The Politics Thread

[Guest TPAFKATS]

I bet Bellside thinks his posts are Sensible

[salmonbuddie]

The numbers are irrelevant, it is disgraceful in our society that people are put in a situation where foodbanks are needed in the first place. Even those poo-pooing recognise that there are occasions where it is necessity through ill luck that has caused people to seek their assistance. One of those is one too many in this day and age.

[Swiss_Saint]

It is disgraceful to need them however your last sentence one of those occasions are one too many while correct in principle in reality no society can legislate or provide for every occasion and people need to look after themselves too. In too many cases in this country people live for the now and the future be damned that is why there is a proliferation of borrowing on cards/loans etc so when something then happens their only recourse is bankruptcy/repossession/foodbanks and the state to pickup the pieces and be blamed for the failure.

Under the last labour govmt we went too far towards nanny state where it became more beneficial to be unemployed for some, the danger we face is to bring down the debt the Tories pushing things too far the opposite way as many need and deserve the safety net the state provides.

[Bellside Bud]

On 31/08/2017 at 5:53 PM, salmonbuddie said:

 

Millions of them in the UK. And yes, they do need foodbanks, what's the alternative?

 

 

2 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

The numbers are irrelevant, it is disgraceful in our society that people are put in a situation where foodbanks are needed in the first place. Even those poo-pooing recognise that there are occasions where it is necessity through ill luck that has caused people to seek their assistance. One of those is one too many in this day and age.

I don't believe the numbers are irrelevant and I don't believe you do either. After all it was your sensationalist claim that "millions" of people in the UK were using food banks that brought me to post on this subject. 

The truth is that fewer than 0.5% of the UK population will use food banks in a year and that the majority of those who use food banks will only do so on two, three or four occasions throughout that year. Of course it's regrettable that anyone has to use a food bank, but the statistics show that it's hardly at epidemic levels showing wide scale poverty, and it certainly isn't indicative of a failed capitalist system that needs destroyed  as some left wingers like to claim. Indeed more people in Hong Kong use food banks today than in the whole of the UK. 

If anything the Trussell Trust statistics appear to show that what the UK Government should look to do is to speed up the claims process for benefits. Something that would no doubt be easier if the level of benefit fraud in the UK wasn't costing the country an estimated £3.3Bn per annum.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Bellside Bud

[salmonbuddie]

It is disgraceful to need them however your last sentence one of those occasions are one too many while correct in principle in reality no society can legislate or provide for every occasion and people need to look after themselves too.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire towards it, though.

[DougJamie]

11 minutes ago, Swiss_Saint said:

It is disgraceful to need them however your last sentence one of those occasions are one too many while correct in principle in reality no society can legislate or provide for every occasion and people need to look after themselves too. In too many cases in this country people live for the now and the future be damned that is why there is a proliferation of borrowing on cards/loans etc so when something then happens their only recourse is bankruptcy/repossession/foodbanks and the state to pickup the pieces and be blamed for the failure.

Under the last labour govmt we went too far towards nanny state where it became more beneficial to be unemployed for some, the danger we face is to bring down the debt the Tories pushing things too far the opposite way as many need and deserve the safety net the state provides.

I have to question why Foodbanks are disgraceful. This isn't new, its just being addressed and dramatized by the Rags . Sure  we have sad cases, but we also still have leeches , and the one thing the Tories have done is stop scroungers to a degree................ There will always be genuine hardship but far less than our parents and grandparents endured  ....

This isn't about Politics its about a needy generation, no doubt emailing and tweeting their hardships .....................  

 

[salmonbuddie]

I don't believe the numbers are irrelevant and I don't believe you do either. After all it was your sensationalist claim that "millions" of people in the UK were using food banks that brought me to post on this subject. 

Two things; firstly, it wasn't my claim, all I did was look at the evidence which points towards millions of people using foodbanks; secondly, the numbers are irrelevant, see my last post to the Swiss chappie. Let's aspire to not needing them. Will we succeed? Unlikely. Can we try? Yes.

[Swiss_Saint]

1 hour ago, DougJamie said:

I have to question why Foodbanks are disgraceful.

I did not say food banks are disgraceful, they are a wonderful thing staffed and provided by wonderful people who take their time and money to provide.

I do think that it is disgraceful to need them in a civilised society either through no fault of your own or in some cases through not taking responsibility and planning for a rainy day (or monsoon).

[DougJamie]

A civilised society needs Foodbanks  . Throw in the NHS ,  care for the elderly, free school dinners for kids whilst we are it.......

Its the scroungers that abuse this , they are the issue........................... in some cases, making sure they can pay for their fags and SKY TV..................

[Bellside Bud]

2 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

 

Two things; firstly, it wasn't my claim, all I did was look at the evidence which points towards millions of people using foodbanks; secondly, the numbers are irrelevant, see my last post to the Swiss chappie. Let's aspire to not needing them. Will we succeed? Unlikely. Can we try? Yes.

 

What evidence points towards "millions of people using food banks"? I've shown you the evidence that it's not anywhere near "millions". That evidence has come from the Trussell Trust and their published statistics up to March 2017. Where is your evidence of "millions of users"? 

I'm perplexed by your second point. Why would you aspire to stop those who can afford to do so donating food to those who may need some short term help while going through a difficult period in their life? Surely we should be encouraging more community support, and more generosity of spirit, not less? We had fewer food banks around during periods of real shortages - during rationing in the war, through periods of high unemployment in the 30's and the 80's and even through the miners strike. The proliferation and expansion in the number of food banks that we have in the UK is not an expression of increased desperation and deprivation, rather it shows an increased awareness and generosity of those who would donate. 

I'd rather we aspired to look after the people around us without having to run it through the wasteful filter of government. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Definitely Sensible- esque

 

 

[salmonbuddie]

What evidence points towards "millions of people using food banks"? I've shown you the evidence that it's not anywhere near "millions". That evidence has come from the Trussell Trust and their published statistics up to March 2017. Where is your evidence of "millions of users"? 
I'm perplexed by your second point. Why would you aspire to stop those who can afford to do so donating food to those who may need some short term help while going through a difficult period in their life? Surely we should be encouraging more community support, and more generosity of spirit, not less? We had fewer food banks around during periods of real shortages - during rationing in the war, through periods of high unemployment in the 30's and the 80's and even through the miners strike. The proliferation and expansion in the number of food banks that we have in the UK is not an expression of increased desperation and deprivation, rather it shows an increased awareness and generosity of those who would donate. 
I'd rather we aspired to look after the people around us without having to run it through the wasteful filter of government. 

First part, check back, I explained it then, I'm not doing so again. Numbers are irrelevant.

Second part, just f**k off, that's not what I'm saying and you know it.

[faraway saint]

4 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said:

First part, check back, I explained it then, I'm not doing so again. Numbers are irrelevant.

Second part, just f**k off, that's not what I'm saying and you know it.

The "easily upset" crew will be after you.....................or is it just certain people?

[DougJamie]

What happens when you don't lock ur PC and there is a McGraw in the building

Edited September 4, 2017 by DougJamie

[salmonbuddie]

The "easily upset" crew will be after you.....................or is it just certain people? [emoji38]

 

I'm staying out of it, I'm old enough now that I'm not bothered what other people think of me or call me.

 

 

[faraway saint]

32 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said:

 

I'm staying out of it, I'm old enough now that I'm not bothered what other people think of me or call me.

 

 

Too late, reported.

[salmonbuddie]

Good!

[faraway saint]

8 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said:

Good!

Join the club.

[stlucifer]

18 hours ago, Bellside Bud said:

He's right to use the term "lefty" in a negative context though. There hasn't been a single example anywhere where Communism or Socialism has led to an equal enriched society. It's one of those political principles that sounds lovely on paper, and which sounds feasible so long as you can stop people from behaving like humans. Without exception every country that has gone down an extreme left wing route has landed up with a violent race to the bottom, where only the most corrupt end up with power and where every social freedom we enjoy is denied by a paranoid state. 

Oaksoft is right. The UK isn't a failed state. We aren't a poor nation. And our poverty line is well above the International poverty line of $1.25 per person per day. Oaksoft is also right that it's a personal financial management issue. The evidence comes from the Trussell Trust. I know, I'm sorry to keep going back to the evidence that comes from people who know rather than anecdotal evidence from those with a political agenda. The Trussell Trust says that by far the most common reasons for people ending up at foodbanks is "low income", "benefit delays", "benefit changes" and "debt". 

First paragraph? Balderdash! You can have left of central views without being a Communist. What it means is a fairER society where people have a conscience and realise that you don't have to leave the less fortunate behind as you progress.  I also have a sneaking suspicion that if you hear what's written on paper, you should be seeing someone about that problem.

The second paragraph started badly and went downhill fast. The very fact you acknowledge the UK, (as it stand for the next wee while  ), is a fairly rich nation makes it even less tolerable that foodbanks are necessary while our Government wastes billions on white elephants such as the so called "Nuclear deterent" project. Tridents should be left in Hell where they belong

By the way. Your last sentence just scuppered your friendly Oaksoft's argument. Thank you.

Edited September 4, 2017 by stlucifer

[Bellside Bud]

2 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

First part, check back, I explained it then, I'm not doing so again. Numbers are irrelevant.

Second part, just f**k off, that's not what I'm saying and you know it.

You are only claiming the numbers are irrelevant now that your grossly exaggerated figures have been shown up for what they are. 

As for the second part you said we should aspire to have no food banks. I've simply stated that I think that is a strange thing to aspire too. 

The statistics show that the UKs overwhelming problem with food isn't starvation or mulnutrition. It's obesity. In a country of plenty shouldn't we be able to give to those in temporary difficulty? 

[Bellside Bud]

1 hour ago, stlucifer said:

First paragraph? Balderdash! You can have left of central views without being a Communist. What it means is a fairER society where people have a conscience and realise that you don't have to leave the less fortunate behind as you progress.  I also have a sneaking suspicion that if you hear what's written on paper, you should be seeing someone about that problem.

The second paragraph started badly and went downhill fast. The very fact you acknowledge the UK, (as it stand for the next wee while  ), is a fairly rich nation makes it even less tolerable that foodbanks are necessary while our Government wastes billions on white elephants such as the so called "Nuclear deterent" project. Tridents should be left in Hell where they belong

By the way. Your last sentence just scuppered your friendly Oaksoft's argument. Thank you.

Why is it then that those with a "left wing" conscience are deriding the kind of charitable work being done through food banks? Why is the left wing solution always to tax more and to trust politicians to use it wisely? 

[stlucifer]

10 minutes ago, Bellside Bud said:

Why is it then that those with a "left wing" conscience are deriding the kind of charitable work being done through food banks? Why is the left wing solution always to tax more and to trust politicians to use it wisely? 

Who was deriding anything to do with foodbanks? Who said there was only a need to tax more.  A redistribution of obligation is perhaps part of the solution. Demanding our political establishment better use the resources they take from those of us who can afford to pay is probably more apt. Why shouldn't we expect, nay, demand our politicians use our taxes more wisely and for the good of, and BTW I am not a Labour supporter, The many, Not the few.

Edited September 4, 2017 by stlucifer

[salmonbuddie]

You are only claiming the numbers are irrelevant now that your grossly exaggerated figures have been shown up for what they are. 
As for the second part you said we should aspire to have no food banks. I've simply stated that I think that is a strange thing to aspire too. 
The statistics show that the UKs overwhelming problem with food isn't starvation or mulnutrition. It's obesity. In a country of plenty shouldn't we be able to give to those in temporary difficulty? 

No I'm not, I demonstrated why millions is correct. Ignore it if you like, it's still irrelevant.

By saying you can't understand what I mean when I say we should aspire to have none you're either shit stirring or incredibly stupid. You can f**k right off if it's the first and you have my pity if it's the latter.

[Bud the Baker]

24 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

It's either "he who shall not be named" or someone doing an impression of him. There are several phrases used in his posts that are exactly how the former used to post. If it is the former then you should just ignore the whiney wee bitch, if it's the latter then you should just ignore him for pretending to be a whiney wee bitch.

And FAO shull, before you start, I don't need any lectures on how to treat fellow buds because either he is the former and hence not a bud or he is the latter and just trolling. Especially as he is either someone who wants babies to die or is pretending to be someone who wants babies to die. Either way, please keep your opinion to yourself in this instance.

 

I think he is the latest incarnation of The Cap'n - his posts  are refreshingly swearword free and his skill in comparing apples to oranges and presenting whimsical conclusions from this is certainly reminiscent of "The Great Man". Whoever he is, he's an entertainer.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Bud the Baker

[faraway saint]

31 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

I think he is the latest incarnation of The Cap'n - his posts  are refreshingly swearword free and his skill in comparing apples to oranges and presenting whimsical conclusions from this is certainly reminiscent of "The Great Man". Whoever he is, he's an entertainer.

Wrong.....................again.