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 (3,375 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:
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 12 2014, 06:37 PM
Tig.: Very funny, you are aware that the Edinburgh Comedy Festival finished some months ago?

Usual juvenile vacous sarcastic comment which brings nothing of interest to any debate. It doesn't even bolster your meagre credentials.

Tig: Those who apparently profess to have run large businesses seem to be missing certain facts that would shame a goat with amnesia, let's of course remind ourselves of the billions the privately run banks needed via their political friends from us the taxpayer, not to mention a railway system that is overwhelmingly dire and a business community that often struggles when it cant make up the rules for itself and has to compete on the global stage.

Who are these people you refer to? The decision to bail out the Banks was a political one. As for railways you offer no evidence. The truth is that currently tax revenues match subsidies and the latter go on those rural lines that would close without such.

Tig.: Consider this for one minute, many of those fantastically competent industries and PLC's you praise are in fact kept going by nothing short of a form of socialism for the benefit of capitalism!

What a load of ignorant twaddle, but I expect nothing more. Put up some facts and some evidence for once, just once, and see how it stands just a modicum of scrutiny. Me thinks you must be Red Nag Myth Weaver in Chief.
Oh no, yet more disingenuous garbage and repetitive dumb insolence from the low intellect former council estate lad dun good! ;D

The banking system here would have collapsed without the aid of those incompetent politicians you speak of, they facilitated the bail our remember now? And you would not have liked your savings going down the shitter would you?

And we have nominally private railways that suck on big nannies tit, so much for your capitalist ideas eh?

Fell free to blather, distract and re ask pointless questions that I've already covered in the above, It's ok I find it rather amusing when you naively consider yourself a cut above the rest of us! ;D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Tigger
Nov 12 2014, 06:27 PM
Major Sinic
Nov 12 2014, 02:06 PM
RJD
Nov 12 2014, 12:58 PM
Benn with his big white heap of technology made a political decision to expand BSC output from 13m TPA to 30m TPA, most of the new plant was bought and paid for but not commissioned or in some cases not even erected and the increased output, of base sheet metal, was stock piled on car parks across the land and then dumped onto the global markets.
If the prices of gas and oil had been frozen when Milli demanded such then we would have seen recent reductions delayed.
The truth is the Politicians struggle to control simple departments of the State and there is no evidence anywhere that they should be trusted. Just look at what they did to the MOD, Education and over expensive PFI projects.

File: p155-up/brewery.
RJD you are so right. Politicians should not be allowed near commerce and industry, hence ny insistance that any state investment in the private sector must be protected from partisan political interference, such as Milibands politically motivated statement of intent regarding energy prices, and must represent a minority interest so that the lunatics can not take over the asylum.
Very funny, you are aware that the Edinburgh Comedy Festival finished some months ago? ;D

Those who apparently profess to have run large businesses seem to be missing certain facts that would shame a goat with amnesia, let's of course remind ourselves of the billions the privately run banks needed via their political friends from us the taxpayer, not to mention a railway system that is overwhelmingly dire and a business community that often struggles when it cant make up the rules for itself and has to compete on the global stage.

Consider this for one minute, many of those fantastically competent industries and PLC's you praise are in fact kept going by nothing short of a form of socialism for the benefit of capitalism!
There have been a number of issues which you and I seem to agree on, but obviously not this one. The issues associated with the conduct of banks have been argued ad nauseam, although punitive consequences increasingly applied must surely soon have a positive effect. In general I have to agree that the senior management and directors have fallen massively short of what shareholders, employees and the nation could reasonably expect. Shame that Gordon Brown reduced the financial light regulation to virtually no regulation. Perhaps you would agree?

British Railways on the other hand was a nationalised disgrace. Starved of desperately needed state investment over decades by successive governments, held to ransom by militant trade unions, run by mediocre management it was not fit for purpose and to avoid an essential investment of billions, privatisation was the only remaining option. I would rather have the privatised rail service of today, warts and all, rather than the inefficient, dirty, unreliable and dangerous railway system of the sixties and seventies.

Your final paragraph is in my opinion a gross exaggeration. A tiny proportion of public companies require any form of public sector (taxpayer) support. The public quoted company governance in this country is generally highly regarded internationally with just cause and the vast majority of LSE quoted companies adhere to the rules. There will inevitably be occasions where incompetence, excesive greed or criminality result in a failure to meet required standards but this is an exception rather than the rule. Of course those of a left wing persuasion would like to believe and would like others to believe, that it is a fragile house of cards wracked with greed and corruption and close to imminent collapse. There is however minimal evidence to support this vision when viewed dispassionately, bankers conduct notwithstanding.

You choose to ignore the main point I was making which is that there is room for state capitalism but it has to be on a basis which prevents any government using it for partisan political advancement, prevents unfair competition and should not be permitted to hold a majority shareholding for the long term.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Nov 12 2014, 06:49 PM
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 06:41 PM
.
The first food BANK was set up in Salisbury in 2000, long before those nasty Tories got anywhere near the economy and benefits system. In 2007/08, 22 food BANKS launched and fed 13,800. Those numbers rose steadily: in 2009/10, before the general election had even taken place.
But there were only a few thousand users a year when Labour were in power, now there are a million, and rising.
I agree that people in this country find themselves in crisis when they have no food in their cupboards.

Yes it is terrible. it is even worse when they've got a pint in their hand, a fag in their gob and a 3G phone in their pockets.

Very very few people die of starvation in the UK.

Remeber East Germany and Poland 6 months before the Wall came down and the shelves everywhere were virtually empty. Compare that with the failed market system which only provides us with an almost embarrassing abundance of fresh, safe, cheap food - and no queues! Unbelievable!
And that more and more people are turning to food banks for free food can hardly be a surprise.
The failure is that of the socialist collective mentality which deliberately deprives people of education and thus any chance of self determination making the poor unfortunates dependent on the high-minded but low-brained socialists who run their vile system.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 07:03 PM


Yes it is terrible. it is even worse when they've got a pint in their hand, a fag in their gob and a 3G phone in their pockets.

That comment alone shows you are so far out of touch as to not be worth debating with. I have to put up with more than enough pub professors and psychic taxi drivers in real life I have no intention of bothering with them on an internet forum.
Edited by papasmurf, Nov 12 2014, 07:11 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Major Sinic
Nov 12 2014, 06:57 PM
Tigger
Nov 12 2014, 06:27 PM
Major Sinic
Nov 12 2014, 02:06 PM
RJD
Nov 12 2014, 12:58 PM
Benn with his big white heap of technology made a political decision to expand BSC output from 13m TPA to 30m TPA, most of the new plant was bought and paid for but not commissioned or in some cases not even erected and the increased output, of base sheet metal, was stock piled on car parks across the land and then dumped onto the global markets.
If the prices of gas and oil had been frozen when Milli demanded such then we would have seen recent reductions delayed.
The truth is the Politicians struggle to control simple departments of the State and there is no evidence anywhere that they should be trusted. Just look at what they did to the MOD, Education and over expensive PFI projects.

File: p155-up/brewery.
RJD you are so right. Politicians should not be allowed near commerce and industry, hence ny insistance that any state investment in the private sector must be protected from partisan political interference, such as Milibands politically motivated statement of intent regarding energy prices, and must represent a minority interest so that the lunatics can not take over the asylum.
Very funny, you are aware that the Edinburgh Comedy Festival finished some months ago? ;D

Those who apparently profess to have run large businesses seem to be missing certain facts that would shame a goat with amnesia, let's of course remind ourselves of the billions the privately run banks needed via their political friends from us the taxpayer, not to mention a railway system that is overwhelmingly dire and a business community that often struggles when it cant make up the rules for itself and has to compete on the global stage.

Consider this for one minute, many of those fantastically competent industries and PLC's you praise are in fact kept going by nothing short of a form of socialism for the benefit of capitalism!
There have been a number of issues which you and I seem to agree on, but obviously not this one. The issues associated with the conduct of banks have been argued ad nauseam, although punitive consequences increasingly applied must surely soon have a positive effect. In general I have to agree that the senior management and directors have fallen massively short of what shareholders, employees and the nation could reasonably expect. Shame that Gordon Brown reduced the financial light regulation to virtually no regulation. Perhaps you would agree?

British Railways on the other hand was a nationalised disgrace. Starved of desperately needed state investment over decades by successive governments, held to ransom by militant trade unions, run by mediocre management it was not fit for purpose and to avoid an essential investment of billions, privatisation was the only remaining option. I would rather have the privatised rail service of today, warts and all, rather than the inefficient, dirty, unreliable and dangerous railway system of the sixties and seventies.

Your final paragraph is in my opinion a gross exaggeration. A tiny proportion of public companies require any form of public sector (taxpayer) support. The public quoted company governance in this country is generally highly regarded internationally with just cause and the vast majority of LSE quoted companies adhere to the rules. There will inevitably be occasions where incompetence, excesive greed or criminality result in a failure to meet required standards but this is an exception rather than the rule. Of course those of a left wing persuasion would like to believe and would like others to believe, that it is a fragile house of cards wracked with greed and corruption and close to imminent collapse. There is however minimal evidence to support this vision when viewed dispassionately, bankers conduct notwithstanding.

You choose to ignore the main point I was making which is that there is room for state capitalism but it has to be on a basis which prevents any government using it for partisan political advancement, prevents unfair competition and should not be permitted to hold a majority shareholding for the long term.
Fair enough, and I do agree on your first point, the promised regulation of the banking sector has been watered down to such a degree as to be virtually worthless, we have gone from bankrupt banks with capital reserves to loan ratios of 33-1 to 20-1, but still insured by the taxpayer a repeat performance is inevitable, especially when the Chinese ensnare them in the not to distant future.

And the railways were indeed bad, again it was the old story of kicking investment can down the road and letting the next government sort it out, privatisation in the early stages was an orgy of land, property and asset sell offs with little of the money ending up at the sharp end, in fact John Major is on record as saying that the sell off of the railways and the way it was done was his biggest political regret.

And yes I did go a bit over the top on the last bit, it's my "style"! You are right in saying that political interference in business is often bad it is, but by the same token incompetence and at times sheer greed cannot be excused if it impacts on the society in which that business operates in, the chasm between an SME and a PLC is vast with the latter often attempting to game the rules in their favour with political donations and favours called, neither in my opinion work as some large companies are as flabby and out of shape as many nationalised enterprises, and with shareholders often emasculated governance is increasingly in the hands of the few, not good...

The thing is I see European countries with well run state or partially state run businesses or utilities and they work well in most cases but because of entrenched dogma here it does not happen, one shameful example is the fact that many formerly run UK utility companies are back in state hands, the only problem is it is the French, German or Spanish state that runs them, I find that an utterly pathetic state of affairs.
Edited by Tigger, Nov 12 2014, 07:29 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Nov 12 2014, 07:11 PM
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 07:03 PM


Yes it is terrible. it is even worse when they've got a pint in their hand, a fag in their gob and a 3G phone in their pockets.

That comment alone shows you are so far out of touch as to not be worth debating with. I have to put up with more than enough pub professors and psychic taxi drivers in real life I have no intention of bothering with them on an internet forum.
NO what it shows is that I get out more than you do.
If you visit your local pub or working mans club, you would see real life, not the imagined life you believe, I have a couple of friends unemployed, granted they don't smoke, but enjoy a pint and both have the the latest 3g phones.

I am sorry you have to put up with more than enough pub professors and psychic taxi drivers, as I am with armchair know-it alls who believe everything that left wing internet forums tells them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 07:27 PM
papasmurf
Nov 12 2014, 07:11 PM
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 07:03 PM


Yes it is terrible. it is even worse when they've got a pint in their hand, a fag in their gob and a 3G phone in their pockets.

That comment alone shows you are so far out of touch as to not be worth debating with. I have to put up with more than enough pub professors and psychic taxi drivers in real life I have no intention of bothering with them on an internet forum.
NO what it shows is that I get out more than you do.
If you visit your local pub or working mans club, you would see real life, not the imagined life you believe, I have a couple of friends unemployed, granted they don't smoke, but enjoy a pint and both have the the latest 3g phones.

I am sorry you have to put up with more than enough pub professors and psychic taxi drivers, as I am with armchair know-it alls who believe everything that left wing internet forums tells them.
So should the unemployed be denied small gadgets or the odd drink because it might offend right wing retards such as yourself?

I certainly get the impression you don't approve............
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Nov 12 2014, 05:49 PM
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 02:02 PM
I think you must have been living in a parallel universe from 1997-2010.
Run past me how many benefit claimants New Labour killed, and how many people were using food banks.
Labour never killed benefit claimants........they CREATED them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Nov 12 2014, 07:40 PM
papasmurf
Nov 12 2014, 05:49 PM
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 02:02 PM
I think you must have been living in a parallel universe from 1997-2010.
Run past me how many benefit claimants New Labour killed, and how many people were using food banks.
Labour never killed benefit claimants........they CREATED them.
So was the record numbers in work back then made up? We've only recently got back to that level and that has involved splitting one job between several people and some massaging of the figures.

If you wish to remove subsidies for those in work you need to have a chat with property, business and asset holders first because they will be hit as well.......
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 07:03 PM
papasmurf
Nov 12 2014, 06:49 PM
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 06:41 PM
.
The first food BANK was set up in Salisbury in 2000, long before those nasty Tories got anywhere near the economy and benefits system. In 2007/08, 22 food BANKS launched and fed 13,800. Those numbers rose steadily: in 2009/10, before the general election had even taken place.
But there were only a few thousand users a year when Labour were in power, now there are a million, and rising.
I agree that people in this country find themselves in crisis when they have no food in their cupboards.

Yes it is terrible. it is even worse when they've got a pint in their hand, a fag in their gob and a 3G phone in their pockets.

Very very few people die of starvation in the UK.

Remeber East Germany and Poland 6 months before the Wall came down and the shelves everywhere were virtually empty. Compare that with the failed market system which only provides us with an almost embarrassing abundance of fresh, safe, cheap food - and no queues! Unbelievable!
And that more and more people are turning to food banks for free food can hardly be a surprise.
The failure is that of the socialist collective mentality which deliberately deprives people of education and thus any chance of self determination making the poor unfortunates dependent on the high-minded but low-brained socialists who run their vile system.
What a load of biased codswallop.
Comparing capitalist UK with with failed socialist/communist controlled countries is nothing short of stupid. If you wish to compare the UK then use a similar country.
In 1985 Thatcher was refused an honorary degree because of the damage she did to education. The introduction of the 'Grant Maintained' schools saw most state schools reduced to serious financial difficulties that resulted in the lowering of maintenance and the sharing of dilapidated textbooks.
Education levels inherited by NL in 1997 were pathetic, and they had been for decades.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HIGHWAY
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 12 2014, 08:54 PM
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 07:03 PM
papasmurf
Nov 12 2014, 06:49 PM
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 06:41 PM
.
The first food BANK was set up in Salisbury in 2000, long before those nasty Tories got anywhere near the economy and benefits system. In 2007/08, 22 food BANKS launched and fed 13,800. Those numbers rose steadily: in 2009/10, before the general election had even taken place.
But there were only a few thousand users a year when Labour were in power, now there are a million, and rising.
I agree that people in this country find themselves in crisis when they have no food in their cupboards.

Yes it is terrible. it is even worse when they've got a pint in their hand, a fag in their gob and a 3G phone in their pockets.

Very very few people die of starvation in the UK.

Remeber East Germany and Poland 6 months before the Wall came down and the shelves everywhere were virtually empty. Compare that with the failed market system which only provides us with an almost embarrassing abundance of fresh, safe, cheap food - and no queues! Unbelievable!
And that more and more people are turning to food banks for free food can hardly be a surprise.
The failure is that of the socialist collective mentality which deliberately deprives people of education and thus any chance of self determination making the poor unfortunates dependent on the high-minded but low-brained socialists who run their vile system.
What a load of biased codswallop.
Comparing capitalist UK with with failed socialist/communist controlled countries is nothing short of stupid. If you wish to compare the UK then use a similar country.
In 1985 Thatcher was refused an honorary degree because of the damage she did to education. The introduction of the 'Grant Maintained' schools saw most state schools reduced to serious financial difficulties that resulted in the lowering of maintenance and the sharing of dilapidated textbooks.
Education levels inherited by NL in 1997 were pathetic, and they had been for decades.
Yet again your hurling the same word to people who disagrees with you
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
LillyBee
Nov 12 2014, 03:55 PM


To me the important thing is how many lives were lost and not the monetary part of it.

World War 2 (1941-1945 Total U.S. dead and wounded was 1,076,245

Of course LB, and I apologise for any unintended offense my remark may have caused.

I made the remark as a reference to how the war impoverished some, and not others, and the legacy of that is with us today.
The US did a lot to restore the economies of Europe and the East - of the conquered.



Edited by Affa, Nov 12 2014, 11:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 12 2014, 07:36 PM
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 07:27 PM
papasmurf
Nov 12 2014, 07:11 PM
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 07:03 PM


Yes it is terrible. it is even worse when they've got a pint in their hand, a fag in their gob and a 3G phone in their pockets.

That comment alone shows you are so far out of touch as to not be worth debating with. I have to put up with more than enough pub professors and psychic taxi drivers in real life I have no intention of bothering with them on an internet forum.
NO what it shows is that I get out more than you do.
If you visit your local pub or working mans club, you would see real life, not the imagined life you believe, I have a couple of friends unemployed, granted they don't smoke, but enjoy a pint and both have the the latest 3g phones.

I am sorry you have to put up with more than enough pub professors and psychic taxi drivers, as I am with armchair know-it alls who believe everything that left wing internet forums tells them.
So should the unemployed be denied small gadgets or the odd drink because it might offend right wing retards such as yourself?

I certainly get the impression you don't approve............
Why do you get the impression I don't approve, If you read my post properly, they are my friends. The reply was to Mr Smurf assertion that because you are unemployed and on benefits you can't still go out and have a drink, and they don't need foodbanks.

What does offend me is your reference to being called a right wing retard, just because I don't vote for a party that IMHO has done more damage to the Country and the working man.

I have never insulted you and would appreciate it if you would withdraw that comment.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Nov 13 2014, 12:41 AM
Tigger
Nov 12 2014, 07:36 PM
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 07:27 PM
papasmurf
Nov 12 2014, 07:11 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
NO what it shows is that I get out more than you do.
If you visit your local pub or working mans club, you would see real life, not the imagined life you believe, I have a couple of friends unemployed, granted they don't smoke, but enjoy a pint and both have the the latest 3g phones.

I am sorry you have to put up with more than enough pub professors and psychic taxi drivers, as I am with armchair know-it alls who believe everything that left wing internet forums tells them.
So should the unemployed be denied small gadgets or the odd drink because it might offend right wing retards such as yourself?

I certainly get the impression you don't approve............
Why do you get the impression I don't approve, If you read my post properly, they are my friends. The reply was to Mr Smurf assertion that because you are unemployed and on benefits you can't still go out and have a drink, and they don't need foodbanks.

What does offend me is your reference to being called a right wing retard, just because I don't vote for a party that IMHO has done more damage to the Country and the working man.

I have never insulted you and would appreciate it if you would withdraw that comment.
Not forgetting the socially and economically failed 20th century, dominated by Conservatism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marconi
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 13 2014, 07:49 AM
Not forgetting the socially and economically failed 20th century, dominated by Conservatism.

And add the 21st Century to that, as UK workers face the longest wage squeeze since the 1870's.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
Hang on, when GB lessened the regulations on the financial institutions, Wasn't it the finacial sector itself, the champions of privatisation, and any bugger with a slight incling towards the right, that said it wasn't enough and he should deregulate completely? Funny how you all now do an about face.

Regarding railways. Smashing. Ok, they were shite. Put them into private hands. No problem with that provided they fund the improvements privately. My grouse is that the public purse is still footing the bills for these private companies to improve it. But keep the profotable stuff of course.

Regarding poverty and the poor being able to guzzle beer, snort charlie, smoke like chimneys, have expensive "toys", whilst still needing foodbanks. I noticed a really interesting thing recently which gives a really good idea of what is happening to the individuals finances, working, unemployed or otherwise. Previously at this time of the year in my neck of the woods, there would have been fireworks going off to the tune of £1000's every night for a good month prior to bonfire night, and for some weeks afterwards. This year was not so. Hardly any, even on bonfire night itself. That tells me more than seeing a dole wallah with a pint in his hand and a cig in his gob.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Nov 13 2014, 08:56 AM
Previously at this time of the year in my neck of the woods, there would have been fireworks going off to the tune of £1000's every night for a good month prior to bonfire night, and for some weeks afterwards. This year was not so. Hardly any, even on bonfire night itself. That tells me more than seeing a dole wallah with a pint in his hand and a cig in his gob.
Precisely. (I also question the validity of "psychic," who know 100% of some one's personal details by seeing them in a pub.

Quite frankly, with beer the price it is, and how little the "dole" is, any comment about "scroungers" spending their life in a boozer is quite frankly ridiculous, and outs people who make such comments for what they are. (I would get banned from the forum if I stated what that is.)
I can and do confront such people pub professor and "psychic" taxi drivers, face to face when I hear such comments in the real life. I can't do it on an internet forum.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marconi
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
disgruntled porker
Nov 13 2014, 08:56 AM
I noticed a really interesting thing recently which gives a really good idea of what is happening to the individuals finances, working, unemployed or otherwise. Previously at this time of the year in my neck of the woods, there would have been fireworks going off to the tune of £1000's every night for a good month prior to bonfire night, and for some weeks afterwards. This year was not so. Hardly any, even on bonfire night itself. That tells me more than seeing a dole wallah with a pint in his hand and a cig in his gob.
That's quite a good indicator and now that I think about it, it has been a quiet bonfire night, before and after, where I live too.

But the thing is I have enjoyed the peace and quiet. Maybe there's something in this austerity thing.

Here, please cut my wages by 10%, and everybody else's too!  !bgrin!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

C-too
Nov 13 2014, 07:49 AM
jaguar
Nov 13 2014, 12:41 AM
Tigger
Nov 12 2014, 07:36 PM
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 07:27 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
So should the unemployed be denied small gadgets or the odd drink because it might offend right wing retards such as yourself?

I certainly get the impression you don't approve............
Why do you get the impression I don't approve, If you read my post properly, they are my friends. The reply was to Mr Smurf assertion that because you are unemployed and on benefits you can't still go out and have a drink, and they don't need foodbanks.

What does offend me is your reference to being called a right wing retard, just because I don't vote for a party that IMHO has done more damage to the Country and the working man.

I have never insulted you and would appreciate it if you would withdraw that comment.
Not forgetting the socially and economically failed 20th century, dominated by Conservatism.
A ridiculous one line condemnation of an entire century equally ridiculously, by implication, laid at the door of Conservatism!

Volumes could be written about the magnificent achievements gained in the 20th Century irrespective of which government was in power. In 1900 feudalism was widespread and true poverty endemic. State education was sporadic and supposedly mandatory only to the age of 10, until the introduction of the Conservative Balfour Act of 1902 which created the basis of a mandatory state education system. Transport was way beyond the pockets of normal people and life expectancy was under 50 years of age through poor diet and lack of affordable health care. By 2000 we had universal suffrage and a comprehensive welfare system, universal state education, an effective public transport system and a National Health Service free at the point of need (Labour's finest legacy). As a (Conservative) Prime Minister once inadvisedly but truthfully observed in 1957, 'We have never had it so good'.

One could continue by referring to the great individual technological, engineering, chemical and medical developments and achievements eclipsing anything that had gone before, but with acknowledgement to the principle of 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.

Of course in a period as long as a century, there are negative, destructive and tragic events causing grief and hardship to many. The two World Wars are in most peoples' minds at the moment, the world crash of 1926-33 which makes the last six years seem like a walk in the park, the 1918 flu epidemic in which nearly a quarter of a million people died in the UK.

Anyone who can dismiss the 20th Century in one line as socially and economically a failure has obviously never studied 20thC history or basic economics and can be dismissed as a lightweight.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

disgruntled porker
Nov 13 2014, 08:56 AM
Hang on, when GB lessened the regulations on the financial institutions, Wasn't it the finacial sector itself, the champions of privatisation, and any bugger with a slight incling towards the right, that said it wasn't enough and he should deregulate completely? Funny how you all now do an about face.

Regarding railways. Smashing. Ok, they were shite. Put them into private hands. No problem with that provided they fund the improvements privately. My grouse is that the public purse is still footing the bills for these private companies to improve it. But keep the profotable stuff of course.

Regarding poverty and the poor being able to guzzle beer, snort charlie, smoke like chimneys, have expensive "toys", whilst still needing foodbanks. I noticed a really interesting thing recently which gives a really good idea of what is happening to the individuals finances, working, unemployed or otherwise. Previously at this time of the year in my neck of the woods, there would have been fireworks going off to the tune of £1000's every night for a good month prior to bonfire night, and for some weeks afterwards. This year was not so. Hardly any, even on bonfire night itself. That tells me more than seeing a dole wallah with a pint in his hand and a cig in his gob.
No mainstream participants in the financial services sector sought the abolishment of financial regulation. You are correct that Gordon Brown through his muddled and ill thought out 'unholy trinity' of B of E, Treasurey and FSA effectively lessened even further light regulation to the point where it became entirely ineffective.

The biggest cost to the taxpayer is the state owned Network Rail with the cost of financing its £30billion of debt, not the franchised private railway companies.

So we are reduced to judging the economic state of the nation by how many fireworks are let off over council estates. Love the science!
Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Nov 12 2014, 07:11 PM
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 07:03 PM


Yes it is terrible. it is even worse when they've got a pint in their hand, a fag in their gob and a 3G phone in their pockets.

That comment alone shows you are so far out of touch as to not be worth debating with. I have to put up with more than enough pub professors and psychic taxi drivers in real life I have no intention of bothering with them on an internet forum.
Good. Perhaps you will now desist in making your outrageous claims and sticking to facts, as you appear to be the self appointed Pub Professor on this subject. Now stick to what you can prove without innuendo or massive leaps of illogical faith. For a start try proving that the UK is, relatively speaking, not a generous country towards those it considers worthy of support bot at home and abroad. I think you will find that the UK has little to feel ashamed of in relative terms.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 12 2014, 07:36 PM
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 07:27 PM
papasmurf
Nov 12 2014, 07:11 PM
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 07:03 PM


Yes it is terrible. it is even worse when they've got a pint in their hand, a fag in their gob and a 3G phone in their pockets.

That comment alone shows you are so far out of touch as to not be worth debating with. I have to put up with more than enough pub professors and psychic taxi drivers in real life I have no intention of bothering with them on an internet forum.
NO what it shows is that I get out more than you do.
If you visit your local pub or working mans club, you would see real life, not the imagined life you believe, I have a couple of friends unemployed, granted they don't smoke, but enjoy a pint and both have the the latest 3g phones.

I am sorry you have to put up with more than enough pub professors and psychic taxi drivers, as I am with armchair know-it alls who believe everything that left wing internet forums tells them.
So should the unemployed be denied small gadgets or the odd drink because it might offend right wing retards such as yourself?

I certainly get the impression you don't approve............
Not the point is it. The claim is that those in receipt of welfare benefits cannot afford food. Surely the purchase of food with such money is paramount. I would certainly put it higher than paying debts or heating Bills or rent for accommodation or even dare I say it mobile phones latest design or otherwise. I notice that used mobile phones are given to Charity organisations so why are these not finding their way to those in need? As for beer n fags, beer is a food and yes it is very difficult for those in such straights to kick the nicotine habit so I sympathise. As smoking is a good population regulator maybe we should arrange to issue free Fag Vouchers with Welfare Benefits?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]


Quote:
 
The study measures 23 attributes, separated into six overall categories that affect national image: exports, governance, culture, people, tourism and immigration/investment.


Quote:
 
The Anholt-GfK Roper Nation Brands Index top 10:
1. Germany
2. United States
3. United Kingdom
4. France
5. Canada
6. Japan
7. Italy
8. Switzerland
9. Australia
10. Sweden


INDEX

Yep out of 50 countries the UK comes third from top. Not bad for a third World sh1t-hole that treats it's citizens as if they were just industrial fodder. Christus it must be awful to have to live in Scandinavia.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Major Sinic
Nov 13 2014, 09:39 AM
disgruntled porker
Nov 13 2014, 08:56 AM
Hang on, when GB lessened the regulations on the financial institutions, Wasn't it the finacial sector itself, the champions of privatisation, and any bugger with a slight incling towards the right, that said it wasn't enough and he should deregulate completely? Funny how you all now do an about face.

Regarding railways. Smashing. Ok, they were shite. Put them into private hands. No problem with that provided they fund the improvements privately. My grouse is that the public purse is still footing the bills for these private companies to improve it. But keep the profotable stuff of course.

Regarding poverty and the poor being able to guzzle beer, snort charlie, smoke like chimneys, have expensive "toys", whilst still needing foodbanks. I noticed a really interesting thing recently which gives a really good idea of what is happening to the individuals finances, working, unemployed or otherwise. Previously at this time of the year in my neck of the woods, there would have been fireworks going off to the tune of £1000's every night for a good month prior to bonfire night, and for some weeks afterwards. This year was not so. Hardly any, even on bonfire night itself. That tells me more than seeing a dole wallah with a pint in his hand and a cig in his gob.
No mainstream participants in the financial services sector sought the abolishment of financial regulation. You are correct that Gordon Brown through his muddled and ill thought out 'unholy trinity' of B of E, Treasurey and FSA effectively lessened even further light regulation to the point where it became entirely ineffective.

The biggest cost to the taxpayer is the state owned Network Rail with the cost of financing its £30billion of debt, not the franchised private railway companies.

So we are reduced to judging the economic state of the nation by how many fireworks are let off over council estates. Love the science!
The Tory party, City of London and the financial Gurus of the day called for more deregulation of the financial sector. Alan Greenspan was very apologetic after the meltdown.

UK financial controls like all the other Western countries financial controls, were ineffective against the financial poison slipped into the international financial markets from the States via Wall Street. It would help to clarify things if you put most of the the blame where it truly belongs.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 13 2014, 10:19 AM

Quote:
 
The study measures 23 attributes, separated into six overall categories that affect national image: exports, governance, culture, people, tourism and immigration/investment.


Quote:
 
The Anholt-GfK Roper Nation Brands Index top 10:
1. Germany
2. United States
3. United Kingdom
4. France
5. Canada
6. Japan
7. Italy
8. Switzerland
9. Australia
10. Sweden


INDEX

Yep out of 50 countries the UK comes third from top. Not bad for a third World sh1t-hole that treats it's citizens as if they were just industrial fodder. Christus it must be awful to have to live in Scandinavia.
Yet still feels the need for tax cuts for the rich and a bedroom/boxroom tax on the needy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 13 2014, 10:24 AM
Major Sinic
Nov 13 2014, 09:39 AM
disgruntled porker
Nov 13 2014, 08:56 AM
Hang on, when GB lessened the regulations on the financial institutions, Wasn't it the finacial sector itself, the champions of privatisation, and any bugger with a slight incling towards the right, that said it wasn't enough and he should deregulate completely? Funny how you all now do an about face.

Regarding railways. Smashing. Ok, they were shite. Put them into private hands. No problem with that provided they fund the improvements privately. My grouse is that the public purse is still footing the bills for these private companies to improve it. But keep the profotable stuff of course.

Regarding poverty and the poor being able to guzzle beer, snort charlie, smoke like chimneys, have expensive "toys", whilst still needing foodbanks. I noticed a really interesting thing recently which gives a really good idea of what is happening to the individuals finances, working, unemployed or otherwise. Previously at this time of the year in my neck of the woods, there would have been fireworks going off to the tune of £1000's every night for a good month prior to bonfire night, and for some weeks afterwards. This year was not so. Hardly any, even on bonfire night itself. That tells me more than seeing a dole wallah with a pint in his hand and a cig in his gob.
No mainstream participants in the financial services sector sought the abolishment of financial regulation. You are correct that Gordon Brown through his muddled and ill thought out 'unholy trinity' of B of E, Treasurey and FSA effectively lessened even further light regulation to the point where it became entirely ineffective.

The biggest cost to the taxpayer is the state owned Network Rail with the cost of financing its £30billion of debt, not the franchised private railway companies.

So we are reduced to judging the economic state of the nation by how many fireworks are let off over council estates. Love the science!
The Tory party, City of London and the financial Gurus of the day called for more deregulation of the financial sector. Alan Greenspan was very apologetic after the meltdown.

UK financial controls like all the other Western countries financial controls, were ineffective against the financial poison slipped into the international financial markets from the States via Wall Street. It would help to clarify things if you put most of the the blame where it truly belongs.


Yep 60% City Slickers and 40% Idiot Politicians.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

C-too
Nov 13 2014, 10:24 AM
Major Sinic
Nov 13 2014, 09:39 AM
disgruntled porker
Nov 13 2014, 08:56 AM
Hang on, when GB lessened the regulations on the financial institutions, Wasn't it the finacial sector itself, the champions of privatisation, and any bugger with a slight incling towards the right, that said it wasn't enough and he should deregulate completely? Funny how you all now do an about face.

Regarding railways. Smashing. Ok, they were shite. Put them into private hands. No problem with that provided they fund the improvements privately. My grouse is that the public purse is still footing the bills for these private companies to improve it. But keep the profotable stuff of course.

Regarding poverty and the poor being able to guzzle beer, snort charlie, smoke like chimneys, have expensive "toys", whilst still needing foodbanks. I noticed a really interesting thing recently which gives a really good idea of what is happening to the individuals finances, working, unemployed or otherwise. Previously at this time of the year in my neck of the woods, there would have been fireworks going off to the tune of £1000's every night for a good month prior to bonfire night, and for some weeks afterwards. This year was not so. Hardly any, even on bonfire night itself. That tells me more than seeing a dole wallah with a pint in his hand and a cig in his gob.
No mainstream participants in the financial services sector sought the abolishment of financial regulation. You are correct that Gordon Brown through his muddled and ill thought out 'unholy trinity' of B of E, Treasurey and FSA effectively lessened even further light regulation to the point where it became entirely ineffective.

The biggest cost to the taxpayer is the state owned Network Rail with the cost of financing its £30billion of debt, not the franchised private railway companies.

So we are reduced to judging the economic state of the nation by how many fireworks are let off over council estates. Love the science!
The Tory party, City of London and the financial Gurus of the day called for more deregulation of the financial sector. Alan Greenspan was very apologetic after the meltdown.

UK financial controls like all the other Western countries financial controls, were ineffective against the financial poison slipped into the international financial markets from the States via Wall Street. It would help to clarify things if you put most of the the blame where it truly belongs.


Care to provide evidence that at the time Gordon Brown 'restructured' financial regulation with such gross incompetence that your imagined villains; the Tory Party, the City and a group of nameless and unquantifiable Gurus, demanded less regulation? DP suggested that they demanded the removal of regulation altogether. At least your stated falsehood doesn't extend that far!

Two points. I am fully aware that the financial crisis was global and emmanated from the USA. I am also fully aware that entirely ineffective regulation of financial services, along with profligate and ineffectual public spending resulted in a far greater negative impact on the UK economy than a competent administration would have overseen, thanks in great measure to Gordon Brown and his two economic henchmen, Miliband and Balls.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Major Sinic
Nov 13 2014, 03:47 PM
C-too
Nov 13 2014, 10:24 AM
Major Sinic
Nov 13 2014, 09:39 AM
disgruntled porker
Nov 13 2014, 08:56 AM
Hang on, when GB lessened the regulations on the financial institutions, Wasn't it the finacial sector itself, the champions of privatisation, and any bugger with a slight incling towards the right, that said it wasn't enough and he should deregulate completely? Funny how you all now do an about face.

Regarding railways. Smashing. Ok, they were shite. Put them into private hands. No problem with that provided they fund the improvements privately. My grouse is that the public purse is still footing the bills for these private companies to improve it. But keep the profotable stuff of course.

Regarding poverty and the poor being able to guzzle beer, snort charlie, smoke like chimneys, have expensive "toys", whilst still needing foodbanks. I noticed a really interesting thing recently which gives a really good idea of what is happening to the individuals finances, working, unemployed or otherwise. Previously at this time of the year in my neck of the woods, there would have been fireworks going off to the tune of £1000's every night for a good month prior to bonfire night, and for some weeks afterwards. This year was not so. Hardly any, even on bonfire night itself. That tells me more than seeing a dole wallah with a pint in his hand and a cig in his gob.
No mainstream participants in the financial services sector sought the abolishment of financial regulation. You are correct that Gordon Brown through his muddled and ill thought out 'unholy trinity' of B of E, Treasurey and FSA effectively lessened even further light regulation to the point where it became entirely ineffective.

The biggest cost to the taxpayer is the state owned Network Rail with the cost of financing its £30billion of debt, not the franchised private railway companies.

So we are reduced to judging the economic state of the nation by how many fireworks are let off over council estates. Love the science!
The Tory party, City of London and the financial Gurus of the day called for more deregulation of the financial sector. Alan Greenspan was very apologetic after the meltdown.

UK financial controls like all the other Western countries financial controls, were ineffective against the financial poison slipped into the international financial markets from the States via Wall Street. It would help to clarify things if you put most of the the blame where it truly belongs.


Care to provide evidence that at the time Gordon Brown 'restructured' financial regulation with such gross incompetence that your imagined villains; the Tory Party, the City and a group of nameless and unquantifiable Gurus, demanded less regulation? DP suggested that they demanded the removal of regulation altogether. At least your stated falsehood doesn't extend that far!

Two points. I am fully aware that the financial crisis was global and emmanated from the USA. I am also fully aware that entirely ineffective regulation of financial services, along with profligate and ineffectual public spending resulted in a far greater negative impact on the UK economy than a competent administration would have overseen, thanks in great measure to Gordon Brown and his two economic henchmen, Miliband and Balls.
You ask for comformation then post your "Stated falsehood", without comformation of your claim??
I could if I was minded to provide evidence of Thatcher's favourite Guru, Alan Greenspan because he apologised after the meltdown saying "he did not think the banks would act so irresponsibly".
The Tories were repeatedly calling for more deregulation as heard on TV, they applauded deregulation taking place. Proving the City were in favour would be a little more difficult as it was something that came up during a political debate on TV.

One thing is certain, you will not find Greenspan, the leader of the Tory party, or the City anywhere on record asking for reregulation before the meltdown. All the 'brains' suddenly had to find a scapegoat after the meltdown and the Tories dishonestly led the way in blaming Brown/NL.

Are you fully aware of the state of the NHS in 1979 with its 12 to 18 months waiting times for operations?

Are you fully aware of the lack of maintainance of state schools outside of the 'Grant Maintained' system?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 13 2014, 04:14 PM

Are you fully aware of the state of the NHS in 1979 with its 12 to 18 months waiting times for operations?

Are you fully aware of the lack of maintainance of state schools outside of the 'Grant Maintained' system?


It is not awareness these deniers lack ....... a conscience would be a start.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 13 2014, 10:00 AM
Tigger
Nov 12 2014, 07:36 PM
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 07:27 PM
papasmurf
Nov 12 2014, 07:11 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
NO what it shows is that I get out more than you do.
If you visit your local pub or working mans club, you would see real life, not the imagined life you believe, I have a couple of friends unemployed, granted they don't smoke, but enjoy a pint and both have the the latest 3g phones.

I am sorry you have to put up with more than enough pub professors and psychic taxi drivers, as I am with armchair know-it alls who believe everything that left wing internet forums tells them.
So should the unemployed be denied small gadgets or the odd drink because it might offend right wing retards such as yourself?

I certainly get the impression you don't approve............
Not the point is it. The claim is that those in receipt of welfare benefits cannot afford food. Surely the purchase of food with such money is paramount. I would certainly put it higher than paying debts or heating Bills or rent for accommodation or even dare I say it mobile phones latest design or otherwise. I notice that used mobile phones are given to Charity organisations so why are these not finding their way to those in need? As for beer n fags, beer is a food and yes it is very difficult for those in such straights to kick the nicotine habit so I sympathise. As smoking is a good population regulator maybe we should arrange to issue free Fag Vouchers with Welfare Benefits?
What the f are you on about now? :-\

He was having a dig at those who he considered were apparently wasting what little money they had on frivolous things and were not living like hermits or showing suitable humility as punishment for their predicament. That's what it boils down to you dunce.

And spare me any more of your dishonest tripe please.........
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

C-too
Nov 13 2014, 04:14 PM
Major Sinic
Nov 13 2014, 03:47 PM
C-too
Nov 13 2014, 10:24 AM
Major Sinic
Nov 13 2014, 09:39 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
The Tory party, City of London and the financial Gurus of the day called for more deregulation of the financial sector. Alan Greenspan was very apologetic after the meltdown.

UK financial controls like all the other Western countries financial controls, were ineffective against the financial poison slipped into the international financial markets from the States via Wall Street. It would help to clarify things if you put most of the the blame where it truly belongs.


Care to provide evidence that at the time Gordon Brown 'restructured' financial regulation with such gross incompetence that your imagined villains; the Tory Party, the City and a group of nameless and unquantifiable Gurus, demanded less regulation? DP suggested that they demanded the removal of regulation altogether. At least your stated falsehood doesn't extend that far!

Two points. I am fully aware that the financial crisis was global and emmanated from the USA. I am also fully aware that entirely ineffective regulation of financial services, along with profligate and ineffectual public spending resulted in a far greater negative impact on the UK economy than a competent administration would have overseen, thanks in great measure to Gordon Brown and his two economic henchmen, Miliband and Balls.
You ask for comformation then post your "Stated falsehood", without comformation of your claim??
I could if I was minded to provide evidence of Thatcher's favourite Guru, Alan Greenspan because he apologised after the meltdown saying "he did not think the banks would act so irresponsibly".
The Tories were repeatedly calling for more deregulation as heard on TV, they applauded deregulation taking place. Proving the City were in favour would be a little more difficult as it was something that came up during a political debate on TV.

One thing is certain, you will not find Greenspan, the leader of the Tory party, or the City anywhere on record asking for reregulation before the meltdown. All the 'brains' suddenly had to find a scapegoat after the meltdown and the Tories dishonestly led the way in blaming Brown/NL.

Are you fully aware of the state of the NHS in 1979 with its 12 to 18 months waiting times for operations?

Are you fully aware of the lack of maintainance of state schools outside of the 'Grant Maintained' system?
Fine so no evidence! I'm not surprised.

Could I just remind you that Labour was elected to govern this country in 1997 when Gordon Brown was appointed Chancellor. You seem to be implying that the complete lack of regulation implemented by Brown was somehow not his responsibility, but the Conservatives and the City were somehow at fault, although he had had ten years to tighten financial regulation had he seen fit. Instead he turned lightweight regulation into strawweight regulation. Whether you like it or not in your fantasy world of wonderful Labour, the buck stops with the guy in charge and in this case it was Brown.

What the heck the NHS waiting times in 1979 or the maintenance of state schools has to do with this thread in general, or financial regulation in particular I really have no idea. I am not surprised however that the country was in a mess then, since March 1979 spelt the end of five years of Labour Government, and an economic mess is what we have come to expect at the end of every Labour administration. As Affa points out a conscience was what was needed and having one ensured that I voted to get rid Callaghan, surely one of the most ineffectual, weak and vacillating post war prime ministers!
Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 13 2014, 10:00 AM
The claim is that those in receipt of welfare benefits cannot afford food.
They need to be paid the benefits to first RJD, delays to benefits and benefits sanctions are forcing people to use food banks.
(Here is another reference you won't read.)

http://www.ymca.org.uk/images/stories/Documents/Food_for_thought_Report.pdf
November 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
What is forcing young people to use foodbanks?
 The vast majority (88%) of YMCAs participating in the research now have to refer the young people they work with to foodbanks.
 Just under four in five (79%) of those YMCAs referring young people to foodbanks reported having to do this as a direct result of delays in receiving benefit payments and punitive sanctions.
Why are the numbers of young people accessing foodbanks increasing?
 Over three quarters (76%) of YMCAs referring young people to foodbanks indicated that there had been an increase in the past year in the number of individuals they had to refer, with 40% reporting that this increase had been significant.
 It is estimated that YMCAs referred between 4,400 and 5,200 young people to foodbanks for support in the last year.
When YMCAs were asked to explain this increase in food poverty amongst the young people they work with, more than four in five (81%) identified this being a result of the changes taking place to the welfare system.
 The new sanctions regime introduced in October 2012 was singled out as the main reason behind the growth in the numbers of young people living in food poverty.
How are YMCAs supporting young people in need?
 Where YMCAs were unable to prevent young people from falling into financial hardship, they support them to access food, both through referring them to foodbanks and providing food directly to them.
 YMCAs also run foodbanks which helped over 1,800 people last year.
 Recognising the issues being faced in the communities they serve, YMCAs deliver a range of preventative services to avoid young people ever needing to depend on hand-outs.
 This includes YMCAs helping almost 43,000 people last year to engage in education, skills and training to enable them to improve their opportunities in the job market.
What needs to be done to stop young people relying on foodbanks?
 Urgent action needs to be taken to address the problems with the welfare system, especially given the potentially negative impacts of changes yet to be rolled-out, and YMCA believes this should focus on;
o Developing a more person-centred welfare system
o Establishing additional exemptions and easements to protect the most vulnerable claimants
o Better communicating the available safeguards and support
o Undertaking a comprehensive review of benefit sancti
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Nov 13 2014, 12:41 AM
Tigger
Nov 12 2014, 07:36 PM
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 07:27 PM
papasmurf
Nov 12 2014, 07:11 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
NO what it shows is that I get out more than you do.
If you visit your local pub or working mans club, you would see real life, not the imagined life you believe, I have a couple of friends unemployed, granted they don't smoke, but enjoy a pint and both have the the latest 3g phones.

I am sorry you have to put up with more than enough pub professors and psychic taxi drivers, as I am with armchair know-it alls who believe everything that left wing internet forums tells them.
So should the unemployed be denied small gadgets or the odd drink because it might offend right wing retards such as yourself?

I certainly get the impression you don't approve............
Why do you get the impression I don't approve, If you read my post properly, they are my friends. The reply was to Mr Smurf assertion that because you are unemployed and on benefits you can't still go out and have a drink, and they don't need foodbanks.

What does offend me is your reference to being called a right wing retard, just because I don't vote for a party that IMHO has done more damage to the Country and the working man.

I have never insulted you and would appreciate it if you would withdraw that comment.
Then why specify they have these expensive toys? It looks to me like you threw this in for effect.

Remember not everyone on here has been brainwashed into looking down their noses at those less fortunate than themselves, most of us are only a handful of bad mistakes away from being in exactly the same position as these folks............
Edited by Tigger, Nov 13 2014, 05:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jaguar
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 13 2014, 05:37 PM
jaguar
Nov 13 2014, 12:41 AM
Tigger
Nov 12 2014, 07:36 PM
jaguar
Nov 12 2014, 07:27 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
So should the unemployed be denied small gadgets or the odd drink because it might offend right wing retards such as yourself?

I certainly get the impression you don't approve............
Why do you get the impression I don't approve, If you read my post properly, they are my friends. The reply was to Mr Smurf assertion that because you are unemployed and on benefits you can't still go out and have a drink, and they don't need foodbanks.

What does offend me is your reference to being called a right wing retard, just because I don't vote for a party that IMHO has done more damage to the Country and the working man.

I have never insulted you and would appreciate it if you would withdraw that comment.
Then why specify they have these expensive toys? It looks to me like you threw this in for effect.

Remember not everyone on here has been brainwashed into looking down their noses at those less fortunate than themselves, most of us are only a handful of bad mistakes away from being in exactly the same position as these folks............
So why don't you stop brainwashing people into believing that only people that don't vote Labour are looking down their noses at those less fortunate than themselves.
In fact the only time I hear these type of comments are usually Lefties insulting anyone that disagrees with their opinions.

But carry on insulting people that disagree with you, it only convinces me that most lefties are all part of the vile party, and hopefully will turn more people from voting for Labour.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
Major Sinic
Nov 13 2014, 09:39 AM
disgruntled porker
Nov 13 2014, 08:56 AM
Hang on, when GB lessened the regulations on the financial institutions, Wasn't it the finacial sector itself, the champions of privatisation, and any bugger with a slight incling towards the right, that said it wasn't enough and he should deregulate completely? Funny how you all now do an about face.

Regarding railways. Smashing. Ok, they were shite. Put them into private hands. No problem with that provided they fund the improvements privately. My grouse is that the public purse is still footing the bills for these private companies to improve it. But keep the profotable stuff of course.

Regarding poverty and the poor being able to guzzle beer, snort charlie, smoke like chimneys, have expensive "toys", whilst still needing foodbanks. I noticed a really interesting thing recently which gives a really good idea of what is happening to the individuals finances, working, unemployed or otherwise. Previously at this time of the year in my neck of the woods, there would have been fireworks going off to the tune of £1000's every night for a good month prior to bonfire night, and for some weeks afterwards. This year was not so. Hardly any, even on bonfire night itself. That tells me more than seeing a dole wallah with a pint in his hand and a cig in his gob.
No mainstream participants in the financial services sector sought the abolishment of financial regulation. You are correct that Gordon Brown through his muddled and ill thought out 'unholy trinity' of B of E, Treasurey and FSA effectively lessened even further light regulation to the point where it became entirely ineffective.

The biggest cost to the taxpayer is the state owned Network Rail with the cost of financing its £30billion of debt, not the franchised private railway companies.

So we are reduced to judging the economic state of the nation by how many fireworks are let off over council estates. Love the science!
However you want to dress it up, it was big business and rabid right wingers that demanded less, or even no regulation of ANY markets. Their arguement was that markets self regulate to provide the best deals for the consumer. Now, most admit they were wrong.

Yes, the bits of the railways which could be made profitable sold off piss cheap to favoured parties. The less desirable bits were kept and funded by the public purse to enable said favoured parties free to reap their hallowed profits. Without the public purse keeping these vital parts of the rail network running the aforesaid favoured parties would not have been interested.

Regarding the fireworks. I think it is a very relevant point. A bang up to date assessment of how much money is available, or not, to fritter away on non essentials. I assume the remark about council estates indicates that you beleive all their inhabitants are feckless scroungers, otherwise they would not be living there?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Major Sinic
Nov 13 2014, 03:47 PM
C-too
Nov 13 2014, 10:24 AM
Major Sinic
Nov 13 2014, 09:39 AM
disgruntled porker
Nov 13 2014, 08:56 AM
Hang on, when GB lessened the regulations on the financial institutions, Wasn't it the finacial sector itself, the champions of privatisation, and any bugger with a slight incling towards the right, that said it wasn't enough and he should deregulate completely? Funny how you all now do an about face.

Regarding railways. Smashing. Ok, they were shite. Put them into private hands. No problem with that provided they fund the improvements privately. My grouse is that the public purse is still footing the bills for these private companies to improve it. But keep the profotable stuff of course.

Regarding poverty and the poor being able to guzzle beer, snort charlie, smoke like chimneys, have expensive "toys", whilst still needing foodbanks. I noticed a really interesting thing recently which gives a really good idea of what is happening to the individuals finances, working, unemployed or otherwise. Previously at this time of the year in my neck of the woods, there would have been fireworks going off to the tune of £1000's every night for a good month prior to bonfire night, and for some weeks afterwards. This year was not so. Hardly any, even on bonfire night itself. That tells me more than seeing a dole wallah with a pint in his hand and a cig in his gob.
No mainstream participants in the financial services sector sought the abolishment of financial regulation. You are correct that Gordon Brown through his muddled and ill thought out 'unholy trinity' of B of E, Treasurey and FSA effectively lessened even further light regulation to the point where it became entirely ineffective.

The biggest cost to the taxpayer is the state owned Network Rail with the cost of financing its £30billion of debt, not the franchised private railway companies.

So we are reduced to judging the economic state of the nation by how many fireworks are let off over council estates. Love the science!
The Tory party, City of London and the financial Gurus of the day called for more deregulation of the financial sector. Alan Greenspan was very apologetic after the meltdown.

UK financial controls like all the other Western countries financial controls, were ineffective against the financial poison slipped into the international financial markets from the States via Wall Street. It would help to clarify things if you put most of the the blame where it truly belongs.


Care to provide evidence that at the time Gordon Brown 'restructured' financial regulation with such gross incompetence that your imagined villains; the Tory Party, the City and a group of nameless and unquantifiable Gurus, demanded less regulation? DP suggested that they demanded the removal of regulation altogether. At least your stated falsehood doesn't extend that far!

Two points. I am fully aware that the financial crisis was global and emmanated from the USA. I am also fully aware that entirely ineffective regulation of financial services, along with profligate and ineffectual public spending resulted in a far greater negative impact on the UK economy than a competent administration would have overseen, thanks in great measure to Gordon Brown and his two economic henchmen, Miliband and Balls.
Best not to get too carried away, after all the blue team has been dragging it's heels over proper regulation of the City and it's institutions and has been a user of it's EU veto to protect the assorted vermin that occupy the place.

Mentioned in the interest of balance...........
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jaguar
Nov 13 2014, 06:43 PM
Tigger
Nov 13 2014, 05:37 PM
jaguar
Nov 13 2014, 12:41 AM
Tigger
Nov 12 2014, 07:36 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Why do you get the impression I don't approve, If you read my post properly, they are my friends. The reply was to Mr Smurf assertion that because you are unemployed and on benefits you can't still go out and have a drink, and they don't need foodbanks.

What does offend me is your reference to being called a right wing retard, just because I don't vote for a party that IMHO has done more damage to the Country and the working man.

I have never insulted you and would appreciate it if you would withdraw that comment.
Then why specify they have these expensive toys? It looks to me like you threw this in for effect.

Remember not everyone on here has been brainwashed into looking down their noses at those less fortunate than themselves, most of us are only a handful of bad mistakes away from being in exactly the same position as these folks............
So why don't you stop brainwashing people into believing that only people that don't vote Labour are looking down their noses at those less fortunate than themselves.
In fact the only time I hear these type of comments are usually Lefties insulting anyone that disagrees with their opinions.

But carry on insulting people that disagree with you, it only convinces me that most lefties are all part of the vile party, and hopefully will turn more people from voting for Labour.
Not the brightest are you? And you reveal your right wing credentials by automatically assuming I'm a leftie because I go after the right wing nonsense that frequently appears on here! For your information I despise all the main political parties and have little time for the partisan politics you've been evidently displaying on this thread. I want to see Britain return to being a capitalist nation not welfare state for big business and banks.



Edited by Tigger, Nov 13 2014, 10:21 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Nov 13 2014, 04:14 PM
Major Sinic
Nov 13 2014, 03:47 PM
C-too
Nov 13 2014, 10:24 AM
Major Sinic
Nov 13 2014, 09:39 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
The Tory party, City of London and the financial Gurus of the day called for more deregulation of the financial sector. Alan Greenspan was very apologetic after the meltdown.

UK financial controls like all the other Western countries financial controls, were ineffective against the financial poison slipped into the international financial markets from the States via Wall Street. It would help to clarify things if you put most of the the blame where it truly belongs.


Care to provide evidence that at the time Gordon Brown 'restructured' financial regulation with such gross incompetence that your imagined villains; the Tory Party, the City and a group of nameless and unquantifiable Gurus, demanded less regulation? DP suggested that they demanded the removal of regulation altogether. At least your stated falsehood doesn't extend that far!

Two points. I am fully aware that the financial crisis was global and emmanated from the USA. I am also fully aware that entirely ineffective regulation of financial services, along with profligate and ineffectual public spending resulted in a far greater negative impact on the UK economy than a competent administration would have overseen, thanks in great measure to Gordon Brown and his two economic henchmen, Miliband and Balls.
You ask for comformation then post your "Stated falsehood", without comformation of your claim??
I could if I was minded to provide evidence of Thatcher's favourite Guru, Alan Greenspan because he apologised after the meltdown saying "he did not think the banks would act so irresponsibly".
The Tories were repeatedly calling for more deregulation as heard on TV, they applauded deregulation taking place. Proving the City were in favour would be a little more difficult as it was something that came up during a political debate on TV.

One thing is certain, you will not find Greenspan, the leader of the Tory party, or the City anywhere on record asking for reregulation before the meltdown. All the 'brains' suddenly had to find a scapegoat after the meltdown and the Tories dishonestly led the way in blaming Brown/NL.

Are you fully aware of the state of the NHS in 1979 with its 12 to 18 months waiting times for operations?

Are you fully aware of the lack of maintainance of state schools outside of the 'Grant Maintained' system?
You continue to be confused about running costs and CAPEX. You continue to ignore the fact that NHS improvements could have been obtained at a much lower cost by reforming the system and demanding productivity gains. Nobody objects to improvements only the massive lack of prudence which produced enormous amounts of waste of Taxpayers money. You continue to ignore that the education budget doubled and standards declined and the fact that the correlation between cost per pupil and attainment across the OECD is tenuous. The most significant factors are system and quality of Teaching.
You continue to forget that Labour pumped up the cost of Big Nanny to a level which is unaffordable at a rate greater than nearly ever other country in the OECD between 1997 and 2007. It made the UK the worst placed country to weather the storm. Labour are culpable and no matter how much white-wash you apply Joe Public will not be hoodwinked.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 14 2014, 12:26 PM
Nobody objects to improvements only the massive lack of prudence which produced enormous amounts of waste of Taxpayers money.

Of course; nobody should object to improvements, anywhere, unless there was another agenda ...... an agenda that desired to escape being held accountable for the running of public services (losing voter confidence), and so would rather these were managed by the private sector (where these services become vessels for profit to shareholders = investors).
Under those circumstances it might be desirable for these services to fail, to be made lame - a situation which would allow for public opinion to accept privatisation, and at a market price much lower than the potential price from a well managed service.
Being minimalist, restricting investments, spending 'Cuts', does not equate to being prudent, no matter how it is dressed up.

adjective
1.
wise or judicious in practical affairs; sagacious; discreet or circumspect; sober.
2.
careful in providing for the future; provident:


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
disgruntled porker
Member Avatar
Older than most people think I am.
[ *  *  * ]
You mean that a government would actually seek to run a state business into the floor so that it would appear to Joe Public that it was a good idea to sell it off to some silly private buggers at a rock bottom price? Then, the businesses would suddenly recover and make very healthy profits for the silly buggers who bought that supposed pile of shite for peanuts?

Surely this wouldn't happen? Surely the public would twig what was happening were it the case?

Ho hum.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply