UK Government Performance 2019-2024

Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,232
Location
Plymouth
You seem to think our system is not geared to keeping people down. You only need to look back at the last decade and Tory economic policy to see supression in action. They are now stopping you protesting.
The sad fact is that for the majority the system is geared against them from birth.

And that doesn't change under labour, and it certainly doesn't change under any form of actual socialism. The only thing that changes is the suppression mechanism, not whether the suppression exists.

Not viewing the failed policies of the opposition (such as thinking that poverty line+£1 is somehow different to poverty line-£1), or the failed ideologies that have fortunately lost traction in the UK as some sort of solution does not make me a Tory supporter, or supportive of the actions of the current government.

That's why I've largely given up on politics and work to improve lives in meaningful ways.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Dec 2004
Posts
16,410
Location
Shepley
There’s a really ugly side to conservatism that sees success as something you earn and failure as something you choose. There are these people floating around thinking they made it because they’re exceptional and not because they were fortunate to be born into the right family, go to the right school and get the right job. Obviously these things don’t come for nothing and they had to work hard on top of it, but the corollary of this is not that everybody can work themselves into a better situation.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Oct 2002
Posts
11,615
There’s a really ugly side to conservatism that sees success as something you earn and failure as something you choose. There are these people floating around thinking they made it because they’re exceptional and not because they were fortunate to be born into the right family, go to the right school and get the right job. Obviously these things don’t come for nothing and they had to work hard on top of it, but the corollary of this is not that everybody can work themselves into a better situation.

Very true. The current lot see people in poverty in two seperate classes. The 'deserving' poor and the 'undeserving poor'. The 'deserving' poor was as @Dolph described earlier as he did the 'undeseving' poor in the same post. The fact that the poor give benefits to the richer via tax breaks to private schools to ensure that these same people then get preference into Oxbridge and then better jobs is overlooked.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
9,227
If people can't afford the fuel that's needed to heat a meal the solution is sort of staring you in the face but I'm guessing from your previous comments on how you view the 'poor' that you're being deliberately obtuse simply because you consider them to be undeserving.
If the solution is so simple, it would have been done, obviously it's not simple and you clearly do not understand the complexity

It doesn't change the fact that people can, if they really wanted, go look for combustable material and make a fire to cook

Also the people who voted Conservative got the government they deserve, it's not like they didn't have a reputation when it comes to poorness
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
4 Feb 2018
Posts
7,833
It doesn't change the fact that people can, if they really wanted, go look for combustable material and make a fire to cook
Make it stop!

Also the people who voted Conservative got the government they deserve, it's not like they didn't have a reputation when it comes to poorness
Yes but those that didnt vote for them arent getting what they deserve.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
4,082
I read the article and its a bit of a joke.

What do you think the impact of removing multi buy deals would be? Increased profits for big business.

I know I am bringing up the old thing again, but if this government as serious about obesity, there would be leaflets through doors, a cap on non healthy takeaways operating in an area to forcefully reduce takeaway consumption, loads of tv documentaries, news articles and a push to change the ingredients of all these mars bars etc. Finally also to make weight loss treatment more accessible as well as increase to scientific research which recently discovered obesity isnt as simple as we thought it was.

Instead the plan it seems is to scrap multi buy deals which makes the supermarkets (and their suppliers) laugh to the bank.

Also not surprised its been delayed, its a way they can claim they are helping the cost of living without expanding the state or paying for it from the state. It wont make squat all difference of course.

Also I am curious what foods would be covered by this? potentially more than half of a what a supermarket sells could fall foul of it, unless they only targeting the most extreme stuff.
I detect the heavy hand of lobbying here from the Tories pals and contributers in the junk food industry.
 
Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,232
Location
Plymouth
There’s a really ugly side to conservatism that sees success as something you earn and failure as something you choose. There are these people floating around thinking they made it because they’re exceptional and not because they were fortunate to be born into the right family, go to the right school and get the right job. Obviously these things don’t come for nothing and they had to work hard on top of it, but the corollary of this is not that everybody can work themselves into a better situation.

The problem is, without taking children from their parents and having the state raise them all, you can't fix parental advantage, nor is the potential impact of parental advantage related to or measured by parental means, which makes it difficult to compensate for fairly. I fully acknowledge the advantages my background gave, but just as my parents didn't hoard it exclusively on their own kids, neither do I.

The biggest problem is the idea that it's somebody else's job to help others, or that that the responsibility is discharged just because taxes are paid.

Very true. The current lot see people in poverty in two seperate classes. The 'deserving' poor and the 'undeserving poor'. The 'deserving' poor was as @Dolph described earlier as he did the 'undeseving' poor in the same post. The fact that the poor give benefits to the richer via tax breaks to private schools to ensure that these same people then get preference into Oxbridge and then better jobs is overlooked.

And yet I don't use those terms, in fact I was explicit that it's not about judgment. It's about identifying the challenges that impact that individual or family so they can actually be helped. It's not just the income poor that fail to meet their own or their families material or emotional needs, a household with £100k+ income can still lack food, or a caring environment that allows young people to thrive, depending on the nature of the issues there.

Support isn't just about the financial, it's about pastoral support, emotional support, a network of friends and so on.

Just throwing money at people and hoping they leave you alone isn't helping, in many cases it's either enabling or exacerbating the problems, not helping the people you actually want, or just creates a dependency culture.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2009
Posts
9,917
I genuinely can’t believe what I’ve just read over the last few pages.

People should learn to cook on open fires out in the wilderness to survive? I haven’t heard anything so bat**** crazy in all my life. He’ll be telling people to eat their pets next.

I’m surprised Minusorange hasn’t advocated for the return of workhouses yet

You're thinking too small. Cannibalism is clearly the answer - get the poor to eat each other.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Mar 2005
Posts
15,159
Location
Here and There...
I read the article and its a bit of a joke.

What do you think the impact of removing multi buy deals would be? Increased profits for big business.

I know I am bringing up the old thing again, but if this government as serious about obesity, there would be leaflets through doors, a cap on non healthy takeaways operating in an area to forcefully reduce takeaway consumption, loads of tv documentaries, news articles and a push to change the ingredients of all these mars bars etc. Finally also to make weight loss treatment more accessible as well as increase to scientific research which recently discovered obesity isnt as simple as we thought it was.

Instead the plan it seems is to scrap multi buy deals which makes the supermarkets (and their suppliers) laugh to the bank.

Also not surprised its been delayed, its a way they can claim they are helping the cost of living without expanding the state or paying for it from the state. It wont make squat all difference of course.

Also I am curious what foods would be covered by this? potentially more than half of a what a supermarket sells could fall foul of it, unless they only targeting the most extreme stuff.
It is the first step on a long and tricky road they didn’t put tax on cigarettes from 0 to £5 a pack over night and it took years to bring in smoking bans plain packaging and health warnings etc. What the government have done here is bottle the race before it’s even begun the big food companies will be rubbing there hands together and celebrating at least another twelve months of unrestricted selling of junk!

I agree entirely with regards to your points in other things they really should be doing but if they don’t start somewhere we will never get close to the end game!
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Posts
8,388
If the solution is so simple, it would have been done, obviously it's not simple and you clearly do not understand the complexity

It doesn't change the fact that people can, if they really wanted, go look for combustable material and make a fire to cook

Also the people who voted Conservative got the government they deserve, it's not like they didn't have a reputation when it comes to poorness
So in your mind anything that doesn't get done is automatically too complex, there's no other reason that you can think of for something not being done?

Again you're confusing can with should, nobody is saying, putting aside the impracticality and legality, that people could not do what you propose they're saying that in a country like the UK people should not have to do such a thing and that begging the question of why don't people who can't afford to heat their food gather materiel for a fire is not the sort of thing that should even be entertained when the solution is blindingly obvious to everyone except yourself.

What people getting the government they deserve has to do with anything is anyone guess, I'm guessing you thought throwing that red herring into the mix would divert attention away from what you now realise is the absurd suggestion that you made because you're incapable of admitting to a mistake.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
23 Oct 2002
Posts
11,615
Support isn't just about the financial, it's about pastoral support, emotional support, a network of friends and so on.

Just throwing money at people and hoping they leave you alone isn't helping, in many cases it's either enabling or exacerbating the problems, not helping the people you actually want, or just creates a dependency culture.

I know, I worked with children from various backgrounds with problems in the latter stages of my career.

Your second sentence is pure right wing Tory excuse. The point is when people do not have enough money to live, it introduces problems into their lives and no amount of pastoral care can change. The old Tory excuse of helping the poor just creates a 'dependancy culture'. It does not. People have pride, they want to work and earn enough for their families and themselves. To enable their families to have things or go on holidays. What is preventing them from doing so is the economic system that has forced part time working, gig economy, no holiday pay, no sick pay, little or no rights. It has been a concious economic decision that has put them in that situation and harmed families.

The only trouble is eventually people see they have no stake in society and civil disorder starts.
 
Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,232
Location
Plymouth
I know, I worked with children from various backgrounds with problems in the latter stages of my career.

Your second sentence is pure right wing Tory excuse. The point is when people do not have enough money to live, it introduces problems into their lives and no amount of pastoral care can change. The old Tory excuse of helping the poor just creates a 'dependancy culture'. It does not. People have pride, they want to work and earn enough for their families and themselves. To enable their families to have things or go on holidays. What is preventing them from doing so is the economic system that has forced part time working, gig economy, no holiday pay, no sick pay, little or no rights. It has been a concious economic decision that has put them in that situation and harmed families.

The only trouble is eventually people see they have no stake in society and civil disorder starts.

What about the enabling aspect that you ignored to go on your usual irrelevant anti Tory rant?

What do you think actually happens if you give more money to an addict, for example?
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Mar 2005
Posts
15,159
Location
Here and There...
What about the enabling aspect that you ignored to go on your usual irrelevant anti Tory rant?

What do you think actually happens if you give more money to an addict, for example?
Totally agree money invested in actual help for people in need is almost always better spend and more impactful than pure hand outs, the lack of investment in drug rehab programs in this country is shocking as is the fact we are still seeing senior politicians on both sides pedalling the hard-line on drugs nonsense that has been failing us for 30 years.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
9,227
So in your mind anything that doesn't get done is automatically too complex, there's no other reason that you can think of for something not being done?

Again you're confusing can with should, nobody is saying, putting aside the impracticality and legality, that people could not do what you propose they're saying that in a country like the UK people should not have to do such a thing.

What people getting the government they deserve has to do with anything is anyone guess, I'm guessing you thought throwing that red herring into the mix would divert attention away from what you now realise is the absurd suggestion that you made because you're incapable of admitting to a mistake.
Come on then give us the solution to solve the energy crisis and potentially poverty ? I want a good laugh because it's pretty clear you have no clue about the complexities of it all not only at a national level but also a global level

All I've said is it's BS that people are too poor to cook as evidenced by billions of poorer people in worse conditions on this planet being able to cook and yours and your ilk replies basically saying "but it's beneath us, we have a God given right to not endure hardship because we live in the 5th largest economy in the world" nowhere have I said we should accept it but it's a means to an end. The issue is can't cook, the solution is make fire, it's not a difficult thing to understand unless you enjoy mental gymnastics and wish to stretch it into something it's not like it's being suggested as a solution to end poverty when it isn't, it's a solution to be able to cook :rolleyes:

Regards the government, almost half the population voted Conservative despite being warned plenty of times Brexit was a bad idea and Tories in general are a bad idea "but muh xenophobia", the other half moronically thought Corbyn was a sensible choice and think there's no point voting LD or Green so excuse me if I have little sympathy for the predicament that we're in, we got exactly as we deserved
 
Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,232
Location
Plymouth
Do they go to crack houses?

Generally speaking, if they are at the point where they are failing to meet their basic needs due to the impact of their addiction, adding more money won't change that.

That's not to say you do nothing as an alternative, but that some interventions can be counter productive.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Jul 2005
Posts
17,962
Location
Brighton
Technical things aside the biggest cost here is time.

A lot of these "too poor to cook" are generally single parents who not only have to support their family through work (usually female and minimum wage) and get by either by shovelling most of their income on childcare or rely on other friends/family to care.

These individuals will work a full day come home and then be expected to spend the rest of their day preparing dinner, cleaning and organising their kids for the next day.

In the end it just becomes logical to whack a meal in the oven / microwave than spend time cutting and prepping, watching a hob etc.. At least they can get on with other household things whilst it's in the oven.

Another important thing is that kids can be picky, chicken nuggets etc.. are easy for parents, if you spend ages preparing some quality vegetables and then the kid just bins it because it's green you kind of think what's the point.

It's easy to say oh they should stop being lazy or not to have kids if they can't properly look after them but it's never that simple. These people are generally the result of broken and/or toxic relationships. They are poorly educated, working low wage jobs and generally unsupported by the state, it's an extremely isolating and depressing situation, one which there also never seems to be an end in sight. God forbid in these situations when an eventuality of cars / boilers or other expensive things break down, it normally requires payday loans or other forms of credit, only worsening the situation in the long run.

My idealised solution would be to try and broaden the free school meals remit to include a full days food (breakfast / lunch / dinner). Qualifying families should be able to get all these things prepared and fed to the children during school time (possibly an additional after school hour for dinner, which could include some additional fee so that it isn't too costly)

This

You're thinking too small. Cannibalism is clearly the answer - get the poor to eat each other.

I believe the phrase is eat the rich ;)
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Posts
8,388
Come on then give us the solution to solve the energy crisis and potentially poverty ? I want a good laugh because it's pretty clear you have no clue about the complexities of it all not only at a national level but also a global level

All I've said is it's BS that people are too poor to cook as evidenced by billions of poorer people in worse conditions on this planet being able to cook and yours and your ilk replies basically saying "but it's beneath us, we have a God given right to not endure hardship because we live in the 5th largest economy in the world" nowhere have I said we should accept it but it's a means to an end. The issue is can't cook, the solution is make fire, it's not a difficult thing to understand unless you enjoy mental gymnastics and wish to stretch it into something it's not like it's being suggested as a solution to end poverty when it isn't, it's a solution to be able to cook :rolleyes:

Regards the government, almost half the population voted Conservative despite being warned plenty of times Brexit was a bad idea and Tories in general are a bad idea "but muh xenophobia", the other half moronically thought Corbyn was a sensible choice and think there's no point voting LD or Green so excuse me if I have little sympathy for the predicament that we're in, we got exactly as we deserved
So did you choose not to answer any of those questions i asked or were they too complex for you?

Why you think we need to solve the energy 'crisis' is unknown (another of your attempts to mislead or distract) as simply making sure people have sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal would solve poverty, contrary to your claims it's not rocket science. (At this stage it feels like we're in some sort of surreal joke about a patient telling the doctor it hurts when i do this and the patient actually needs to be told not to do that)

No. You did not say it was BS that people were too poor to cook, you said...
I don't want to sound overly harsh, but why can't they collect some wood and build a makeshift outdoor stove to cook if things are that bad ? It's worked for humans for thousands of years, even people in Ukraine who are literally being bombed and genocided in the worst of places are managing to cook food with a simple fire


They are literally homeless and able to cook food
That's not you saying what you just claimed you said, that you begging the question of why people in poverty can't collect some wood and build a makeshift outdoor stove to cook things on.

Also no, no one has said "but it's beneath us, we have a God given right to not endure hardship because we live in the 5th largest economy in the world", now you're just making up an alternative reality in your own head. People have and continue to say we should not do such a thing in the world 5/6th largest economy where 10% of the population owns 50% of the countries wealth. How many time is this going to need repeating before you manage to grasp such a simple concept of could not and should not?

While you didn't directly say we should accept it you implied it so heavily that you really didn't need to say those exact words. Like i said begging the question of why can't people in poverty collect some wood and build a makeshift outdoor stove to cook things is you saying we should accept such a thing in other words, you even say we should be doing such a thing in the very next paragraph when you say it's a means to an end. Why you think the solution to some people in poverty not being able to afford the fuel to heat food is to break a multitude of laws rather than simply making sure they have enough money to pay for the fuel is, like i said before, frankly baffling.

I didn't read all your previous point about the people who voted Conservative got the government they deserve so I'm not about to read whatever you've said after regards the government because like i said it's just your attempt to throw a red herring into the mix in order to distract attention away from what i imagine is becoming quiet embarrassing for you now, simply because you're seemingly incapable of admitting to a mistake.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
9,227
That's not you saying what you just claimed you said, that you begging the question of why people in poverty can't collect some wood and build a makeshift outdoor stove to cook things on.
It's not my problem you fail to understand context, if I'm asking a question and providing evidence of people in worse conditions being able to do what I'm questioning then any rational/intelligent person would be able to conclude that I'm suggesting there's no reason why they can't do it and it's actually a rhetorical question
now you're just making up an alternative reality in your own head.
I wonder where I got that from, not so nice when it's on the other foot is it
Why you think we need to solve the energy 'crisis' is unknown (another of your attempts to mislead or distract) as simply making sure people have sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal would solve poverty, contrary to your claims it's not rocket science. (At this stage it feels like we're in some sort of surreal joke about a patient telling the doctor it hurts when i do this and the patient actually needs to be told not to do that)
Okay Einstein tell us how you can increase wages without increasing the cost of everything those people on those higher wages provide ? You cannot solve poverty simply by increasing wages, if it was that simple it would have work all the times when wages were increased :rolleyes: It's obvious you don't understand poverty is not only a financial problem but a societal problem and also linked with current events going on in the world like the Worlds 4th largest grain provider and one of the largest energy providers being sanctioned and countries refusing their products invading the 7th largest grain provider, tell me, how is increasing wages going to solve shortages of food (I would love to hear this one) ???
While you didn't directly say we should accept it you implied it so heavily that you really didn't need to say those exact words.
I'm stating a fact, it's BS people can't afford to cook when it costs nothing to make fire, it's not my fault if you want to (and I'll quote you) make up an alternative reality where cooking outside means people are forever held to that level of poverty and nothing should be done to fix the issues surrounding it because they can fire :rolleyes:

Some of us have been disgusted with societal issues and telling others how there's a deep rooted rot in society that needs fixing but people like yourself didn't care because you were fine in your little bubble but now that bubble is getting to close bursting suddenly it's an issue and you think a simple fix of just giving people more money will fix everything because in your isolated bubble you were fine when you had more money to spend
 
Top