a government would automatically attempt to abuse the power." Let me put it this way. Assume that the government has the right to ban any news media that it considers to be misinformation. Do you really think the current Tory government would not misuse it? Would you be happy to give that power to the current Tory government? | |||
". Let me put it this way. Assume that the government has the right to ban any news media that it considers to be misinformation. Do you really think the current Tory government would not misuse it? Would you be happy to give that power to the current Tory government? " That's a real nice straw man, but you built it by taking my point and exaggerating it to its worst extreme. | |||
| |||
". I wonder why no one ever tried the magical solution you propose. Their ideas were drowned out by a loud and persistent chorus of conservatism. There's government money for all manner of stupid shit. Yet more money never seems to make it from expanding corporate pockets into the pot. When the money "runs out" though, who gets it taken away from them? The people who had none to give in the first place. What amazes me is that people still insist, despite the circumstances, that capitalism is working brilliantly. Although in many ways I guess it's working precisely as intended. Capitalism is indeed working well. As long as science finds a problem to a solution, capitalism does a great job in bringing it to the masses. Like how air travel, cell phone usage and internet were all an upper class luxury in the past and now pretty much everyone does it. I recommend going through the gapminder project. The percentage of people under poverty keeps reducing overall in most countries. People vastly underestimate how much the population has increased in the last few decades. If you had asked anyone three decades back to predict our situation today, they would have said massive hunger and starvation. Mass tragedies due to population explosion was a widely believed doomsday theory then. The only fields were scientific progress hasn't caught up with population explosion and needs are real estate and energy. We tried building high rise apartments. But they aren't enough. You solve housing and energy problems, most other problems would automatically solve themselves. I do believe we will solve the energy problem soon. But real estate not much. The other option is well.. Socialism. Do I need to tell you how destructive that was?" That's not the other option. Not the only one, anyway. You really don't need to cling to this false dichotomy of "the shitshow we've got... or STALIN!" Try a little nuance in your thinking. | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world? Google “is the UK the fifth richest country in the World” and you’ll have your answer. Lol. That's based on total GDP. By that logic, India is the 6th richest country. Both of us know the problem with this metric. Erm ok you can pick a fight on your own as I am not interested in rabbit holes around how we define whether a country is rich! If you are talking about richness of people in a country, GDP per capita, though not perfect, is obviously a better measure than total GDP of a country? UK ranks 27th when it comes to GDP per capita. And if you look at my post you quoted and check out the *footnote you’ll see why these few posts are pointless. I actually read your footnote hoping to see some explanation of how UK magically turned out to be the 5th richest country. But it did not explain that. You were talking about wealth concentration. UK is very far from being the 5th richest country. By your metric, India is right now richer than UK and France. If we are using GDP as a signal of wealth, we should be taking population into account and that puts UK at 27th rank. As for wealth concentration, I created a separate thread about it. Anyway here is the statistics about what % of a country's total wealth is owned by top 1% https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/1758578249922224370 Among European countries, UK stands at third from bottom in this metric. So it looks like we do a muct better job at controlling wealth concentration compared to many other European nations? That’s all lovely and I am not disputing your thinking. However, I think we can agree the UK is a wealthy country and should not be experiencing child poverty. Or are you saying we are a poor country and should accept child poverty? Not sure of why this tangential conversation is necessary or particularly relevant? You based your argument on an assumption that UK is the 5th richest country, when it looks like we are at about 27th place. 27th is really far from 5th. You also said that the problem is wealth concentration. We are doing much better than most other countries in Europe there too. I would question what your definition if child poverty is, before arguing whether it's reasonable for a country that's 27th richest in the world. Go back and read my first post at top of this quote. I don’t need a definition of poverty. I don’t need to willy wave over statistics and definitions of what makes a country richer or poorer than another country. The UK is objectively a wealthy country. A first world country. As I have already said…I don’t understand why children in this country are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. You can argue over bollocks and definitions all you like. What remains is there are kids in the UK in this position. That is what actually matters, so let’s discuss that rather than simply trying to win a hollow victory ". You need to analyse the UK benefit system in little more detail. The system is adequate to provide enough to cook fresh meals and feed a family . Some spend it on takeaways and cigarettes and then money why they are hungry. Where are the parents and family of these people who claim to be struggling? It looks like some posters on here never either speak to or mix with those of benefits and are ill informed on how the benefits system works. The government does more than enough to help the less well off. There are in excess of 500,000 cars on the mobility scheme provided free of charge. Large sums are also paid out in housing benefits. We should be very appreciative of all the help provided by the government it is more than adequate. | |||
". We should be very appreciative of all the help provided by the government it is more than adequate. " Mmmmm tasty boots... | |||
". Let me put it this way. Assume that the government has the right to ban any news media that it considers to be misinformation. Do you really think the current Tory government would not misuse it? Would you be happy to give that power to the current Tory government? That's a real nice straw man, but you built it by taking my point and exaggerating it to its worst extreme." Lol. How is that a strawman? 
You say that the government must have the power to regulate misinformation. We have had a decade of Tory rule. So it's just natural that they would have had that power. Hence I am asking would you be happy with the Tories having the power over press.
You are coming up with ideas based on assumption that a politician will act exactly the way you want them to. But reality is unfortunately so far from that. Sure fake news is a problem. But giving the government the authority to control news is a fast track process to authoritarianism. | |||
". I wonder why no one ever tried the magical solution you propose. Their ideas were drowned out by a loud and persistent chorus of conservatism. There's government money for all manner of stupid shit. Yet more money never seems to make it from expanding corporate pockets into the pot. When the money "runs out" though, who gets it taken away from them? The people who had none to give in the first place. What amazes me is that people still insist, despite the circumstances, that capitalism is working brilliantly. Although in many ways I guess it's working precisely as intended. Capitalism is indeed working well. As long as science finds a problem to a solution, capitalism does a great job in bringing it to the masses. Like how air travel, cell phone usage and internet were all an upper class luxury in the past and now pretty much everyone does it. I recommend going through the gapminder project. The percentage of people under poverty keeps reducing overall in most countries. People vastly underestimate how much the population has increased in the last few decades. If you had asked anyone three decades back to predict our situation today, they would have said massive hunger and starvation. Mass tragedies due to population explosion was a widely believed doomsday theory then. The only fields were scientific progress hasn't caught up with population explosion and needs are real estate and energy. We tried building high rise apartments. But they aren't enough. You solve housing and energy problems, most other problems would automatically solve themselves. I do believe we will solve the energy problem soon. But real estate not much. The other option is well.. Socialism. Do I need to tell you how destructive that was? That's not the other option. Not the only one, anyway. You really don't need to cling to this false dichotomy of "the shitshow we've got... or STALIN!" Try a little nuance in your thinking." All the ideas you have given are just socialistic ideals - Nationalise this and nationalise that. Government should regulate news. That's basically the playbook of authoritarian socialists. | |||
| |||
". That's a real nice straw man, but you built it by taking my point and exaggerating it to its worst extreme. Lol. How is that a strawman?
"Read the second half of the sentence. | |||
". We should be very appreciative of all the help provided by the government it is more than adequate. Mmmmm tasty boots..." . Do you ever mix with or speak to people on benefits ? Judging by some of the posts on here some posters never do. How many have ever filled in a Universal Credit form or are familiar with the various disability benefits? | |||
". I wonder why no one ever tried the magical solution you propose. Their ideas were drowned out by a loud and persistent chorus of conservatism. There's government money for all manner of stupid shit. Yet more money never seems to make it from expanding corporate pockets into the pot. When the money "runs out" though, who gets it taken away from them? The people who had none to give in the first place. What amazes me is that people still insist, despite the circumstances, that capitalism is working brilliantly. Although in many ways I guess it's working precisely as intended. Capitalism is indeed working well. As long as science finds a problem to a solution, capitalism does a great job in bringing it to the masses. Like how air travel, cell phone usage and internet were all an upper class luxury in the past and now pretty much everyone does it. I recommend going through the gapminder project. The percentage of people under poverty keeps reducing overall in most countries. People vastly underestimate how much the population has increased in the last few decades. If you had asked anyone three decades back to predict our situation today, they would have said massive hunger and starvation. Mass tragedies due to population explosion was a widely believed doomsday theory then. The only fields were scientific progress hasn't caught up with population explosion and needs are real estate and energy. We tried building high rise apartments. But they aren't enough. You solve housing and energy problems, most other problems would automatically solve themselves. I do believe we will solve the energy problem soon. But real estate not much. The other option is well.. Socialism. Do I need to tell you how destructive that was? That's not the other option. Not the only one, anyway. You really don't need to cling to this false dichotomy of "the shitshow we've got... or STALIN!" Try a little nuance in your thinking. All the ideas you have given are just socialistic ideals - Nationalise this and nationalise that. Government should regulate news. That's basically the playbook of authoritarian socialists." If nationalising utilities and fact-checking media was "the playbook of authoritarian socialists", Animal Farm would have been a pretty dull book. You need to stop clutching your pearls over anything that isn't unfettered free-market, dude. | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world? Google “is the UK the fifth richest country in the World” and you’ll have your answer. Lol. That's based on total GDP. By that logic, India is the 6th richest country. Both of us know the problem with this metric. Erm ok you can pick a fight on your own as I am not interested in rabbit holes around how we define whether a country is rich! If you are talking about richness of people in a country, GDP per capita, though not perfect, is obviously a better measure than total GDP of a country? UK ranks 27th when it comes to GDP per capita. And if you look at my post you quoted and check out the *footnote you’ll see why these few posts are pointless. I actually read your footnote hoping to see some explanation of how UK magically turned out to be the 5th richest country. But it did not explain that. You were talking about wealth concentration. UK is very far from being the 5th richest country. By your metric, India is right now richer than UK and France. If we are using GDP as a signal of wealth, we should be taking population into account and that puts UK at 27th rank. As for wealth concentration, I created a separate thread about it. Anyway here is the statistics about what % of a country's total wealth is owned by top 1% https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/1758578249922224370 Among European countries, UK stands at third from bottom in this metric. So it looks like we do a muct better job at controlling wealth concentration compared to many other European nations? That’s all lovely and I am not disputing your thinking. However, I think we can agree the UK is a wealthy country and should not be experiencing child poverty. Or are you saying we are a poor country and should accept child poverty? Not sure of why this tangential conversation is necessary or particularly relevant? You based your argument on an assumption that UK is the 5th richest country, when it looks like we are at about 27th place. 27th is really far from 5th. You also said that the problem is wealth concentration. We are doing much better than most other countries in Europe there too. I would question what your definition if child poverty is, before arguing whether it's reasonable for a country that's 27th richest in the world. Go back and read my first post at top of this quote. I don’t need a definition of poverty. I don’t need to willy wave over statistics and definitions of what makes a country richer or poorer than another country. The UK is objectively a wealthy country. A first world country. As I have already said…I don’t understand why children in this country are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. You can argue over bollocks and definitions all you like. What remains is there are kids in the UK in this position. That is what actually matters, so let’s discuss that rather than simply trying to win a hollow victory . You need to analyse the UK benefit system in little more detail. The system is adequate to provide enough to cook fresh meals and feed a family . Some spend it on takeaways and cigarettes and then money why they are hungry. Where are the parents and family of these people who claim to be struggling? It looks like some posters on here never either speak to or mix with those of benefits and are ill informed on how the benefits system works.
The government does more than enough to help the less well off. There are in excess of 500,000 cars on the mobility scheme provided free of charge. Large sums are also paid out in housing benefits.
We should be very appreciative of all the help provided by the government it is more than adequate. "Oh dear as expected more crap about benefits from you. Psssst PIP mobility is irrelevant to being poor - it's a disability benefit, non means tested. Stop conflating. | |||
". We should be very appreciative of all the help provided by the government it is more than adequate. Mmmmm tasty boots.... Do you ever mix with or speak to people on benefits ? Judging by some of the posts on here some posters never do. How many have ever filled in a Universal Credit form or are familiar with the various disability benefits? " Do you need me to answer that? | |||
". We should be very appreciative of all the help provided by the government it is more than adequate. Mmmmm tasty boots.... Do you ever mix with or speak to people on benefits ? Judging by some of the posts on here some posters never do. How many have ever filled in a Universal Credit form or are familiar with the various disability benefits? " I've been there myself. This was before Universal Credit, mind, but I've filled out many a form. I'm very well acquainted with what it feels like to starve when the cash runs out. Was a while back but I think about it every day. I don't have any patience for anyone who thinks the government is taking care of it. Utter and complete horseshit. | |||
". We should be very appreciative of all the help provided by the government it is more than adequate. Mmmmm tasty boots.... Do you ever mix with or speak to people on benefits ? Judging by some of the posts on here some posters never do. How many have ever filled in a Universal Credit form or are familiar with the various disability benefits? " Where are the stables in Ealing Pat? | |||
". I wonder why no one ever tried the magical solution you propose. Their ideas were drowned out by a loud and persistent chorus of conservatism. There's government money for all manner of stupid shit. Yet more money never seems to make it from expanding corporate pockets into the pot. When the money "runs out" though, who gets it taken away from them? The people who had none to give in the first place. What amazes me is that people still insist, despite the circumstances, that capitalism is working brilliantly. Although in many ways I guess it's working precisely as intended. Capitalism is indeed working well. As long as science finds a problem to a solution, capitalism does a great job in bringing it to the masses. Like how air travel, cell phone usage and internet were all an upper class luxury in the past and now pretty much everyone does it. I recommend going through the gapminder project. The percentage of people under poverty keeps reducing overall in most countries. People vastly underestimate how much the population has increased in the last few decades. If you had asked anyone three decades back to predict our situation today, they would have said massive hunger and starvation. Mass tragedies due to population explosion was a widely believed doomsday theory then. The only fields were scientific progress hasn't caught up with population explosion and needs are real estate and energy. We tried building high rise apartments. But they aren't enough. You solve housing and energy problems, most other problems would automatically solve themselves. I do believe we will solve the energy problem soon. But real estate not much. The other option is well.. Socialism. Do I need to tell you how destructive that was? That's not the other option. Not the only one, anyway. You really don't need to cling to this false dichotomy of "the shitshow we've got... or STALIN!" Try a little nuance in your thinking. All the ideas you have given are just socialistic ideals - Nationalise this and nationalise that. Government should regulate news. That's basically the playbook of authoritarian socialists. If nationalising utilities and fact-checking media was "the playbook of authoritarian socialists", Animal Farm would have been a pretty dull book. You need to stop clutching your pearls over anything that isn't unfettered free-market, dude." "Fact-checking" done by government is indeed 1984isque. Stalin would give you a medal for the idea if he was alive. | |||
". That's a real nice straw man, but you built it by taking my point and exaggerating it to its worst extreme. Lol. How is that a strawman?
Read the second half of the sentence."You said that I applied it to extreme circumstances. The Tories have been power over a decade. How exactly is asking you to think about a hypothetical scenario where you want the government to "fact check" media with Tories in power an extreme circumstance or strawman? If you want the government to fact-check media, you should be open for any political party that has a chance to run the government to do that? | |||
". I wonder why no one ever tried the magical solution you propose. Their ideas were drowned out by a loud and persistent chorus of conservatism. There's government money for all manner of stupid shit. Yet more money never seems to make it from expanding corporate pockets into the pot. When the money "runs out" though, who gets it taken away from them? The people who had none to give in the first place. What amazes me is that people still insist, despite the circumstances, that capitalism is working brilliantly. Although in many ways I guess it's working precisely as intended. Capitalism is indeed working well. As long as science finds a problem to a solution, capitalism does a great job in bringing it to the masses. Like how air travel, cell phone usage and internet were all an upper class luxury in the past and now pretty much everyone does it. I recommend going through the gapminder project. The percentage of people under poverty keeps reducing overall in most countries. People vastly underestimate how much the population has increased in the last few decades. If you had asked anyone three decades back to predict our situation today, they would have said massive hunger and starvation. Mass tragedies due to population explosion was a widely believed doomsday theory then. The only fields were scientific progress hasn't caught up with population explosion and needs are real estate and energy. We tried building high rise apartments. But they aren't enough. You solve housing and energy problems, most other problems would automatically solve themselves. I do believe we will solve the energy problem soon. But real estate not much. The other option is well.. Socialism. Do I need to tell you how destructive that was? That's not the other option. Not the only one, anyway. You really don't need to cling to this false dichotomy of "the shitshow we've got... or STALIN!" Try a little nuance in your thinking. All the ideas you have given are just socialistic ideals - Nationalise this and nationalise that. Government should regulate news. That's basically the playbook of authoritarian socialists. If nationalising utilities and fact-checking media was "the playbook of authoritarian socialists", Animal Farm would have been a pretty dull book. You need to stop clutching your pearls over anything that isn't unfettered free-market, dude. "Fact-checking" done by government is indeed 1984isque. Stalin would give you a medal for the idea if he was alive. " I see what you did there, putting "fact-checking" in quotes like that. Very clever. Still a straw man though, isn't it. But you do you. Calm down a bit, though. There aren't really any reds under your bed. | |||
". That's a real nice straw man, but you built it by taking my point and exaggerating it to its worst extreme. Lol. How is that a strawman?
Read the second half of the sentence.
You said that I applied it to extreme circumstances. The Tories have been power over a decade. How exactly is asking you to think about a hypothetical scenario where you want the government to "fact check" media with Tories in power an extreme circumstance or strawman? If you want the government to fact-check media, you should be open for any political party that has a chance to run the government to do that?"Yeah. That's the whole idea. You can't refuse to establish a beneficial process just because you're paranoid the next guy might be Pol Pot. There have been a thousand occasions over the past 100 years alone when the government could have drastically overreached its existing powers but didn't. Why? Politically ambitious doesn't mean genocidal dictator. It's a straw man if instead of addressing my point you create a worst-case-scenario and demand that I talk about if as it were the idea. | |||
". That's a real nice straw man, but you built it by taking my point and exaggerating it to its worst extreme. Lol. How is that a strawman?
Read the second half of the sentence.
You said that I applied it to extreme circumstances. The Tories have been power over a decade. How exactly is asking you to think about a hypothetical scenario where you want the government to "fact check" media with Tories in power an extreme circumstance or strawman? If you want the government to fact-check media, you should be open for any political party that has a chance to run the government to do that?
Yeah. That's the whole idea. You can't refuse to establish a beneficial process just because you're paranoid the next guy might be Pol Pot. There have been a thousand occasions over the past 100 years alone when the government could have drastically overreached its existing powers but didn't. Why? Politically ambitious doesn't mean genocidal dictator.
It's a straw man if instead of addressing my point you create a worst-case-scenario and demand that I talk about if as it were the idea."I personally have been against it every time the government had overreach. The problem is that the process is only as good as the hands which run it. So I assume you will be happy with the Tories controlling "misinformation" on news media? | |||
". I wonder why no one ever tried the magical solution you propose. Their ideas were drowned out by a loud and persistent chorus of conservatism. There's government money for all manner of stupid shit. Yet more money never seems to make it from expanding corporate pockets into the pot. When the money "runs out" though, who gets it taken away from them? The people who had none to give in the first place. What amazes me is that people still insist, despite the circumstances, that capitalism is working brilliantly. Although in many ways I guess it's working precisely as intended. Capitalism is indeed working well. As long as science finds a problem to a solution, capitalism does a great job in bringing it to the masses. Like how air travel, cell phone usage and internet were all an upper class luxury in the past and now pretty much everyone does it. I recommend going through the gapminder project. The percentage of people under poverty keeps reducing overall in most countries. People vastly underestimate how much the population has increased in the last few decades. If you had asked anyone three decades back to predict our situation today, they would have said massive hunger and starvation. Mass tragedies due to population explosion was a widely believed doomsday theory then. The only fields were scientific progress hasn't caught up with population explosion and needs are real estate and energy. We tried building high rise apartments. But they aren't enough. You solve housing and energy problems, most other problems would automatically solve themselves. I do believe we will solve the energy problem soon. But real estate not much. The other option is well.. Socialism. Do I need to tell you how destructive that was? That's not the other option. Not the only one, anyway. You really don't need to cling to this false dichotomy of "the shitshow we've got... or STALIN!" Try a little nuance in your thinking. All the ideas you have given are just socialistic ideals - Nationalise this and nationalise that. Government should regulate news. That's basically the playbook of authoritarian socialists. If nationalising utilities and fact-checking media was "the playbook of authoritarian socialists", Animal Farm would have been a pretty dull book. You need to stop clutching your pearls over anything that isn't unfettered free-market, dude. "Fact-checking" done by government is indeed 1984isque. Stalin would give you a medal for the idea if he was alive. I see what you did there, putting "fact-checking" in quotes like that. Very clever. Still a straw man though, isn't it. But you do you. Calm down a bit, though. There aren't really any reds under your bed." Reds aren't under the bed. They are out there spouting Marxist bullshit under different names and then telling us "This is not Marxism or Stalinism bro. This is totally different bro. Trust me bro" | |||
". We should be very appreciative of all the help provided by the government it is more than adequate. Mmmmm tasty boots.... Do you ever mix with or speak to people on benefits ? Judging by some of the posts on here some posters never do. How many have ever filled in a Universal Credit form or are familiar with the various disability benefits? I've been there myself. This was before Universal Credit, mind, but I've filled out many a form. I'm very well acquainted with what it feels like to starve when the cash runs out. Was a while back but I think about it every day. I don't have any patience for anyone who thinks the government is taking care of it. Utter and complete horseshit." . Maybe you should explain how it is possible to starve.? How many days did you go without food .? What did other family members not provide help. It is up to families to look after each other , not the government. | |||
"I’m not going to get into definitions and semantic arguments and goalpost moving and all that other crap we often see used as tactics to distract from the topic in hand. For me it is concerning that the supposed 5/6th richest country in the world* has any children who are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. I have no first hand experience of this but I do keep seeing/reading/hearing stories from people who work frontline with kids, such as teachers, social workers, nursery school workers, talking about kids who have not eaten, who rely on the school meal for their nutrition needs, who have rotten teeth as don’t have toothpaste etc. Of course we can blame parents**, but that is only part of the story here. Regardless of the reasons it is shameful why such a wealthy first world country has this situation. *the reality of the UK’s wealth position probably reflects that a huge proportion of that wealth is concentrated in a small minority of people. **actually why stop at parents. If we believe all we read then there seems to be increasing numbers of shit parents. But surely then that is the fault of their parents? If boomer parents had been better role models then Gen X and Millennials might be better parents themselves? When did UK become the 5th/6th richest country in the world? Google “is the UK the fifth richest country in the World” and you’ll have your answer. Lol. That's based on total GDP. By that logic, India is the 6th richest country. Both of us know the problem with this metric. Erm ok you can pick a fight on your own as I am not interested in rabbit holes around how we define whether a country is rich! If you are talking about richness of people in a country, GDP per capita, though not perfect, is obviously a better measure than total GDP of a country? UK ranks 27th when it comes to GDP per capita. And if you look at my post you quoted and check out the *footnote you’ll see why these few posts are pointless. I actually read your footnote hoping to see some explanation of how UK magically turned out to be the 5th richest country. But it did not explain that. You were talking about wealth concentration. UK is very far from being the 5th richest country. By your metric, India is right now richer than UK and France. If we are using GDP as a signal of wealth, we should be taking population into account and that puts UK at 27th rank. As for wealth concentration, I created a separate thread about it. Anyway here is the statistics about what % of a country's total wealth is owned by top 1% https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/1758578249922224370 Among European countries, UK stands at third from bottom in this metric. So it looks like we do a muct better job at controlling wealth concentration compared to many other European nations? That’s all lovely and I am not disputing your thinking. However, I think we can agree the UK is a wealthy country and should not be experiencing child poverty. Or are you saying we are a poor country and should accept child poverty? Not sure of why this tangential conversation is necessary or particularly relevant? You based your argument on an assumption that UK is the 5th richest country, when it looks like we are at about 27th place. 27th is really far from 5th. You also said that the problem is wealth concentration. We are doing much better than most other countries in Europe there too. I would question what your definition if child poverty is, before arguing whether it's reasonable for a country that's 27th richest in the world. Go back and read my first post at top of this quote. I don’t need a definition of poverty. I don’t need to willy wave over statistics and definitions of what makes a country richer or poorer than another country. The UK is objectively a wealthy country. A first world country. As I have already said…I don’t understand why children in this country are not well fed, kept warm, and healthy. You can argue over bollocks and definitions all you like. What remains is there are kids in the UK in this position. That is what actually matters, so let’s discuss that rather than simply trying to win a hollow victory . You need to analyse the UK benefit system in little more detail. The system is adequate to provide enough to cook fresh meals and feed a family . Some spend it on takeaways and cigarettes and then money why they are hungry. Where are the parents and family of these people who claim to be struggling? It looks like some posters on here never either speak to or mix with those of benefits and are ill informed on how the benefits system works.
The government does more than enough to help the less well off. There are in excess of 500,000 cars on the mobility scheme provided free of charge. Large sums are also paid out in housing benefits.
We should be very appreciative of all the help provided by the government it is more than adequate.
Oh dear as expected more crap about benefits from you.
Psssst PIP mobility is irrelevant to being poor - it's a disability benefit, non means tested. Stop conflating.". I do not see anyone claiming that PIP is means tested. However by virtue of a disability peoples ability to earn will be restricted and the fact that it is not means tested is further evidence of the government helping the disadvantaged in society | |||
"The Govt already 'substantially intervene' by way of school and pre-school. What do you want? The Govt to actually control children? People do need to want change, the problem is 'its too much like hard work'. I want better schools. More, better-paid teachers. Affordable childcare. After-school programs. Social outreach programs. For a start. And again, there you go. Calling people lazy fixes exactly fuck-all. You're not offering a solution. You just want to feel like you don't need to care about them because they've done it to themselves. You want to feel like the real difference between you and them is they're lazy and you therefore must be hard-working. It achieves nothing at all." And how would you expect to pay for this. Hastings Council is spending so much on temporary housing it can't do much more without more cash. Should we double Council Tax. But i hear you say no that will hit the poor the hardest tax the rich. Somehow. | |||
" Of course you want all of that, I'm not arguing against it. I am calling people lazy because people are fucking lazy. It acheives nothing to deny this and constantly say 'it's not their fault'. The issue you have here is you're only looking at one side and fail to see that plenty of people could help themselves, if they chose to. And guess what, if they did, there would be more to go round those who actually, genuinely need help. You and I have a very different idea of what achieving something means. I'm proposing substantial investment that would, demonstrably, improve things. You're proposing to... I guess insult these people until they go out and take the apparently countless opportunities for wealth and success? Oh course we have different ideas, isn't that what makes this society what it is. How do you propose we make this substantial investment? Taxes? That is typically how the government gets money, yes. What do you propose we cut back on tro acheive this? How about tax breaks and decomissioning subsidies for oil and gas companies? I mean, just for a start." So yes I agree cut gas and oil subsidised and while you at it cut investment in to green energy. And build better schools ETC. But the cost to consumers on energy will go up and possibly double. Hitting the poor. | |||
