If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Without wanting to detract from the point you are making, the Tories made it far easier for people to access foodbanks. This has caused a significant uplift in their use. There are undoubtedly other factors
In a relatively wealthy nation like the UK there should be no need for foodbanks whatsoever
is it getting worse or has poverty always been there, we are just better at recording it / redefining what it means?
definitely. Brexit has not helped one bit and anyone who thought it was a good idea should really have a word with themselves.
are you equally as critical of Welsh Labours failure to keep the Welsh economic performance on a par with even the worst performing parts of England? We have more tools in our arsenal than any English region and we have better funding, yet we fall further behind on just about every socio-economic measure. You cannot have a strong society without a strong economy. In that respect would you agree that Welsh Labour have failed the Welsh population in a much greater way that the Conservatives have the the UK as a whole?
It’s getting worse by every measurable metric.
I don’t live in wales, how much of an effect do the welsh government really have? The Welsh labour party don’t seem to have done a great job but I think Westminster is just as much to blame if not more. It seems to just be party political point scoring from you which seems ironic after what you’ve said in this thread.
I'm from a poor background. I have poor family and family on benefits.
I have family that already could not afford to provide adequately whilst on benefits but still chose to have more kids, continued to smoke and continued to make choices that puts them in a worse situation that they should have been.
As for providing food - it does take away the independence and I do appreciate Citizen's Nephew's posts. But on the flip side (if it was food boxes or vouchers instead of food banks) it not only shields people from the inflation of food we can also ensure that the families particularly the kids can have more nutritious and beneficial food rather than sacks of chicken nuggets and crispy pancakes.
This is really valid and I struggle with the personal choices of individuals and the consequences of those choices. I think it's all about the choice of words and our responsibilities as a society. Subsidise, to me, is a monetary term, and whilst I don't think for one minute you are personally doing it, if we're not careful 'subsidise' will become a derogatory term and used against all poor people in the way the term 'benefits' has been e.g. benefits scrounger.
I've made some awful choices in my life, choices I look back on and think 'who was that person?' However, we go through periods of education, learning and we are allowed to change our minds and hopefully make better choices. If we're lucky we're educated or have mentors or even come on message boards and learn new ways of doing things or new information. I don't want to see people punished for bad choices. Is it fair to criticise people for not feeding their kids properly when they are bombarded with images of gleeful, happy, healthy-looking families feeding those same nuggets or bargain buckets to happy smiling children?
Should we 'subsidise' people's healthcare when they are earning massive salaries but still feeding themselves junk food or are over-drinking and not looking after their own health? It starts to get difficult.
I don't want to see people punished for poor choices. I do want to see people helped and educated properly. But in a free market, advertisers lie and our governments support them. We then end up with food banks in wealthy societies.
I don't think we're on different pages here and I've said many times I'm big on personal responsibility. As a society, I'd like to see us forgive people's poor choices and help them.
there are people in this country who work full time, sometimes more than one job but still require help from the government to get by.
this is effectively subsidising the businesses to allow them to pay a wage that is less than what is required to live on.
isn't this chicken and egg. Business having only so much they can pay staff because they have to pay up to half of all cash received in taxes. Lower taxes will mean more money available to pay staff. The more you tax business, the more business will look to pay lower wages.
Being in a bad situation can be caused by personal choices but there’s also a lot of luck involved. I only did well because I had good parents, found school easy and got lucky that I didn’t get involved with anyone dodgy at school.
It only takes one bit of bad luck or one poor choice to **** up your life. I’m happy to pay tax to support people who weren’t as lucky as I was. But there shouldn’t be a need for it, the majority of people would rather be working and earning.
I don’t live in wales, how much of an effect do the welsh government really have? The Welsh labour party don’t seem to have done a great job but I think Westminster is just as much to blame if not more. It seems to just be party political point scoring from you which seems ironic after what you’ve said in this thread.
its not about party politics, its about those on the left quick to criticise Westminster (vis a vis the Tories) but appear to be looking the other way when any kind of analysis regarding Welsh Labour is needed.
Since Welsh Labour are responsible for economic development of Wales, and since they have more power and more funding than any other English region, we need to hold them accountable in the same way we need to hold Westminster accountable. however for most, accountability is not about holding the government to account, its about bashing the other side.
when I said income I meant wealth, the ability to feed yourself etc, and not necessarily disposable cash. you have also missed the point being made - why is it ok to receive benefits but not parcels from foodbanks? or let me put it another way, why is the use of benefits seen as being acceptable when we know the use of foodbanks is not?
read up about the orphan crushing machine, its a well-known trope on social media.
With respect, I feel I've missed your point because I feel you're giving mixed messages. You're asking rhetorical questions but coming up with no solutions. You say all the right things and imply that we, as a society, shouldn't have food banks, benefits, etc. which, to me, is like wishing for world peace, but at the same time, I've no idea what you're advocating as an alternative?
If we're going to have capitalism and the disproportionate accumulation of wealth by individuals who have obscene amounts of money and all the benefits that that wealth can give them, then we must, as a caring society, have a social means of security for the workers who help the employer accumulate those obscene amounts of personal wealth. We could call it......social security.
The real 'benefits' are the benefits that obscene amounts of personal wealth can bring the individual e.g. being able to perform a pointless vanity journey to space whilst other people are pointlessly dying because they didn't go to the right school and therefore they end up with substandard healthcare.
I checked out 'orphan crushing machine' and its meaning and context as I don't do Twitter, Facebook et al and haven't, for just over a decade now so it's not one I've read about or seen used in other media. I think you're citing it incorrectly though in your posts.
Like I said, I'd be more interested in your solutions.
Mad that the U.K. government are blamed for the U.K. economy and levels of poverty.
Shows you just want an argument and to defend your party, transparent as ****.
my party? The Tories? are you for real, the sooner we see the back of this shower the better.
The Welsh government is (partly) responsible for development of the Welsh Economy, and therefore should be held (partly) accountable. Ditto Westminster.
Manchester and Andy Burnham are doing well, with fewer resources and powers at their disposal. maybe we could take a leaf out of their book.
Comment