Caring Conseravtiveism?

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Guich
Posts: 1229
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:35 pm
Been Liked: 472 times
Has Liked: 598 times

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Guich » Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:16 pm

taio wrote:He brings debate to this board on a range of topics except football, and he's said before he has no interest in going to watch Burnley.
Ah thanks Taio I didn't know that.

Damo
Posts: 4504
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:04 pm
Been Liked: 1777 times
Has Liked: 2761 times

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Damo » Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:42 pm

dsr wrote:Are you saying that that isn't true, or are you saying that it is true but Damo shouldn't have said it?

I don't have a lot of experience of the African mainland, or of being unemployerd in the UK for that matter, but from what experience I do have I know that the UK unemployed are better off than people who are employed in Senegal or the Gambia. You can tell that just by looking at how thin they are and the state of the markets. Even the university lecturer doing a bit of moonlighting as a tour guide looked unhealthily thin. (The President is fat, though. And his army looks well-fed.)
When he said "relative poverty" it was clear he wasn't implying it wasn't true.
If he could of found a counter argument online we would of known about it

bluelabrador16
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2016 7:34 pm
Been Liked: 79 times
Has Liked: 125 times

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by bluelabrador16 » Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:57 pm

David Clapson’s awful death was the result of grotesque government policies ...... Frances Ryan

"The DWP brags about ending the ‘something for nothing’ culture, but benefit sanctions punish the unemployed, disabled and poor in ways that are utterly inhumane"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-policies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"The coroner said that when David Clapson died he had no food in his stomach. Clapson’s benefits had been stopped as a result of missing one meeting at the jobcentre. He was diabetic, and without the £71.70 a week from his jobseeker’s allowance he couldn’t afford to eat or put credit on his electricity card to keep the fridge where he kept his insulin working. Three weeks later Clapson died from diabetic ketoacidosis, caused by a severe lack of insulin. A pile of CVs was found next to his body....

.. More than a million people in this country have had their benefits stopped over the past year. Sanctions against chronically ill and disabled people have risen by 580% in a year. This is a system out of control......
Replacing the current class of nuclear submarines is expected to cost £31 billion.14 Jul 2016 :roll:

HatfieldClaret
Posts: 2551
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:29 pm
Been Liked: 605 times
Has Liked: 346 times
Location: Hertfordshire

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by HatfieldClaret » Sun Feb 26, 2017 5:04 pm

But we need the nuclear subs to face the zionist threat !!

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Imploding Turtle » Sun Feb 26, 2017 5:06 pm

dsr wrote:Are you saying that that isn't true, or are you saying that it is true but Damo shouldn't have said it?

I don't have a lot of experience of the African mainland, or of being unemployerd in the UK for that matter, but from what experience I do have I know that the UK unemployed are better off than people who are employed in Senegal or the Gambia. You can tell that just by looking at how thin they are and the state of the markets. Even the university lecturer doing a bit of moonlighting as a tour guide looked unhealthily thin. (The President is fat, though. And his army looks well-fed.)

I'm saying that the only reason Damo said it was to dismiss poverty in the UK as unproblematic. Yes, a poor person in the UK has more wealth than a poor person in Nigeria, but his choice to point that out rather than talk about the problem of people in the UK being forced to use food banks is an attempt to dismiss poverty in the UK instead of addressing the concerns mentioned in the post he replied to.

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by dsr » Sun Feb 26, 2017 5:26 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm saying that the only reason Damo said it was to dismiss poverty in the UK as unproblematic. Yes, a poor person in the UK has more wealth than a poor person in Nigeria, but his choice to point that out rather than talk about the problem of people in the UK being forced to use food banks is an attempt to dismiss poverty in the UK instead of addressing the concerns mentioned in the post he replied to.
But what is wrong with food banks? Is charity, in itself, a bad thing? Like I said, if you lose your job on Friday and you haven't any money, or if you've got yourself into a financial mess and are struggling to get yourself straight, isn't it an unmitigated good that there are food banks available? Or is it just that you don't like the idea of private charity and think that the government should be running them?

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Imploding Turtle » Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:10 pm

dsr wrote:But what is wrong with food banks? Is charity, in itself, a bad thing? Like I said, if you lose your job on Friday and you haven't any money, or if you've got yourself into a financial mess and are struggling to get yourself straight, isn't it an unmitigated good that there are food banks available? Or is it just that you don't like the idea of private charity and think that the government should be running them?

Wow. Do you honestly think that when someone is talking critically of people having to rely on food banks that they're being critical of the food banks?

Are you so deluded and blind to criticism of your Tories that you think people would criticise food banks over their evil, poor-hating policies?

Damo
Posts: 4504
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:04 pm
Been Liked: 1777 times
Has Liked: 2761 times

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Damo » Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:44 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm saying that the only reason Damo said it was to dismiss poverty in the UK as unproblematic. Yes, a poor person in the UK has more wealth than a poor person in Nigeria, but his choice to point that out rather than talk about the problem of people in the UK being forced to use food banks is an attempt to dismiss poverty in the UK instead of addressing the concerns mentioned in the post he replied to.
The post I replied to made out like this country, under a conservative government, lacked care because some people chose to use food banks.
Food banks were somehow cited as part of the problem.
My point was that poverty in this country was nothing like poverty in 99% of the rest of the world.
That was my point. Charlie tried to manipulate my point to make out that I was uncaring. He made exactly the same point as me, but in such a way that he had more empathy than your average conservative voter (virtue signalling?)

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by dsr » Sun Feb 26, 2017 8:00 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Wow. Do you honestly think that when someone is talking critically of people having to rely on food banks that they're being critical of the food banks?

Are you so deluded and blind to criticism of your Tories that you think people would criticise food banks over their evil, poor-hating policies?
I think people are critical of food banks because they don't like the idea of giving people food. They think it's demeaning. Some people - this is true, ridiculous though it seems - think that the best way to help people who haven't got food is by giving them money! Yes, really! Completely ignoring the fact that in many cases, it's incompetence or recklessness with money that's got them into that mess, or that when they have money they spend it on the wrong things.

If you don't have food, what you need is food. As I said, no free world government is able to stop people spending all their money on the wrong stuff, or going overdrawn on their credit cards and losing their jobs. But when they do, I would far rather rely on a safety net of food banks providing actual food via voluntary charities than on going to the DHSS to collect some bits of paper.

What really bugs me is the idiots who claim they can't afford fruit and vegetables because they're too expensive. I suppose it's not really their fault that they are so idiotic, in most cases. But can't someone teach them that for £5 at Farm Foods you can get:

15 apples
10 pears
A pound of peas
A pound of sweetcorn
A pound of broccoli
A pound of cauliflower.

What are they spending their fiver on that gives them better value?

If they're still hungry, carrots are 60p a bag at Sainsbury's, potatoes £1.20 for five pounds, lettuces (normally) 50p, cucumbers not much more, baked beans 25p a tin, and a small chicken for £3 or so. You've spent not much more than a tenner, and got food for a family for at least a couple of days, probably three. OK, you might want a couple of large loaves and a pot of cheap jam - call it £15.
This user liked this post: Damo

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Imploding Turtle » Sun Feb 26, 2017 8:09 pm

Damo wrote:The post I replied to made out like this country, under a conservative government, lacked care because some people chose to use food banks.
Food banks were somehow cited as part of the problem.
My point was that poverty in this country was nothing like poverty in 99% of the rest of the world.
That was my point. Charlie tried to manipulate my point to make out that I was uncaring. He made exactly the same point as me, but in such a way that he had more empathy than your average conservative voter (virtue signalling?)
Maybe it's something you would do and therefore assume everyone would do, but I don't twist or manipulate other people's words. If I've mistaken what you meant then I apologise, but I'll have a look again because I'm not sure I did.

South West Claret.
Posts: 5642
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 pm
Been Liked: 766 times
Has Liked: 499 times
Location: Devon

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by South West Claret. » Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:04 pm

Well if you did miss the programme it's on now.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Imploding Turtle » Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:33 am

Below i've highlighted the part of the post you quoted Damo, and no, it is in no way blaming, or trying to blame food banks for anything. Lancaster is quite obviously saying that it doesn't sit well that we even have them, not because they're the cause of anything but because they're the consequence of a rich country allowing such desperate poverty to exist where people have no choice but to use food banks, or have no choice but to be homeless.

If you think from how he worded it that he's blaming food banks for anything then what do you suppose he's blaming on homeless people?

You're not that stupid to to not know what Lancaster was saying, but you are, i believe, that dishonest to try and manipulate what he's said into meaning something else. Funny that, because that sounds a lot like something you've accused me of recently.


Lancasterclaret wrote:I can see why the Conservatives think there ideology will be best for all, hell they clearly all believe in it.

I used to be as right wing as they come (never at the Rowls level it has to be said though) and then as I got a bit older I kept the bits I liked (patriotism, stuff like that) and ditched the stuff that I just found wrong. As I've got older, had kids, I've swung a lot more to the left.

I'm not saying that my way is right, or their way is wrong, but it doesn't sit well with me that a country as rich as we are has food banks, homeless people and far too many people really struggling to make ends meet.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Imploding Turtle » Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:05 am

dsr wrote:I think people are critical of food banks because they don't like the idea of giving people food. They think it's demeaning. Some people - this is true, ridiculous though it seems - think that the best way to help people who haven't got food is by giving them money! Yes, really! Completely ignoring the fact that in many cases, it's incompetence or recklessness with money that's got them into that mess, or that when they have money they spend it on the wrong things.

If you don't have food, what you need is food. As I said, no free world government is able to stop people spending all their money on the wrong stuff, or going overdrawn on their credit cards and losing their jobs. But when they do, I would far rather rely on a safety net of food banks providing actual food via voluntary charities than on going to the DHSS to collect some bits of paper.

What really bugs me is the idiots who claim they can't afford fruit and vegetables because they're too expensive. I suppose it's not really their fault that they are so idiotic, in most cases. But can't someone teach them that for £5 at Farm Foods you can get:

15 apples
10 pears
A pound of peas
A pound of sweetcorn
A pound of broccoli
A pound of cauliflower.

What are they spending their fiver on that gives them better value?

If they're still hungry, carrots are 60p a bag at Sainsbury's, potatoes £1.20 for five pounds, lettuces (normally) 50p, cucumbers not much more, baked beans 25p a tin, and a small chicken for £3 or so. You've spent not much more than a tenner, and got food for a family for at least a couple of days, probably three. OK, you might want a couple of large loaves and a pot of cheap jam - call it £15.

You have it arse backwards. No one, except shitty people, are being critical of food banks. What people are critical of is that the policies of this government are such that food banks are a necessity. We're supposed to be one of the richest countries in the world and yet we're still relying on food banks to feed our poorest.

And what the **** kind of first world diet are you expecting people to live on with those ingredients?

Also, to answer your question, what are they spending their fiver on? Well, perhaps they're spending it on topping up their overpriced rents because their housing benefit only pays about £75/week of it. Perhaps they're spending it on gas and electricity so that during the winter they don't freeze. Perhaps they're spending it on transport around their local area because they have to show that they've spent full-time hours looking for jobs. Perhaps they're spending it on having a computer with internet access because the only place that jobs seem to be advertised nowadays is online.

Perhaps they're spending too much of their money on making sure they don't ever **** up even slightly on their jobseekers agreement that they only thing they can actually choose how little they can spend on something is food, because if they are short of money for a bus ticket, or don't have fuel in their car to make it to a jobcentre appointment on time, or make it to an interview, then they immediately lose all their money for a number of weeks. Sure they can appeal, but that takes something like 4 or 5 weeks and by then they've already been forced to fall behind on rent, fall behind on bills, not afford transport that gets them to interviews and appointments on time, not afford the internet connection that allows them to spend full-time hours looking for work, and guess what happens if they can't get to a second interview or appointment on time because of their benefit sanctions? That's right, more sanctions. Just what they need.

So you can sit there and sneer at these people for not living on a £5/week diet, or a £10/week diet, or a £15/week diet all you like, but all you've done is demonstrate that you lack the empathy and willingness to even try to understand how it's possible, beyond stupidity, that these can people fall into such abject poverty that they have to rely on food banks to not starve in one of the richest countries in the world.

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by dsr » Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:34 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:You have it arse backwards. No one, except shitty people, are being critical of food banks. What people are critical of is that the policies of this government are such that food banks are a necessity. We're supposed to be one of the richest countries in the world and yet we're still relying on food banks to feed our poorest.

And what the **** kind of first world diet are you expecting people to live on with those ingredients?

Also, to answer your question, what are they spending their fiver on? Well, perhaps they're spending it on topping up their overpriced rents because their housing benefit only pays about £75/week of it. Perhaps they're spending it on gas and electricity so that during the winter they don't freeze. Perhaps they're spending it on transport around their local area because they have to show that they've spent full-time hours looking for jobs. Perhaps they're spending it on having a computer with internet access because the only place that jobs seem to be advertised nowadays is online.

Perhaps they're spending too much of their money on making sure they don't ever **** up even slightly on their jobseekers agreement that they only thing they can actually choose how little they can spend on something is food, because if they are short of money for a bus ticket, or don't have fuel in their car to make it to a jobcentre appointment on time, or make it to an interview, then they immediately lose all their money for a number of weeks. Sure they can appeal, but that takes something like 4 or 5 weeks and by then they've already been forced to fall behind on rent, fall behind on bills, not afford transport that gets them to interviews and appointments on time, not afford the internet connection that allows them to spend full-time hours looking for work, and guess what happens if they can't get to a second interview or appointment on time because of their benefit sanctions? That's right, more sanctions. Just what they need.

So you can sit there and sneer at these people for not living on a £5/week diet, or a £10/week diet, or a £15/week diet all you like, but all you've done is demonstrate that you lack the empathy and willingness to even try to understand how it's possible, beyond stupidity, that these can people fall into such abject poverty that they have to rely on food banks to not starve in one of the richest countries in the world.
These are not people who say they can't afford food; they're people who say they can afford food, but not vegetables because they're too expensive.

Libraries still have free internet, btw.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Imploding Turtle » Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:37 am

What? You think people use food banks because they can afford food but not vegetables? Do you even know what it is you think you're talking about?

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by dsr » Mon Feb 27, 2017 9:57 am

I'll spell it out. On TV last week, in one of the articles where they were talking about eating 10 veg a day, they were doing vox pop. One of the interviewees said that she can't afford vegetables for her family because they were too expensive.

She is not the only one - I once saw a couple in a chip shop buying a pie because that was all they could afford. Far too many people have no idea how to budget for food shopping or how to cook the stuff when they've got it.

I think you're making the mistake of trying to link everything I say to one single point. This isn't how conversation works. Try and separate my part of this thread into two main points, related but not the same:

1. Food banks are a good thing.
2. Some people have no idea about how to buy food.

I have never come close to saying that these two points are inextricably linked. You are reading things that aren't there. Try and take it, in future, that what I say is what I mean. Don't guess.

Lancasterclaret
Posts: 23343
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:09 pm
Been Liked: 8058 times
Has Liked: 4714 times
Location: Riding the galactic winds in my X-wing

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Lancasterclaret » Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:04 am

So are food banks a good thing or a bad thing?

I think they are a "bad thing" because we shouldn't need them, and I think its a "good thing" that we have them because of a combination of policies, education and food prices mean people would suffer if it wasn't for them.

Does that clarify it?

Spijed
Posts: 17112
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2892 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Spijed » Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:31 am

George Freeman, Theresa May's head of policy thinks depression and anxiety is a bit of a joke:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 00931.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JohnMcGreal
Posts: 2206
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:37 am
Been Liked: 1344 times
Has Liked: 438 times

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by JohnMcGreal » Mon Feb 27, 2017 10:31 am

dsr wrote:Libraries still have free internet, btw.
Only the ones which haven't closed down because of savage cuts to local council budgets.

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by AndrewJB » Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:10 pm

I agree that we should include what might be called 'home economics' in the school curriculum. But with the savage funding cuts coming the way of education I can't see that happening any time soon. The whole premise of conservatism is to maintain the position of those at the top of society to the disadvantage of everyone else, so I don't see how they can lay claim to being 'caring' other than about themselves. They get ordinary people to work harder by paying them less, but insist on greater incentives for wealthy people.
This user liked this post: longsidepies

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by dsr » Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:34 pm

What period are you comparing it with, Andrew? Can you name a specific year when you think that people generally worked less hard and were better off than they do now? I reckon that financially, people as a whole are doing pretty well, especially the "ordinary people".

Damo
Posts: 4504
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:04 pm
Been Liked: 1777 times
Has Liked: 2761 times

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Damo » Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:43 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:So are food banks a good thing or a bad thing?

I think they are a "bad thing" because we shouldn't need them, and I think its a "good thing" that we have them because of a combination of policies, education and food prices mean people would suffer if it wasn't for them.

Does that clarify it?
It does.
I'd also like to clarify that I never meant to imply you, or anyone else thought food banks were good or bad.
I probably worded what I was trying to say wrong.
My point, and Charlie has covered it perfectly, is that poverty in this country is relative.
Like Charlie stated, people have to decide on wether to spend benefits on Internet access, or go to the library etc
These 2 users liked this post: Lancasterclaret Imploding Turtle

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by AndrewJB » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:46 pm

DSR - I meant that Tories tend to incentivise poorer people to work (or work harder) by cutting pay or benefits, but they don't apply the same logic to rich people.
This user liked this post: longsidepies

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Colburn_Claret » Mon Feb 27, 2017 8:16 pm

I've never understood this need for food banks. I don't pretend that I know everybody on benefits in the whole country, but of the ones I do know, none of them require a food bank.
It is all part of education that should have been taught by parents, sadly a dying art, that it is cheaper to cook for yourself than buy 'cheap' ready meals. I know I could feed myself and my family on a pittance of what most people on benefits receive.
There is also the matter of life choice. How many people on benefits, and these I do know, have never worked and lived off the social since leaving schools, have tattoos, mobile phones, lap tops, computer games, smoke, drink. I don't see how half the country can afford all these things, and still not require a food bank. Yet apparently the other half are starving. As I said somewhere between the 70's and 80's , a big part of family life went down the pan. I have my own beliefs of why, but that would only open up another can of worms.
I strongly believe in the welfare state, it's one of the reasons I supported Labour for so long, but somewhere along the line it became the 'nanny state', and that isn't fair on those that genuinely need state help, OR those that sit on their backsides and claim it like a right.

Unfortunately the Tories can't be trusted to set a fair balance for those in genuine need, and Labour can't be trusted to encourage those abusing the system to get off their backsides and get a job.

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by AndrewJB » Tue Feb 28, 2017 12:12 am

Colburn Claret - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34777348" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think food banks are a fashion thing. There have been huge cuts in benefits and not only to those out of work, but to disabled people and people on very low incomes. At the same time the wealth of the richest 1000 people in Britain pretty much doubled between 2010 and 2015 to half a trillion pounds: http://www.luxuo.com/the-lux-list/super ... -2016.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Certainly there are people living off the state who could do more for themselves (including some rich people), however if we don't look after people we will slip into barbarism. It's not a nanny state (which I equate more with the 'snooper's charter'), but a caring one. If we contrast the amount of tax revenue lost to avoidance such as trust funds (how much did the new Duke of Westminster pay when he inherited several billion?), then the cuts to social assistance are peanuts in comparison.

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Colburn_Claret » Tue Feb 28, 2017 5:58 am

There is nothing in that report to suggest that malnutrition is caused by lack of money. The point of my argument is people have enough money to eat, but choose to spend it elsewhere.
If you took the same pool of welfare money and stopped giving it to those who are fit to work, and gave that sum saved to those in genuine need, you could solve any problems and it wouldn't cost a penny extra.
AND. I'm not sticking up for the idle rich, Tories will always be Tories, and I'm certain there is a lot more money to be saved by closing tax loop holes.

The danger is we are gong back to a country where the parties are polar opposites and only stick up for their own. We need someone in that centre ground who can see that it is wrong for the rich to syphon off money, but honest enough to know that the welfare state needs returning to what it was created for. If you want one without the other, then you're just as blinkered and biased as everybody else appears to be.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Imploding Turtle » Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:24 am

Colburn_Claret wrote:There is nothing in that report to suggest that malnutrition is caused by lack of money. The point of my argument is people have enough money to eat, but choose to spend it elsewhere.
Says you.
If you took the same pool of welfare money and stopped giving it to those who are fit to work, and gave that sum saved to those in genuine need, you could solve any problems and it wouldn't cost a penny extra.
How do you accurately determine who is fit to work and who isn't without it costing any extra money? Who is going to make those assessments without getting paid to make them?

Or are you suggesting ending unemployment benefits altogether? If you're fit to work you get no money at all if you're not in work -- is that what you're suggesting?

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Colburn_Claret » Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:30 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Says you.



How do you accurately determine who is fit to work and who isn't without it costing any extra money? Who is going to make those assessments without getting paid to make them?

Or are you suggesting ending unemployment benefits altogether? If you're fit to work you get no money at all if you're not in work -- is that what you're suggesting?
For people who refuse work, or can't show any effort to gain or hold onto employment, YES. Why not?
There is a sub culture in our society, the 'shameless' few, who take the **** out of every tax payer, rich or poor. To resolve the problems in welfare/pensions, in schools, in the NHS takes money. It's a difficult task regardless, without pariahs sucking it dry through no other reason than they can't be arsed.
I presuming by your argument that you think they should get full benefits, even if the only thing they are really needing is a kick up the backside. Or maybe it's because you are one of them.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Imploding Turtle » Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:02 am

Colburn_Claret wrote:For people who refuse work, or can't show any effort to gain or hold onto employment, YES. Why not?
That wasn't what you said though. But even if it was, no one is saying people who are refusing to work should get benefits. In fact the system we have now is very efficient at making sure people who can't show that they're looking for work don't get money.

The problem is that that's because claimants have their benefits stopped at even the slightest hint of them not meeting their jobseekers' agreement it can cause real hardship for people who are already vulnerable to the slightest change in their income. You miss a single appointment, no matter what the reason, and you're immediately sanctioned. If you missed that appointment because you couldn't be arsed then sure, you deserve the sanction. But there are plenty of reasons for which someone might miss an appointment that aren't their fault and they immediately get sanctioned too, and since we're talking about poor people here it's pretty likely that they don't have an extre two weeks supply of food in their house, or electricity on their meter, or money in their account to pay for the most basic of necessities. I'm not exaggerating.

I presuming by your argument that you think they should get full benefits, even if the only thing they are really needing is a kick up the backside. Or maybe it's because you are one of them.
This kind of thing says a lot about you.

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Colburn_Claret » Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:27 am

If it means I want to stand on my own 2 feet and pay my way in life it does.
If you've read my posts you'll see I believe in the welfare state, it's a wonderful thing, but it's hard to meet its demands when people who don't require benefits claim it like a right. And maybe the dole whallahs in North Yorkshire are better off than in other parts of the country. Because around here they lack for nothing least of all food. As stated previously, they have tattoos, lap tops, gaming consoles after all they do need something to occupy all that spare time. They smoke they drink.

Now if your concern is for those who do need welfare, then I couldn't agree more. BUT it's easier to help those people if there aren't others abusing the system.
Which goes back to the original OP, and complaining about the rich ripping off the country. From my point of view it's pot calling kettle black.
You can't complain about the Tories screwing the poor, when some of those 'poor' are screwing us all.

There is a path out there that with enough common sense and courage, would allow the rich to pay their dues, without bleeding them dry, and provide for every person in need so that nobody need ever use a food bank. The only reason we aren't on it, is because there are greedy, selfish people on both sides of society.

AndrewJB
Posts: 3808
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:20 pm
Been Liked: 1159 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by AndrewJB » Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:52 pm

In a perfect world we'd have no abuse of either the tax or welfare system, however there comes a point at which the cost of administering a system becomes greater than the returns in decreased fraud. Considering the the government's own figures that showed fraud to make up 1.5% of the total expenditure - which was a lot less than moneys legally owed but not collected - then I'd say the system is rigorous in sidelining fraud. What it has done in the past seven years is stop a lot of benefits to people who do actually need them, not to mention simply reducing what a person or family can claim simply to save money. To put this into further perspective, it's estimated that the cost to the treasury of tax evasion and avoidance is greater than the entire welfare budget, so the obvious place to expend energy in combating fraud is the tax system. That the tories have chosen to look for savings within the benefits system underlines the fact they aren't caring.

For me what would improve things no end would be to introduce minimum income for everyone. This would be difficult to defraud, and would carry fewer admin costs.
These 2 users liked this post: Greenmile Colburn_Claret

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Imploding Turtle » Tue Feb 28, 2017 8:58 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:If it means I want to stand on my own 2 feet and pay my way in life it does.
You think that's what this says about you?
I presuming by your argument that you think they should get full benefits, even if the only thing they are really needing is a kick up the backside. Or maybe it's because you are one of them.
No, it says you're a pathetic piece of **** who thinks that anyone who disagrees with them does so because they have a vested interest in the topic. It also says that you're someone who reinforces the social stigma the unemployed feel by speculating on someone elses employment status as a means to undermine their argument. It is cretinous and should be beneath you, but it isn't.

That's what it says about you.

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Colburn_Claret » Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:21 am

AndrewJB wrote:In a perfect world we'd have no abuse of either the tax or welfare system, however there comes a point at which the cost of administering a system becomes greater than the returns in decreased fraud. Considering the the government's own figures that showed fraud to make up 1.5% of the total expenditure - which was a lot less than moneys legally owed but not collected - then I'd say the system is rigorous in sidelining fraud. What it has done in the past seven years is stop a lot of benefits to people who do actually need them, not to mention simply reducing what a person or family can claim simply to save money. To put this into further perspective, it's estimated that the cost to the treasury of tax evasion and avoidance is greater than the entire welfare budget, so the obvious place to expend energy in combating fraud is the tax system. That the tories have chosen to look for savings within the benefits system underlines the fact they aren't caring.

For me what would improve things no end would be to introduce minimum income for everyone. This would be difficult to defraud, and would carry fewer admin costs.
I've never understood how a man can pay taxes, AND claim benefits. It's a bureaucratic nonsense. The paperwork alone must waste millions.

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Colburn_Claret » Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:25 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:You think that's what this says about you?



No, it says you're a pathetic piece of **** who thinks that anyone who disagrees with them does so because they have a vested interest in the topic. It also says that you're someone who reinforces the social stigma the unemployed feel by speculating on someone elses employment status as a means to undermine their argument. It is cretinous and should be beneath you, but it isn't.

That's what it says about you.
It's taken you 24 hours to nit pick through my post. Ignore the majority of the points I made and come up with that.
You really are a sad git. It's no wonder so many people dislike you. I on the other hand, have great sympathy for someone so sad.

South West Claret.
Posts: 5642
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 pm
Been Liked: 766 times
Has Liked: 499 times
Location: Devon

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by South West Claret. » Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:28 am

Colburn_Claret wrote:I've never understood how a man can pay taxes, AND claim benefits. It's a bureaucratic nonsense. The paperwork alone must waste millions.
It's quite simple CC, all just part of the low wage rip off Britain culture that Thatcher instituted in the early 80s.
This user liked this post: Colburn_Claret

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Colburn_Claret » Wed Mar 01, 2017 8:57 am

It was rhetorical SWC, and I suffered through the wicked witch. 18 months on the dole, with 10,000 people chasing 5 vacancies. Being single then I got bugger all.
I would have crawled through dog **** to get a job, which is why those people who abuse the system today really **** me off.
This shameless generation I have always called Thatchers children.

JohnMcGreal
Posts: 2206
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:37 am
Been Liked: 1344 times
Has Liked: 438 times

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by JohnMcGreal » Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:08 am

Caring (for the rich) Conservatism

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... uth-divide" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Imploding Turtle » Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:37 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:It's taken you 24 hours to nit pick through my post. Ignore the majority of the points I made and come up with that.
You really are a sad git. It's no wonder so many people dislike you. I on the other hand, have great sympathy for someone so sad.
Err. No. I made that the very last part of a reply to your post because for the rest of my reply i was doing the exact opposite of ignoring what you posted. I addressed the points you're claiming I ignored. Try scrolling up/back to see your error.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Imploding Turtle » Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:39 pm

South West Claret. wrote:It's quite simple CC, all just part of the low wage rip off Britain culture that Thatcher instituted in the early 80s.
The tax-payer subsidise low wage-paying companies, but the stigma is on those claiming benefits instead of being on the multi-billion pound corporation who are essentially ripping all of us off both by not paying an adequate wage, and also by not paying taxes.

Bacchus
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:07 pm
Been Liked: 599 times
Has Liked: 171 times
Contact:

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Bacchus » Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:52 pm

The Tories find it impossible to resist cutting inheritance tax. They'd have done it back in 2010 if the Lib Dems hadn't blocked it. It's almost as though keeping their donors and rich supporters happy takes precedence over the general theme of their approach to the economy. Interesting that of the £3.5m of 'efficiency savings' identified in the article below, £1bn won't go towards reducing the deficit, but will be reinvested in priority areas. Given that the inheritance tax reduction is estimated to come at a cost of £1bn, can we safely assume that this is the "priority area" referred to? In other words, a priority of this government is to make further cuts to public services to fund a tax break for the very richest. Caring Conservatism in action.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... 6-per-cent

Bacchus
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:07 pm
Been Liked: 599 times
Has Liked: 171 times
Contact:

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Bacchus » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:04 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:The tax-payer subsidise low wage-paying companies, but the stigma is on those claiming benefits instead of being on the multi-billion pound corporation who are essentially ripping all of us off both by not paying an adequate wage, and also by not paying taxes.
This I agree with to an extent, but it's easy to just blame faceless corporations for everything. If they all paid more tax and paid their staff more then the cost of what they sell would have to increase, in many cases negating any pay increases. If everyone gets a pay rise and has more money then the cost of things such as housing / leisure activities will go up because they are based on demand rather than material cost. By and large businesses don't just make huge amounts of money and then bury it somewhere - they reinvest their profit in growing themselves which in turn creates employment and generates further taxes. That's a very simplistic view, of course - the point being that "businesses need to stump up more money" is regularly thrown out there as a potential solution to everything and it's really not that straight forward - and that's before even considering the global nature of many businesses meaning that if basing themselves here becomes too expensive they'll simply relocate.

Imploding Turtle
Posts: 19799
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:12 am
Been Liked: 5483 times
Has Liked: 2540 times
Location: Burnley, Lancs

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Imploding Turtle » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:07 pm

I'm not sying they should be blamed for everything, nor is that what i'm doing. But they should certainly be blamed for at least some of the country's problems since they're bleeding the public purse dry far more than a few lazy people on benefits. But if you try talking about this you get accused of communism, corporation hatred or something equally stupid.

Colburn_Claret
Posts: 8069
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 3060 times
Has Liked: 5023 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Colburn_Claret » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:41 pm

You're missing the whole point.
If someone had started a thread on the lazy bastards sucking up benefits, I would have replied with what about the Tory bastards ripping the country off with unpaid taxes and off shore accounts.
There is a balance to this and too many people can only view it from a myopic perspective.
I agree that the rich, don't need to pay more, but need to be stopped from using loopholes to avoid paying their due.
The whole idea of socialism is everyone sharing in the country's wealth. The problem I have with Corbyn and the dinosaurs running the Labour party of the 70's 'we'll squeeze them till they bleed', is that in order to share that wealth you first have to create it. Just as you can't share a cake until you bake it.
Far from helping us share in that wealth, Jeremy would have them share in our poverty. To be serious he has to deal with bankers, with big business men, with entrepreneurs. It's all above his head.
Just as the prison system doesn't encourage people to go straight. The welfare system doesn't encourage people to get out of it. Depending on your view on life, it isn't helping them, it's crippling them. Consigned to an existence rather than a life.

quoonbeatz
Posts: 4487
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:03 am
Been Liked: 2560 times
Has Liked: 757 times

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by quoonbeatz » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:50 pm

this
Colburn_Claret wrote:The danger is we are gong back to a country where the parties are polar opposites and only stick up for their own. We need someone in that centre ground who can see that it is wrong for the rich to syphon off money, but honest enough to know that the welfare state needs returning to what it was created for. If you want one without the other, then you're just as blinkered and biased as everybody else appears to be.
and this
Colburn_Claret wrote:There is a path out there that with enough common sense and courage, would allow the rich to pay their dues, without bleeding them dry, and provide for every person in need so that nobody need ever use a food bank. The only reason we aren't on it, is because there are greedy, selfish people on both sides of society.
are excellent points.

the slide needs arresting and quick. i've no idea who the person/party is to do it though.

certainly none of the present incumbents are anywhere near up to the task.
These 2 users liked this post: CrosspoolClarets Colburn_Claret

CrosspoolClarets
Posts: 5227
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:00 pm
Been Liked: 1623 times
Has Liked: 397 times

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by CrosspoolClarets » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:44 pm

I'm another one who thinks those are excellent points.

I tend to think many Tories are socially aware and fairly compassionate (Gove being one, IDS being another, though both may be misguided in some senses). I do think though many other Tories are like Yank politicians, in it for their chums and to preserve the establishment. So I think blanket criticism of the Tories is too harsh, but I can see some of it being valid.

Similarly, I think many Labour and Lib Dem MPs (and by extension, their voters) are of a lowish tax, business promoting and budget balancing mindset.

The ideal would be a middle ground that takes the best of all of them (even UKIP and the Greens) but without it being stuck in eternal grey compromise that never gets us anywhere. Nobody has ever done this in my lifetime though (Blair tried but was a disaster in hindsight) and I am sceptical anyone ever will.

South West Claret.
Posts: 5642
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 pm
Been Liked: 766 times
Has Liked: 499 times
Location: Devon

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by South West Claret. » Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:28 pm

The present Tory "chancer" waffling at present on R5 on this years 1st and last spring budget.

Sidney1st
Posts: 15478
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:40 pm
Been Liked: 3547 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: Oxfordshire

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Sidney1st » Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:43 pm

sharon.jpg
sharon.jpg (47.04 KiB) Viewed 2470 times

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 3771
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1828 times
Has Liked: 2613 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Wed Mar 08, 2017 1:53 pm

Sidney1st wrote:
sharon.jpg
She probably isn't lying --it just never gets as far as the table.
This user liked this post: Sidney1st

South West Claret.
Posts: 5642
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 pm
Been Liked: 766 times
Has Liked: 499 times
Location: Devon

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by South West Claret. » Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:23 pm

Who's that your mum.

Sidney1st
Posts: 15478
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:40 pm
Been Liked: 3547 times
Has Liked: 5594 times
Location: Oxfordshire

Re: Caring Conseravtiveism?

Post by Sidney1st » Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:28 pm

Nah, my mum is older then that and a lot skinnier.

Post Reply