Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Prosperous Britain.
Topic Started: Nov 3 2014, 11:02 AM (3,378 Views)
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]

Quote:
 
Britain is the most prosperous of the big economies in the European Union, a major report finds today, but is still behind countries like Switzerland and Norway which chose not to join the bloc. Legatum Institute's 2014 Prosperity Index reveals Norway as the most prosperous country in the world, with Switzerland at number two in the list.


Quote:
 
The UK is ranked at number 13, three places higher than last year's index, and one spot ahead of Germany. France came 21st in the list, Spain 26th and Italy 37th, while Russia is the worst performing country in Europe, falling seven places to 68th.


Quote:
 
The survey also found that the UK is a world-leader for entrepreneurship, coming 8th in the list, and that British people are some of the most charitable.
The study shows It found 74 per cent of Brits donate to charity, the 4th highest in the index, compared to just 42 per cent in Germany and 26 per cent in France.


LINK

Those earning $25,000 (£15,643) a year in the UK take home 88.22pc of their wages, compared to the average of 82.17pc in Western Europe.


Not such a bad sh1t-hole relatively speaking. Considering we are not in the EZ with all it's ongoing problems that have, seemingly, no solution, the UK is well placed as a modern mature democracy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Curious Cdn
Member Avatar
Frozen Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
You are one rank ahead of Deutschland Yay. Yay.

http://www.prosperity.com/#!/ranking
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Rich
Nov 5 2014, 12:03 AM
Steve K
Nov 4 2014, 11:35 PM
Heinrich
Nov 4 2014, 01:30 PM
Tory politicians and their supporters have no problem tolerating child poverty in England.

Posted Image
An child plays with a football on a road in "prosperous" Britain
 ::)  ::)  ::)
That image is over 3 years old and is from an article about how Labour failed. How about making at least some effort to get your facts right

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8511057/Labour-spent-100000-per-child-but-poverty-gap-still-grew.html (from May 2011)


(Google is wonderful for debunking bollocks)


Quite typical of all of Labours claims to have increased the standards of the populace by throwing money after money into a welfare pot that only encourages even more hands to be held out saying "I'm gonna have sommedat"

Whereas, in reality, it is Labour themselves shitting on their own bought out voters that have created an underclass with no aspiration to better themselves whilst they are comfortably looked after by the taxpayer.
Labour have spent years on their divide and rule strategy in order to keep generate and buy votes, we are the only party that cares the others don't care about you at all, we are the only ones who will give you anything the others hate you, they are the ones holding you back on purpose.

When I look at some of the posts in here and read the insults hurled at anyone who does not agree with those of the left one can see that the propaganda by Labour and the left in general is still alive and kicking.

If they had actually delivered what they had promised when in office and after spending billions very little changed or even got worse by the time they left office then at least I could say they at least they might be something in it but I can't.

If bull and insults were pound notes we really could be a prosperous nation but the truth is we are not and have not been for some years, when our economy was in better shape it was spent as quick as it came in, money was thrown at problems instead of dealing with the problems that achieved bugger all.

Labours power base is dwindling,Tories the same, time for a complete sea change trouble is who is going to do it who is capable of delivering what this nations needs to put some pride and guts back into it to get some people to stop whinging and take responsibility for their lives and their off spring, no more free rides.

The population is living longer we are going to need the welfare state to be more cost effective and efficient to be there and able to cater for them, that means we need every penny accounted for and spent wisely we can ill afford a constant drain on it, taxes alone cannot keep up with demand that is a short sighted fools policy.









Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lewis
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 4 2014, 10:45 PM
Tigger
Nov 4 2014, 07:08 PM


The fact is, apart from the fact that wages are lagging behind the fiddled inflation figures and the recent report on child poverty, the rise in zero hours contracts, house price inflation and shyte productivity and low levels of investment, we are doing really really well!

File under blatantly blagged boringly bombastic biddy bilge blather.



GDP has recently recovered to its pre crisis level ....... hooray!
GDP per capita is still below it's 2006 level ........ boo!


Posted Image
Note how the figures plunge when the incompetents took over in 2010!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Note that according to official EU forecasts the UK is set to outperform all of the other big four economies during the next 4 years. At the end of this period it is expected to have similar low unemployment rates as Germany. The UK is on course to become ultimately the largest economy within the EU. No doubt the Usuals will poo poo all of this and continue to bury their heads in the sand. In the m e a time the EZ will sit on the edge of a cliff and trundle along. Accompanying all this good news for the UK is the fact that many High St prices are falling rapidly and in particular food prices. Inflation rates at an all time low and signs that wage rates, even at the bottom, are moving upwards. Oh dear what will the Usuals be left to whinge and wine about, how can their claims that it would all be better if their two Eds were in charge do anything neutralise a sad laugh?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
How strong our economy is performing is irrelevant if a significant proportion of our workers are living in poverty.

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Nov 5 2014, 09:45 AM
How strong our economy is performing is irrelevant if a significant proportion of our workers are living in poverty.

All The Best
Sorry but it is relevant and your metric is not a universal Yardstick. If the UK was an island protected from the chill winds of competition in the global economy I might think you have something, but it is not, therefore, our relative performance is interesting. And as shown relatively speaking the UK is not doing badly. You might think the UK a turd but relatively speaking it is a better turd than most. Could we do better? Of course we can? Can we create even more jobs and lift more out of poverty? Of course we can. But not with a chokingly inefficient Nanny State that acts as a Millstone on the economy. What is stopping the Gov. from ridding us of taxes on jobs or reducing VAT? The answer is the need to continue to fund that which we no longer can afford, not that we could in 2007. Just look around and you will see that countries with lighter levels of taxation tend to create more real jobs and have a higher portion of the working populous in jobs. It is all about optimisation and we are a very long way away from that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Chockingly inefficient nanny state?

Would that be like the banking sector that had to be bailed out to the the tune of £100 Billion plus? How many tax breaks on jobs would that buy?

Or the entirety of our manufacturing sector blighted by management incompetence to such a degree the Taxpayer has to top-up the wages of the workers, while senior managers and CEO enjoy eye-watering remuneration packages.

If the taxpayer were not required to spend Billions supporting these failing companies how many tax-cuts on jobs could we afford?

Or the tax evasion scandal that costs us... ...well, who knows, but its certainly £Billions; how many tax-cuts on jobs and income would that fund?

Those three issues cost the taxpayer many, many times more than Welfare Spending, so why talk about an "inefficient nanny state" when the real problem is an incompetent and institutionally corrupt corporate sector?

Yes, yes, I know you'd love an ideological race to the bottom, thankfully almost no one else is that stupid.

All The Best
Edited by Pro Veritas, Nov 5 2014, 10:08 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Nov 5 2014, 09:45 AM
How strong our economy is performing is irrelevant if a significant proportion of our workers are living in poverty.

All The Best
well as they aren't that would mean there's nothing to worry about

Perhaps you meant "relatively low UK incomes". Not poverty at all, not even close as millions of sub saharans could tell you

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 4 2014, 11:03 PM
Pro Veritas
Nov 4 2014, 08:36 PM
Slightly ignores the fact that child poverty increased under labour.

All The Best

Which doesn't mean the poorer became poorer.

The mechanism for poverty measurement allows for the figure for those in relative poverty to increase even when the circumstances of the poor do improve - and vice versa.

An increase in average household income can actually push more children into the (relative) poverty position.


At the moment children are said to be in poverty if they live in a household with an income less than 60% of the national average.

This means that if there is a recession, for example, the average household income figure could fall, so fewer children are judged to be in poverty, even though their circumstances have not changed.


What do the ,poor, children get .Ghey get free schooling, free dinners, free medical attention,and free travel over three miles to get to school. Just like my children did. ,Many poorer people seem to get free alcohol and free cigarettes, along with free drugs My daughter in law got her ' poor children clothes from charity shops, because she said many were in almosrt new condition and of a good quality
Its not the state that makes children poor. in maintaining their quality od life and keeping them on the straight and narrow, it has to be the parents, or should that read the parent? I dont see many poor children in my travels and certainly not in the fast food outlets. I dont think children see themselves as poor, in a general sense, though they may think themselves deprived in comparrisonwith others with more indulgent parents.
Am I poor because I dont have a tablet , a fancy mobile phone with a monthly bill, an Xbox with their expensive games, a lap top computer or designer clothes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 5 2014, 10:23 AM
Pro Veritas
Nov 5 2014, 09:45 AM
How strong our economy is performing is irrelevant if a significant proportion of our workers are living in poverty.

All The Best
well as they aren't that would mean there's nothing to worry about

Perhaps you meant "relatively low UK incomes". Not poverty at all, not even close as millions of sub saharans could tell you

Bollocks.

And you know it.

I'm using the government's definition of poverty.

Yes it is a relative measure, not an absolute one.

So what?

In fact "relative poverty" is the preferred measure of poverty for your beloved EU:
Quote:
 
Relative poverty

This graph shows the proportion of world population in extreme poverty 1981–2008 according to the World Bank.
Relative poverty views poverty as socially defined and dependent on social context, hence relative poverty is a measure of income inequality. Usually, relative poverty is measured as the percentage of population with income less than some fixed proportion of median income. There are several other different income inequality metrics, for example the Gini coefficient or the Theil Index.

Relative poverty is the "most useful measure for ascertaining poverty rates in wealthy developed nations."[43][44][45][46][47] Relative poverty measure is used by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Canadian poverty researchers.[43][44][45][46][47] In the European Union, the "relative poverty measure is the most prominent and most–quoted of the EU social inclusion indicators."[48]

"Relative poverty reflects better the cost of social inclusion and equality of opportunity in a specific time and space."[49]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Relative_poverty


The UN, OECD and EU ALL use "relative poverty" as the only useful measure of poverty.

Of course, trying to use an absolute measure of poverty to gloss over the appalling wealth disparity in Western economies would suggest you are happy with that wealth-disparity.

Normally you seem to push the line that such a degree of wealth disparity is a problem?

So, which is it?

A change of heart?

Or empty rhetoric you don't believe in just for a chance to score a cheap point against me?

Do you really hate me being right that much that you have to spout bollocks you don't believe to try and undermine the point I made?

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Boxter
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
The EU is a noose around the neck of this country and the biggest majority of businesses who are doing well are finding it is trade outside of the EU which is on the up. Trading within the bloc is stagnant and even Germany is struggling.

The sooner we stop squandering billions on propping up every ailing EU economy from our taxes and providing fancy meaningless grossly overpaid jobs for the Cameron Clegg and their army of Europhiles and wrest back the ability to make our own trade deals with whoever we choose in the world wont come too soon. Then too we will have control of our borders and have a say in who can come here instead of the free for all that sees us the begging bowl of the EU right now

In business terms its like being shackled to the titanic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Nov 5 2014, 10:07 AM
Chockingly inefficient nanny state?

Would that be like the banking sector that had to be bailed out to the the tune of £100 Billion plus? How many tax breaks on jobs would that buy?

Or the entirety of our manufacturing sector blighted by management incompetence to such a degree the Taxpayer has to top-up the wages of the workers, while senior managers and CEO enjoy eye-watering remuneration packages.

If the taxpayer were not required to spend Billions supporting these failing companies how many tax-cuts on jobs could we afford?

Or the tax evasion scandal that costs us... ...well, who knows, but its certainly £Billions; how many tax-cuts on jobs and income would that fund?

Those three issues cost the taxpayer many, many times more than Welfare Spending, so why talk about an "inefficient nanny state" when the real problem is an incompetent and institutionally corrupt corporate sector?

Yes, yes, I know you'd love an ideological race to the bottom, thankfully almost no one else is that stupid.

All The Best
You are confusing issues to create smoke. Waste in the Public Sector cannot be justified because stupidities exist elsewhere. Clearly all stupidities need to be corrected and from what I have seen over the last 4 years good progress is being made but more can be done, right across the piece, to improve our overall performance. Do not make the illogical leap and think that just because I castigate the waste by Governments with Big Nanny that means I condone such elsewhere. Stupid and illogical.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 5 2014, 12:20 PM
]You are confusing issues to create smoke. Waste in the Public Sector cannot be justified because stupidities exist elsewhere.
I agree.

But surely the ONLY common-sense approach is to go after the biggest areas of waste first.

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Nov 5 2014, 12:22 PM
RJD
Nov 5 2014, 12:20 PM
]You are confusing issues to create smoke. Waste in the Public Sector cannot be justified because stupidities exist elsewhere.
I agree.

But surely the ONLY common-sense approach is to go after the biggest areas of waste first.

All The Best
The Usuals love smoke.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Nov 5 2014, 10:33 AM
... I dont see many poor children in my travels and certainly not in the fast food outlets. ...
There must not be many children living in poverty in "prosperous" Britain, then.

Posted Image
Mum promised we can go to McDonald's later.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 4 2014, 11:35 PM
Heinrich
Nov 4 2014, 01:30 PM
Tory politicians and their supporters have no problem tolerating child poverty in England.

Posted Image
An child plays with a football on a road in "prosperous" Britain
 ::)  ::)  ::)
That image is over 3 years old and is from an article about how Labour failed. How about making at least some effort to get your facts right

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8511057/Labour-spent-100000-per-child-but-poverty-gap-still-grew.html (from May 2011)


(Google is wonderful for debunking bollocks)
Not sure it is all "bollocks".

The number of children living in relative poverty after 18 years of Tory administration had risen to around 3m. Before the meltdown NL had taken 600,000 children out of Rpoverty.

The Telegraph was being dishonest (for political reasons no doubt) in using post meltdown figures on this issue and in not giving the background information on it. i.e. the rise that took place under the Tories.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Nov 5 2014, 01:22 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 5 2014, 10:33 AM
... I dont see many poor children in my travels and certainly not in the fast food outlets. ...
There must not be many children living in poverty in "prosperous" Britain, then.

Posted Image
Mum promised we can go to McDonald's later.
Many countries have child poverty including the likes of Switzerland and Germany. I wouldn't like people to think it was only a British problem.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

C-too
Nov 4 2014, 06:09 PM
Heinrich
Nov 4 2014, 06:00 PM
AndyK
Nov 4 2014, 04:49 PM
Heinrich
Nov 4 2014, 01:30 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepPosted Image
An child plays with a football on a road in "prosperous" Britain
That makes no sense, the Tories gain nothing from creating more poor people, its Labour that benefits.
Oh! When the news is bleak the government is the local council and when the spin is positive the government is in London???
The English might understand this but I sure don't.
Probably, but under NL the numbers inherited in 1997 were reduced by 600,000. The Numbers rising during 18 years of callous Conservatism, and falling under caring NL.

Tories callous, Labour caring. It just doesn't seem to sink in with many people.
Caring Labour!! Labour, given tthe chance, will increase the deficit, borrow more so that the nation continues to live beyond its means and the public sector debt will continue to spiral as will the interest payments and it will be our children and their children who will face the resulting economic nightmare. That is greed, selfishness, short-termism not care. It just doesn't seem to sink in with some people. You and your ilk should be ashamed of yourselves.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyK
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Perhaps we should have a debt ceiling like the US does.

Then we could vote to increase it every year until our credit runs out.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 5 2014, 01:31 PM
Heinrich
Nov 5 2014, 01:22 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 5 2014, 10:33 AM
... I dont see many poor children in my travels and certainly not in the fast food outlets. ...
There must not be many children living in poverty in "prosperous" Britain, then.

Posted Image
Mum promised we can go to McDonald's later.
Many countries have child poverty including the likes of Switzerland and Germany. I wouldn't like people to think it was only a British problem.
It is not and when poverty is defined only in local relative terms it is very confusing. We can increase welfare payments to many parents and claim that their spawn are not now in poverty, but the opposite can be the truth. Increasing payments made to parents is no guarantee that the children benefit. Increasing payments to parents by a few Pence per week, as NL did, means we can claim less children are living in poverty. It is just pure BS, but it allows the Usuals to rush out and shout from the top of moral heap which is purely in their imagination.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 5 2014, 03:54 PM
C-too
Nov 5 2014, 01:31 PM
Heinrich
Nov 5 2014, 01:22 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 5 2014, 10:33 AM
... I dont see many poor children in my travels and certainly not in the fast food outlets. ...
There must not be many children living in poverty in "prosperous" Britain, then.

Posted Image
Mum promised we can go to McDonald's later.
Many countries have child poverty including the likes of Switzerland and Germany. I wouldn't like people to think it was only a British problem.
It is not and when poverty is defined only in local relative terms it is very confusing. We can increase welfare payments to many parents and claim that their spawn are not now in poverty, but the opposite can be the truth. Increasing payments made to parents is no guarantee that the children benefit. Increasing payments to parents by a few Pence per week, as NL did, means we can claim less children are living in poverty. It is just pure BS, but it allows the Usuals to rush out and shout from the top of moral heap which is purely in their imagination.
You ought to quit thinking that no financial help should be given to the poor and begin expecting the government to create proper paying jobs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Nov 5 2014, 03:59 PM
RJD
Nov 5 2014, 03:54 PM
C-too
Nov 5 2014, 01:31 PM
Heinrich
Nov 5 2014, 01:22 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepPosted Image
Mum promised we can go to McDonald's later.
Many countries have child poverty including the likes of Switzerland and Germany. I wouldn't like people to think it was only a British problem.
It is not and when poverty is defined only in local relative terms it is very confusing. We can increase welfare payments to many parents and claim that their spawn are not now in poverty, but the opposite can be the truth. Increasing payments made to parents is no guarantee that the children benefit. Increasing payments to parents by a few Pence per week, as NL did, means we can claim less children are living in poverty. It is just pure BS, but it allows the Usuals to rush out and shout from the top of moral heap which is purely in their imagination.
You ought to quit thinking that no financial help should be given to the poor and begin expecting the government to create proper paying jobs.
I suspect you spend far too much time looking into a crystal ball rather than reading actually what is posted. Typical Usual always jumping for conclusions and seeking to stick one with a label. Sloppy lazy thinking.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Nov 5 2014, 10:37 AM
Steve K
Nov 5 2014, 10:23 AM
Pro Veritas
Nov 5 2014, 09:45 AM
How strong our economy is performing is irrelevant if a significant proportion of our workers are living in poverty.

All The Best
well as they aren't that would mean there's nothing to worry about

Perhaps you meant "relatively low UK incomes". Not poverty at all, not even close as millions of sub saharans could tell you

Bollocks.

And you know it.

I'm using the government's definition of poverty.

Yes it is a relative measure, not an absolute one.

So what?

In fact "relative poverty" is the preferred measure of poverty for your beloved EU:
. . .
Well if you wish to unnecessarily go offensive perhaps it would be a good idea to get your facts straight. And really not a terribly good idea for you to post the debunking of your own - as you would put it - "bollocks"

"Relative poverty" is not "poverty" - and you know it. Big difference.


Just like you know that you posted a BIG FAT LIE saying I love the EU. You know full well I'm a Eurosceptic but as you're an extreme Europhobe you really wouldn't feel constrained by the truth would you?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Major Sinic
Nov 5 2014, 01:48 PM
C-too
Nov 4 2014, 06:09 PM
Heinrich
Nov 4 2014, 06:00 PM
AndyK
Nov 4 2014, 04:49 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepPosted Image
Oh! When the news is bleak the government is the local council and when the spin is positive the government is in London???
The English might understand this but I sure don't.
Probably, but under NL the numbers inherited in 1997 were reduced by 600,000. The Numbers rising during 18 years of callous Conservatism, and falling under caring NL.

Tories callous, Labour caring. It just doesn't seem to sink in with many people.
Caring Labour!! Labour, given tthe chance, will increase the deficit, borrow more so that the nation continues to live beyond its means and the public sector debt will continue to spiral as will the interest payments and it will be our children and their children who will face the resulting economic nightmare. That is greed, selfishness, short-termism not care. It just doesn't seem to sink in with some people. You and your ilk should be ashamed of yourselves.
The only thing Labour and the left in general really care about is " power at any cost " total hypocrites feigning indignation and cry crocodile tears
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Nov 5 2014, 09:08 PM
Major Sinic
Nov 5 2014, 01:48 PM
C-too
Nov 4 2014, 06:09 PM
Heinrich
Nov 4 2014, 06:00 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepPosted Image
Probably, but under NL the numbers inherited in 1997 were reduced by 600,000. The Numbers rising during 18 years of callous Conservatism, and falling under caring NL.

Tories callous, Labour caring. It just doesn't seem to sink in with many people.
Caring Labour!! Labour, given tthe chance, will increase the deficit, borrow more so that the nation continues to live beyond its means and the public sector debt will continue to spiral as will the interest payments and it will be our children and their children who will face the resulting economic nightmare. That is greed, selfishness, short-termism not care. It just doesn't seem to sink in with some people. You and your ilk should be ashamed of yourselves.
The only thing Labour and the left in general really care about is " power at any cost " total hypocrites feigning indignation and cry crocodile tears
Tories shed no tears over the impoverished English children.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

The thread started with the specific declaration that 'Britain is the most prosperous of the big economies in the European Union', and the ones rejoicing in that assumption are the ones trying to under state the crisis of relative poverty.
So what is there to celebrate when being the most prosperous does not translate to an opportunity to eradicate poverty.

,
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 5 2014, 10:37 PM
The thread started with the specific declaration that 'Britain is the most prosperous of the big economies in the European Union', and the ones rejoicing in that assumption are the ones trying to under state the crisis of relative poverty.
So what is there to celebrate when being the most prosperous does not translate to an opportunity to eradicate poverty.

,
Indeed.

Those claiming Britain is a just and prosperous nation are simply the self satisfied inheritors of a similar group of people who existed at the turn of the 20th Century, Britain, the richest nation on Earth with an Empire on which the sun never set dispensing justice and civilisation in equal measure they would have us believe.

They overlooked that most people lived in abject squalor and you were old at forty, children routinely died of easily preventable ailments brought on by poverty and neglect and the poor were considered as semi disposable.

Things always look rosy when reality takes a holiday.
Edited by Tigger, Nov 5 2014, 10:49 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Curious Cdn
Member Avatar
Frozen Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Britain is the most prosperous of the big economies in the European Union, a major report finds today, but is still behind countries like Switzerland and Norway

... and New Zealand, Canada, Australia, the United States and Ireland but they are mere colonies and not much is expected of them.

In fact, old Blighty trails ALL of the English speaking countries.
Edited by Curious Cdn, Nov 6 2014, 12:08 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
"In fact, old Blighty trails ALL of the English speaking countries."

In what context do you make that claim?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Curious Cdn
Member Avatar
Frozen Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Nov 6 2014, 12:41 AM
"In fact, old Blighty trails ALL of the English speaking countries."

In what context do you make that claim?
Read the list that this whole thread is based on.

Legatum Institute's 2014 Prosperity Index

http://www.prosperity.com/#!/ranking
Edited by Curious Cdn, Nov 6 2014, 03:10 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 5 2014, 10:37 PM
The thread started with the specific declaration that 'Britain is the most prosperous of the big economies in the European Union', and the ones rejoicing in that assumption are the ones trying to under state the crisis of relative poverty.
So what is there to celebrate when being the most prosperous does not translate to an opportunity to eradicate poverty.

,
Relative poverty cannot be eradicated, by definition. It will always be with us and will always be used by the left to beat it's drum. The only poverty you should concern yourself with is the absolute variety, so where are the figures?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 6 2014, 08:02 AM
Relative poverty cannot be eradicated, by definition. It will always be with us and will always be used by the left to beat it's drum. The only poverty you should concern yourself with is the absolute variety, so where are the figures?
An yet the UN, OECD and the EU all state that Relative Poverty is the ONLY useful way to measure poverty.

Why do you know better than them?

All The Best
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Nov 6 2014, 08:11 AM
RJD
Nov 6 2014, 08:02 AM
Relative poverty cannot be eradicated, by definition. It will always be with us and will always be used by the left to beat it's drum. The only poverty you should concern yourself with is the absolute variety, so where are the figures?
An yet the UN, OECD and the EU all state that Relative Poverty is the ONLY useful way to measure poverty.

Why do you know better than them?

All The Best
I know better because you distort the meaning of those words for political reasons. Absolute and relative are not necessarily related, but you use the plight of those in absolute poverty to bolster claims wrt to those in relative poverty. Some honesty here would be helpful, but the smoke created by the left gets thicker by the year.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
"THEIR SPAWN" ------ That reveals your true inner feelings that are in control. IMO you are a very emotionally damaged individual. Clean up your post and perhaps it will deserve a reply.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 6 2014, 08:02 AM
Affa
Nov 5 2014, 10:37 PM
The thread started with the specific declaration that 'Britain is the most prosperous of the big economies in the European Union', and the ones rejoicing in that assumption are the ones trying to under state the crisis of relative poverty.
So what is there to celebrate when being the most prosperous does not translate to an opportunity to eradicate poverty.

,
Relative poverty cannot be eradicated, by definition. It will always be with us and will always be used by the left to beat it's drum. The only poverty you should concern yourself with is the absolute variety, so where are the figures?
Of course relative poverty can be eliminated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Nov 6 2014, 08:11 AM
RJD
Nov 6 2014, 08:02 AM
Relative poverty cannot be eradicated, by definition. It will always be with us and will always be used by the left to beat it's drum. The only poverty you should concern yourself with is the absolute variety, so where are the figures?
An yet the UN, OECD and the EU all state that Relative Poverty is the ONLY useful way to measure poverty.

Why do you know better than them?

All The Best
Well provide a link please that says that they say it's the ONLY way

As this UN link says you're lying your arse off

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/international-migration/glossary/poverty/

Quote:
 
Frequently, poverty is defined in either relative or absolute terms. Absolute poverty measures poverty in relation to the amount of money necessary to meet basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter. The concept of absolute poverty is not concerned with broader quality of life issues or with the overall level of inequality in society. The concept therefore fails to recognise that individuals have important social and cultural needs. This, and similar criticisms, led to the development of the concept of relative poverty. Relative poverty defines poverty in relation to the economic status of other members of the society: people are poor if they fall below prevailing standards of living in a given societal context. An important criticism of both concepts is that they are largely concerned with income and consumption.


Anyone with even a moderate grasp of English could see they are saying there are multiple ways and each has its merits and issues.

But hey ho that's only the truth

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Nov 5 2014, 03:59 PM
RJD
Nov 5 2014, 03:54 PM
C-too
Nov 5 2014, 01:31 PM
Heinrich
Nov 5 2014, 01:22 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepPosted Image
Mum promised we can go to McDonald's later.
Many countries have child poverty including the likes of Switzerland and Germany. I wouldn't like people to think it was only a British problem.
It is not and when poverty is defined only in local relative terms it is very confusing. We can increase welfare payments to many parents and claim that their spawn are not now in poverty, but the opposite can be the truth. Increasing payments made to parents is no guarantee that the children benefit. Increasing payments to parents by a few Pence per week, as NL did, means we can claim less children are living in poverty. It is just pure BS, but it allows the Usuals to rush out and shout from the top of moral heap which is purely in their imagination.
You ought to quit thinking that no financial help should be given to the poor and begin expecting the government to create proper paying jobs.
The Labour party tried that and, overmanned our public services
Governments dont create jobs , unless it is dsomething like calling up young people to become conscripts in the armed force.

They called it national service, so ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." -
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Nov 6 2014, 10:40 AM

Governments dont create jobs


Tell that to the millions of Private Sector employees that rely on Government contracts for their income.

The biggest investor in the UK economy is the UK government.
Whilst all other investors are making handsome profits from business opportunities in the UK, the taxpayer sees no return on his investment - or does he?







Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 6 2014, 01:20 PM
Tytoalba
Nov 6 2014, 10:40 AM

Governments dont create jobs


Tell that to the millions of Private Sector employees that rely on Government contracts for their income.

The biggest investor in the UK economy is the UK government.
Whilst all other investors are making handsome profits from business opportunities in the UK, the taxpayer sees no return on his investment - or does he?







Being a private sector employee on a government contract I would like to say that the government doesn't create jobs and those who say that they do are being disingenuous.

Being entirely honest it is simply redistribution and I am at least honest enough to admit it being a reciepient of this redistribution.

It doesn't mean that these jobs are not important and do not benifit people but they are all paid for by JOBS that generate wealth that can be taxed. Taxing firms that hold government contracts on their profits is, once a gain, merely a form of redistribution.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Nov 6 2014, 10:40 AM
Heinrich
Nov 5 2014, 03:59 PM
RJD
Nov 5 2014, 03:54 PM
C-too
Nov 5 2014, 01:31 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deepPosted Image
It is not and when poverty is defined only in local relative terms it is very confusing. We can increase welfare payments to many parents and claim that their spawn are not now in poverty, but the opposite can be the truth. Increasing payments made to parents is no guarantee that the children benefit. Increasing payments to parents by a few Pence per week, as NL did, means we can claim less children are living in poverty. It is just pure BS, but it allows the Usuals to rush out and shout from the top of moral heap which is purely in their imagination.
You ought to quit thinking that no financial help should be given to the poor and begin expecting the government to create proper paying jobs.
The Labour party tried that and, overmanned our public services
Governments dont create jobs , unless it is dsomething like calling up young people to become conscripts in the armed force.

They called it national service, so ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." -
Some overmanning under Labour certainly did happen, but by the 1970s most of the overmanning had more than one reason.

After decades of scraping along with a weak economy and many trips to the IMF the 1970s saw the slide into the final pit of economic failure as a world recession exacerbated by the reduction of oil imports in 1973 hit home. In 1974 Labour took up the struggle of attempting to overcome the economic problems without putting millions out of work. Hence the final overmanning of industry.

Even though Thatcher was warned that to attack the problem head on would result in some 3m people unemployed, she chose to hit it head on.
Her actions created far more than 3m unemployed which although very damaging to society and to millions of families would IMO have been acceptable if she had done something address the problem of unemployment. She didn't, in fact she had laid the foundations for 17 years of high/mass unemployment under Tory governments.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply