Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[martin_p]

Not defending taking away workers rights, just pointing out that your assumption that this is the case doesn't bear out. They could have cut maternity leave long ago, but haven't.
I'm sure there will be tweaks, but this idea that the working classes are going to get **** on, is just another shot in the dark. When you have proof, come back and gives us your facts. I'll happily hold my hands up, but all this doom and gloom, doom and gloom, is just boring.

Proof? How about just the whole history of the UK!

[martin_p]

is this what you are predicting, and you are convinced the Gov. will do this, or is it a fear that they could if they so wished? Or are you convinced or in form of some knowledge that this is what they will do?

I don’t think anyone is predicting anything, just pointing out that the removal of the EU protection can only ever help diminish workers rights (and gives the government the option to remove the protection). Who knows how the government will react the the mess we’re in in the name of ‘getting Britain back on it’s feet’?

[Colburn_Claret]

Proof? How about just the whole history of the UK!

Oh well, if you're offering proof like that how could I argue

[martin_p]

Oh well, if you're offering proof like that how could I argue

Ok, let’s just go back and look at the last decade and ask ourselves who took the brunt of the austerity pain?

[Devils_Advocate]

is this what you are predicting, and you are convinced the Gov. will do this, or is it a fear that they could if they so wished? Or are you convinced or in form of some knowledge that this is what they will do?

If Johnson and his current govt last the full term then I believe that the Brexit they pursue and land on will cause significant damage to our economy.

I believe that one of the ways they will look to prop up businesses and the economy will be by cutting down regulation, standards and red tape and I believe it will be those at the bottom of the socio-ecomonic scale that will be hit hardest (it always is with the Tory's).

Part of the regulations and red tape I believe they will cut will be around workers rights. Which ones and exactly to what extent I do not know but I predict it will be the rights of those in the lowest paid employment who bare the brunt of the changes

[KateR]

DA/Marin,
just asking and answers as I hoped but not exactly as I would have thought, I don't disagree it could happen, I 100% regarding the poorest, that's always the issue and they would see the largest change if it were to happen.

I personally hope this will not be the case and it will be like many other predictions we had that never materialized, for me it is not a point anyone can actually argue, it's just a possibility but then again it's possible this won't happen so people should not be using it as any kind of proof just yet.

[martin_p]

DA/Marin,
just asking and answers as I hoped but not exactly as I would have thought, I don't disagree it could happen, I 100% regarding the poorest, that's always the issue and they would see the largest change if it were to happen.

I personally hope this will not be the case and it will be like many other predictions we had that never materialized, for me it is not a point anyone can actually argue, it's just a possibility but then again it's possible this won't happen so people should not be using it as any kind of proof just yet.

But what you can’t argue against is that being out of the EU gives the government much more scope for reducing workers rights.

[Devils_Advocate]

DA/Marin,
just asking and answers as I hoped but not exactly as I would have thought, I don't disagree it could happen, I 100% regarding the poorest, that's always the issue and they would see the largest change if it were to happen.

I personally hope this will not be the case and it will be like many other predictions we had that never materialized, for me it is not a point anyone can actually argue, it's just a possibility but then again it's possible this won't happen so people should not be using it as any kind of proof just yet.

I wasn't trying to suggest anything was going to happen but just countering a very simplistic and basic argument I've seen where the premise implied is either employees wont have rights or they will.

I dont think for a second a govt would have an honest and open policy to reduce workers rights for all or even most but that in the current political climate and with our current govt then it is not hard to imagine them sneaking through some backdoor laws supported by an army of apologists who do not look beyond newspaper headlines for real facts and evidence

I expanded on that basic argument in my last post to answer your question which I thought was a fair and sincere question

[KateR]

But what you can’t argue against is that being out of the EU gives the government much more scope for reducing workers rights.

totally agree and on the other hand you can't argue that they might not or even that, they might move to improve some workers rights. Therefore there is little benefit to continue to use it as some form platform of why things will be worse in 2021.

[KateR]

I wasn't trying to suggest anything was going to happen but just countering a very simplistic and basic argument I've seen where the premise implied is either employees wont have rights or they will.

I dont think for a second a govt would have an honest and open policy to reduce workers rights for all or even most but that in the current political climate and with our current govt then it is not hard to imagine them sneaking through some backdoor laws supported by an army of apologists who do not look beyond newspaper headlines for real facts and evidence

I expanded on that basic argument in my last post to answer your question which I thought was a fair and sincere question

it was definitely a sincere question, it just seem a bit of a moot point to argue around, we all agree it could happen, I don't believe any single poster has made any claims of support or argument regarding supporting the action if the Gov. were to do this. I for one would never support that kind of action plus I hope they strengthen and even improve some areas of protection.

[aggi]

Not defending taking away workers rights, just pointing out that your assumption that this is the case doesn't bear out. They could have cut maternity leave long ago, but haven't.
I'm sure there will be tweaks, but this idea that the working classes are going to get **** on, is just another shot in the dark. When you have proof, come back and gives us your facts. I'll happily hold my hands up, but all this doom and gloom, doom and gloom, is just boring.

A number of the current cabinet wrote a book suggesting that workers were too protected, elements of minimum wages should be abolished, people needed to work harder, etc

[KateR]

A number of the current cabinet wrote a book suggesting that workers were too protected, elements of minimum wages should be abolished, people needed to work harder, etc

People can have these thoughts and write about it but does not necessarily mean any law will be changed but I take your point it is more worrying that members or member of the cabinet would publish a book about it.

However, I would also say while I am not looking or condoning any change I myself laughed when my eldest son was given maternity, we also asked, but are you going to take it, he did.

This was very foreign to me, but after watching the family and with the new born I thought, well I know I wish that could have happened when I was home with children especially when toddlers were running around the home at the same time. A step in the right direction and should be protected.

[Devils_Advocate]

it was definitely a sincere question, it just seem a bit of a moot point to argue around, we all agree it could happen, I don't believe any single poster has made any claims of support or argument regarding supporting the action if the Gov. were to do this. I for one would never support that kind of action plus I hope they strengthen and even improve some areas of protection.

Trouble is when you look at some of the things the govt members have written and said over the years about workers and especially those in low paid jobs it doesn't fill you with a lot of confidence.

Look at the way they have handled things like Windrush and the additional immigrant NHS payments they were trying to implement at the very time immigrant care workers were risking their lives to protect and those are just a couple of very recent things.

Also there was Johnson in the House of Commons liaison committee last month where he didn't even understand what no recourse to public funds meant never mind the misery his policy on it was having and Priti Patel in the select committee where she showed absolute contempt for the Home Affairs select committee she spoke at and was absolutely taken apart

You can look up things like the Britannia Unchained book of which Raab, Patel and Truss were involved in and Johnsons own comments on the poor and working class and really get a picture of what these people think about a section of the country they have no understanding of

What about Universal credit and the how the poor and disabled have been treated and in some cases driven to suicide because of the complete lack of passion this govt has

Im sorry but based on what I see, read, hear and witness about these people in govt I have no hope that they are going to invest money, time and effort to increase protections for the working class. Whether they roll back on protections once we are out of the EU is something we will wait and see but I know which way all the evidence points in my opinion and it isn't good news for those at the bottom

[KateR]

Trouble is when you look at some of the things the govt members have written and said over the years about workers and especially those in low paid jobs it doesn't fill you with a lot of confidence.

Look at the way they have handled things like Windrush and the additional immigrant NHS payments they were trying to implement at the very time immigrant care workers were risking their lives to protect and those are just a couple of very recent things.

Also there was Johnson in the House of Commons liaison committee last month where he didn't even understand what no recourse to public funds meant never mind the misery his policy on it was having and Priti Patel in the select committee where she showed absolute contempt for the Home Affairs select committee she spoke at and was absolutely taken apart

You can look up things like the Britannia Unchained book of which Raab, Patel and Truss were involved in and Johnsons own comments on the poor and working class and really get a picture of what these people think about a section of the country they have no understanding of

What about Universal credit and the how the poor and disabled have been treated and in some cases driven to suicide because of the complete lack of passion this govt has

Im sorry but based on what I see, read, hear and witness about these people in govt I have no hope that they are going to invest money, time and effort to increase protections for the working class. Whether they roll back on protections once we are out of the EU is something we will wait and see but I know which way all the evidence points in my opinion and it isn't good news for those at the bottom

understood and again I can understand everything you say plus agree with it and am not being dismissive or ignorant to the potential issue, I am in no way shape or form saying don't be worried. It should be something we all worry about and I sincerely hope that the Gov. does nothing in this regard to make anyone suffer more and that we have competent people on both sides of the political divide who would fight tooth and nail to ensure it does not happen and be passed in to law.

Again, not seeing anyone actually disagree with your fears, we are in a wait and see period but I don't think the fears are something that says we should have an extension or accept the EU demands on many points.

[Devils_Advocate]

understood and again I can understand everything you say plus agree with it and am not being dismissive or ignorant to the potential issue, I am in no way shape or form saying don't be worried. It should be something we all worry about and I sincerely hope that the Gov. does nothing in this regard to make anyone suffer more and that we have competent people on both sides of the political divide who would fight tooth and nail to ensure it does not happen and be passed in to law.

Again, not seeing anyone actually disagree with your fears, we are in a wait and see period but I don't think the fears are something that says we should have an extension or accept the EU demands on many points.

I've not had a problem with anything you've said in this exchange and been happy to share my views as part of it. I saw Colburn as being very dismissive of the idea the govt would reduce workers rights 'mock scare tactics' and dsr using the argument that a political party would have to win an election based on abolishing workers rights for it to actually happen.

Those were the two people I saw as not only disagreeing with my fears (which is a valid position) but using rubbish arguments to support their view and diminish mine (hence why i have responded like I have)

Anyhow after all the race related stuff on here ver the last couple of weeks its been nice to have a friendly and intelligent discussion for a change but I'll leave it there as I've had my say (and a bit more to boot)

[martin_p]

Six weeks to get a trade deal. It’s not going to happen is it!

[dsr]

Proof? How about just the whole history of the UK!

1855 (my great-grandfather said, passed on via my father) that conditions in the 1860's were 6 days a week work, 12 hours working, and holidays on Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

I reckon that since 1801 conditions for the workers have improved rather than got worse.

[KateR]

I don't think anyone has ever said there will be a trade deal in 6 weeks, the question is can a trade deal in principle be agreed within 6 weeks and that the major stumbling blocks are removed in order to flesh out the full trade deal. The answer to that is yes it can happen.

[dsr]

What’s worthless about not being able to abolish maternity leave?

We’ve got four more years of this government. The whole world has changed since they were elected. If you think they’re going to worry about whether all the legislation they bring forward was in their manifesto then you’re mistaken (not that I think any government should be totally shackled to their manifesto by the way).

1. It is worthless because being in the EU doesn't stop the government abolishing maternity leave. A government that would abolish maternity leave would also be willing to leave the EU.

2. It is also worthless in the way that a fence round your garden to keep out elephants is worthless. Technically if a rogue elephant wanted to get in your garden a fence would be useful; but the chances of it happening are so remote as to make the fence, practically, useless.

[dsr]

I don't think anyone has ever said there will be a trade deal in 6 weeks, the question is can a trade deal in principle be agreed within 6 weeks and that the major stumbling blocks are removed in order to flesh out the full trade deal. The answer to that is yes it can happen.

I wouldn't hold your breath. The EU negotiatiors won't agree a trade deal if they don't get the pound of flesh that comes with it.

[martin_p]

1. It is worthless because being in the EU doesn't stop the government abolishing maternity leave.

Yes it does.

[KateR]

I wouldn't hold your breath. The EU negotiatiors won't agree a trade deal if they don't get the pound of flesh that comes with it.

definitely not holding my breath in anything to do with UK/EU discussions, I know it will happen and at that time we will all be told what it is, it's the beauty of negotiations, both sides always start with something the other wont agree to, usually both sides claim a great deal for both at the end. Two ends of the spectrum, a pound of flesh and nothing at all, usually ends up with a bone or two for both sides, so I remain optimistic as of now but understand I can be disappointed by either side.

[dsr]

Yes it does.

Only if you think that a country within the EU is tied there for life and can't get out.

[claretandy]

You know what you can do to a Government voted in by millions of working class voters who abolish worker rights ?

Vote them out !

[KateR]

Certain parties and leaders have been seen to commit political suicide, I don't think this one will given the results of the election in terms of workers rights, but then again it is a hope.

[Devils_Advocate]

Worrying article and poll for Johnson and Tory supporters from the Spectator

"A poll given to The Spectator today by the Best for Britain think tank shows the gap between ‘Red Wall’ voters and the Tory elite in London is dizzyingly wide.

It reports overwhelming opposition to a no-deal Brexit in the seats that put Johnson in Downing Street. As striking is the widespread concern about living standards and equally valid worries about the Conservatives tying Britain to the Trump administration.

Reality is starting to bite. Leave voters in 2016 and Conservative voters in 2019 believed the promises that cutting a deal would be easy and that German car manufacturers would save Britain. I have no idea whether Johnson, Gove, Cummings and the rest of the gang believed their words when they uttered them, and genuinely thought that sensible warnings were ‘Project Fear’. But everyone who has paid attention can see that when their promises turned out to be false, and when the German car makers did not arrive like the cavalry in VW Polos, they doubled down and embraced the chaos of no-deal like student Trots playing with revolution."

[martin_p]

Only if you think that a country within the EU is tied there for life and can't get out.

That’s an utterly bizarre argument. EU protections only apply when we’re part of the EU so if we leave we don’t have the protections so they don’t really protect us! Well yes, but it’s a bit like saying there’s no point in getting car insurance because it only protects you as long as you have it!

[Colburn_Claret]

Ok, let’s just go back and look at the last decade and ask ourselves who took the brunt of the austerity pain?

No you need to compare 'austerity' with the 90s, the 70s, the 50s. You haven't lived if you think life is anywhere near as harsh as it used to be.
Call it austerity, call it anything you like, the poor will always bear the brunt of any era. That's not necessarily the rich picking on the downtrodden poor, it's just the natural state of affairs. The poor will always have the least, the poor will always need more.
That said comparing the poor of the last decade, with the poor of previous generations, and they are living the life of Riley.
Working class man has never been as well off. The 'poor' have never been as well off either.
I'm not arguing against doing more for the poor. There have always been people who slip through the cracks, but that had always been the case as well. In fact there are probably fewer falling through the cracks now than historically.

I've asked the question many times, and no-one ever answers, because they can't. When in history has Working Class Man ever been better off, or even when has the poor ever been better catered for. At what point of time would the poor like to go back to, where they had it better.

[Colburn_Claret]

A number of the current cabinet wrote a book suggesting that workers were too protected, elements of minimum wages should be abolished, people needed to work harder, etc

I believe you.
It was reported today that Labour had a plan to merge the South East of England and North West of France and create a new region, with its own flag.
The amount of paperwork written of pilitical plans that never come to the light of day, could probably replenish the Brazilian rainforest.
It's meaningless, unless they actually do it. If they do I'll hold my hand up, until then its doom and gloom, doom and gloom.

[martin_p]

No you need to compare 'austerity' with the 90s, the 70s, the 50s. You haven't lived if you think life is anywhere near as harsh as it used to be.
Call it austerity, call it anything you like, the poor will always bear the brunt of any era. That's not necessarily the rich picking on the downtrodden poor, it's just the natural state of affairs. The poor will always have the least, the poor will always need more.

The last ten years has seen huge cuts to public services, particularly the benefits that many of the less well off depend on. Where was the comparable hit for the incomes of the well off?

[Colburn_Claret]

The last ten years has seen huge cuts to public services, particularly the benefits that many of the less well off depend on. Where was the comparable hit for the incomes of the well off?

Answer the question, what year do they want to go back to, where they had it better.

[martin_p]

Answer the question, what year do they want to go back to, where they had it better.

2007

[dsr]

That’s an utterly bizarre argument. EU protections only apply when we’re part of the EU so if we leave we don’t have the protections so they don’t really protect us! Well yes, but it’s a bit like saying there’s no point in getting car insurance because it only protects you as long as you have it!

It's not like that at all.

One more go. What I am saying is that the EU provides no protection for maternity leave because a government that wants to abolish maternity leave could resign from the EU.

[Erasmus]

Whether or not the poorest people have ever had it so good is irrelevant, Colburn. If it is the case that we are as a nation better off than ever before then that just makes it more disgraceful that a considerable section of our population are forced to rely on food banks and that children are still going hungry.

The fact is that when the 2008 financial crisis hit the national finances, the government took a decision to the effect that the poorest people in society would have to shoulder the burden through cuts to the public services they are dependent upon. This was indefensible. It could have been offset to a considerable extent by tax increases that would have affected the richer sections of society, but the government made the choice to ensure that those sections of society would not feel the impact.

The policy of depriving people of Universal Credit for six weeks meant that many, many people suffered hunger and poverty as a result of direct government policy. This also was heartless, cruel and indefensible.

I don't know whether or not the poorest people have ever had it so good, but I do know that millions of people in this country, with all its wealth, suffer from hunger and deprivation. Surely you can't defend the choices the government made that inflicted such poverty on the most vulnerable people.

[martin_p]

It's not like that at all.

One more go. What I am saying is that the EU provides no protection for maternity leave because a government that wants to abolish maternity leave could resign from the EU.

Good job we haven’t resigned from the EU then! ........ oh!

[dsr]

Good job we haven’t resigned from the EU then! ........ oh!

Good to see there is no limit to the number of ways you can (presumably deliberately) misunderstand.

[martin_p]

Good to see there is no limit to the number of ways you can (presumably deliberately) misunderstand.

You see I did deliberately understand you there! You need to try having a sense of humour every now and again, you might even enjoy it!

[Colburn_Claret]

Whether or not the poorest people have ever had it so good is irrelevant, Colburn. If it is the case that we are as a nation better off than ever before then that just makes it more disgraceful that a considerable section of our population are forced to rely on food banks and that children are still going hungry.

The fact is that when the 2008 financial crisis hit the national finances, the government took a decision to the effect that the poorest people in society would have to shoulder the burden through cuts to the public services they are dependent upon. This was indefensible. It could have been offset to a considerable extent by tax increases that would have affected the richer sections of society, but the government made the choice to ensure that those sections of society would not feel the impact.

The policy of depriving people of Universal Credit for six weeks meant that many, many people suffered hunger and poverty as a result of direct government policy. This also was heartless, cruel and indefensible.

I don't know whether or not the poorest people have ever had it so good, but I do know that millions of people in this country, with all its wealth, suffer from hunger and deprivation. Surely you can't defend the choices the government made that inflicted such poverty on the most vulnerable people.

I dont defend them, I just try and see the bigger picture and see both sides. Martin and Andrew are so myopic they live in total darkness. Cutting universal credit, in the manner they did, was wrong, I agree. BUT, there are not millions of people in this country living in deprivation and suffering from hunger. If there are any at all, then they need to have a good look in the mirror. Most peoples lives are laid out by their life choices, you look into most poor peoples history and you will find that they are in that situation from mistakes they made, not mistakes the government made. That doesn't mean they aren't worthy of assistance, of course they are, but trying to beat any government of today, with a stick, for mistakes they've made themselves isnt fair either.
The use of food banks, as an indication of poverty, is fraught with problems. Posters on this board, who've worked in food banks, say they are open to abuse all the time. People who have no real need for them, using them to save cash for other things.
As for poverty, if you took people who know real poverty like from Ethiopia or Yemen, and showed them an impoverished Brit, they would consider it a life of luxury. It's all relevant.

[martin_p]

I dont defend them, I just try and see the bigger picture and see both sides. Martin and Andrew are so myopic they live in total darkness. Cutting universal credit, in the manner they did, was wrong, I agree. BUT, there are not millions of people in this country living in deprivation and suffering from hunger. If there are any at all, then they need to have a good look in the mirror. Most peoples lives are laid out by their life choices, you look into most poor peoples history and you will find that they are in that situation from mistakes they made, not mistakes the government made. That doesn't mean they aren't worthy of assistance, of course they are, but trying to beat any government of today, with a stick, for mistakes they've made themselves isnt fair either.
The use of food banks, as an indication of poverty, is fraught with problems. Posters on this board, who've worked in food banks, say they are open to abuse all the time. People who have no real need for them, using them to save cash for other things.
As for poverty, if you took people who know real poverty like from Ethiopia or Yemen, and showed them an impoverished Brit, they would consider it a life of luxury. It's all relevant.

If only these people had chosen to be born into well off families rather than poor families their lives would be better. Serves them right!

[Greenmile]

I dont defend them, I just try and see the bigger picture and see both sides. Martin and Andrew are so myopic they live in total darkness. Cutting universal credit, in the manner they did, was wrong, I agree. BUT, there are not millions of people in this country living in deprivation and suffering from hunger. If there are any at all, then they need to have a good look in the mirror. Most peoples lives are laid out by their life choices, you look into most poor peoples history and you will find that they are in that situation from mistakes they made, not mistakes the government made. That doesn't mean they aren't worthy of assistance, of course they are, but trying to beat any government of today, with a stick, for mistakes they've made themselves isnt fair either.
The use of food banks, as an indication of poverty, is fraught with problems. Posters on this board, who've worked in food banks, say they are open to abuse all the time. People who have no real need for them, using them to save cash for other things.
As for poverty, if you took people who know real poverty like from Ethiopia or Yemen, and showed them an impoverished Brit, they would consider it a life of luxury. It's all relevant.

The 4 million children referred to in the following link don’t exist, but if they did exist they should be taking a long hard look in the mirror, examine their life choices and realise they were born into poverty due to mistakes they have made (presumably in a former life - I didn’t know Colburn was a Buddhist; best not tell Pstotto) then count their lucky stars they weren’t born in Ethiopia or the 1800s.

https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.u ... tackle-it/

There is no point trying to do anything for these children because a) they don’t exist, b) it’s their own fault they’re poor and c) some people in Africa, or the past, have it worse

[Colburn_Claret]

If only these people had chosen to be born into well off families rather than poor families their lives would be better. Serves them right!

Wake up Martin, I know and grew up with loads of kids that grew up in poor families. They worked themselves out of it, in a time when the benefit system was far, far worse than today. The point is if these kids are born into poor families, what have the parents done about it. Theres no law against getting a job. They don't have to spend their benefits on drugs, fags or booze. I grew up on a housing estate, I live right next to one. It has all the social problems you find on other housing estates around the country. Drugs, booze, single parents, fathers who prefer to play on the x box all night and sleep all day, rather than work or look after the kids. None of them are starving none of them. None of them are living in poverty, for the most part they are happy as pigs in ****. Just as I know racism exists, even if I don't personally see it, I'm sure that there are families out there who struggle at times. But millions of them, for long periods, its rubbish. If there are then you have to question what they are doing or not doing, rather than the government. Even on benefits, you have to take responsibility for your choices. I think most of all your blaming the government for bad parenting, and its a cycle that will be repeated generation after generation, until somebody has the courage to put these parents on the spot.

[martin_p]

Wake up Martin, I know and grew up with loads of kids that grew up in poor families. They worked themselves out of it, in a time when the benefit system was far, far worse than today. The point is if these kids are born into poor families, what have the parents done about it. Theres no law against getting a job. They don't have to spend their benefits on drugs, fags or booze. I grew up on a housing estate, I live right next to one. It has all the social problems you find on other housing estates around the country. Drugs, booze, single parents, fathers who prefer to play on the x box all night and sleep all day, rather than work or look after the kids. None of them are starving none of them. None of them are living in poverty, for the most part they are happy as pigs in ****. Just as I know racism exists, even if I don't personally see it, I'm sure that there are families out there who struggle at times. But millions of them, for long periods, its rubbish. If there are then you have to question what they are doing or not doing, rather than the government. Even on benefits, you have to take responsibility for your choices. I think most of all your blaming the government for bad parenting, and its a cycle that will be repeated generation after generation, until somebody has the courage to put these parents on the spot.

No, I’m not blaming the government for bad parenting. It inevitably exists and where is does it’s difficult for the children to break out of the cycle and they end up following their parents. That’s where society, in the form of government, should step in to help out.

[Colburn_Claret]

The 4 million children referred to in the following link don’t exist, but if they did exist they should be taking a long hard look in the mirror, examine their life choices and realise they were born into poverty due to mistakes they have made (presumably in a former life - I didn’t know Colburn was a Buddhist; best not tell Pstotto) then count their lucky stars they weren’t born in Ethiopia or the 1800s.

https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.u ... tackle-it/

There is no point trying to do anything for these children because a) they don’t exist, b) it’s their own fault they’re poor and c) some people in Africa, or the past, have it worse

it sounds terrible , until you understand how they measure poverty in this country, and then it becomes a load of ********. Poverty should be based on what you have . Full stop. Not based on a percentage of what the wealthiest or even an average income is.
Under this stupid system you could give the top 10% of earners in this country, a 10% pay cut, and suddenly millions of people no longer live in poverty. Bread and milk still cost the same, you haven't given them a single penny more, but they are no longer living in poverty.
Its ********.

[Greenmile]

it sounds terrible , until you understand how they measure poverty in this country, and then it becomes a load of ********. Poverty should be based on what you have . Full stop. Not based on a percentage of what the wealthiest or even an average income is.
Under this stupid system you could give the top 10% of earners in this country, a 10% pay cut, and suddenly millions of people no longer live in poverty. Bread and milk still cost the same, you haven't given them a single penny more, but they are no longer living in poverty.
Its ********.

So - a bit like racism - you choose to believe that poverty doesn’t exist in this country despite the evidence to the contrary, because you don’t want it to. That’s the fallacy of adverse consequences again.

That approach might make you feel better about yourself for being a Tory with a complete lack of empathy for the poor, but it won’t give you an accurate view on the state of the country.

[martin_p]

it sounds terrible , until you understand how they measure poverty in this country, and then it becomes a load of ********. Poverty should be based on what you have . Full stop. Not based on a percentage of what the wealthiest or even an average income is.
Under this stupid system you could give the top 10% of earners in this country, a 10% pay cut, and suddenly millions of people no longer live in poverty. Bread and milk still cost the same, you haven't given them a single penny more, but they are no longer living in poverty.
Its ********.

So maybe you should try understanding how they measure poverty. They used median income (the government do it by household) which means giving the top 10% a 10% pay cut would make no difference at all to poverty numbers.

[AndrewJB]

It's not like that at all.

One more go. What I am saying is that the EU provides no protection for maternity leave because a government that wants to abolish maternity leave could resign from the EU.

A person wanting to lose weight could cut off their own legs.

[Erasmus]

I find it hard to agree with you, Colburn, as you seem to be suggesting that poverty, hunger and real life deprivation are a minor problem in Britain and that in most cases where it does exist it is the fault of those people themselves.

But it is simply not true. Universal credit left people with nothing to buy food with for six weeks. The physically disabled, those with chronic illnesses, people with low income often on zero hours contracts, women with children who have been abused or abandoned by partners, the elderly needing social care have all suffered as a direct result of the government response to the financial crisis of 2008. The policy of cutting the public services on which such people depend rather than raising taxes caused a huge amount of suffering, deprivation and hunger. It is indefensible.

And on food banks, despite your dubious anecdotal evidence, you are quite wrong. A proper, scientific study of food bank use showed that 93% of users did so because of real need. I thought that had put that argument to rest. Over a million people have had to use food banks to avoid going hungry and that is a national disgrace. The discredited argument that people use food banks when they don't need to was never seriously believed, it was just bandied about by people who wanted to deflect away from the real issue of poverty in Britain and government policies that caused poverty.

As for your point about Ethiopia etc, you probably wish you hadn't posted that now. It seems to suggest that we needn't be too bothered about poverty until people start to die from starvation.

[Colburn_Claret]

No, I’m not blaming the government for bad parenting. It inevitably exists and where is does it’s difficult for the children to break out of the cycle and they end up following their parents. That’s where society, in the form of government, should step in to help out.

How, because giving them more money achieves nothing. Offering them courses achieves nothing. Offering them employment achieves nothing. I don't buy into its the governments job to re educate these people, and unless they actually buy into any sort of training, it's pointless.

[martin_p]

How, because giving them more money achieves nothing. Offering them courses achieves nothing. Offering them employment achieves nothing. I don't buy into its the governments job to re educate these people, and unless they actually buy into any sort of training, it's pointless.

So a sub class we should abandon as a country is what you’re saying.

[AndrewJB]

I dont defend them, I just try and see the bigger picture and see both sides. Martin and Andrew are so myopic they live in total darkness. Cutting universal credit, in the manner they did, was wrong, I agree. BUT, there are not millions of people in this country living in deprivation and suffering from hunger. If there are any at all, then they need to have a good look in the mirror. Most peoples lives are laid out by their life choices, you look into most poor peoples history and you will find that they are in that situation from mistakes they made, not mistakes the government made. That doesn't mean they aren't worthy of assistance, of course they are, but trying to beat any government of today, with a stick, for mistakes they've made themselves isnt fair either.
The use of food banks, as an indication of poverty, is fraught with problems. Posters on this board, who've worked in food banks, say they are open to abuse all the time. People who have no real need for them, using them to save cash for other things.
As for poverty, if you took people who know real poverty like from Ethiopia or Yemen, and showed them an impoverished Brit, they would consider it a life of luxury. It's all relevant.

There are life choices, and there are the circumstances you are in.

You cannot get an appointment at a food bank unless you have been referred by a qualified person.

As has been shown, there are millions of people living in poverty.

Where do you get your information from, if you question these basic facts? Whatever you’re reading to inform yourself is misinforming you.