The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Clint Planet]

"I suspect most would agree that the best way out of poverty is to work yourself out of it"

I'm not saying they're to blame at all.

It seems you most certainly are.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

"I suspect most would agree that the best way out of poverty is to work yourself out of it"



It seems you most certainly are.

Not really. I'm saying that it's better, and more sustainable, for the poor to get out of poverty as a result of working than it is through welfare. Or to use Roydo's quote about fish and fishing from above.

At the moment, even if a farmer (for instance) is willing and able, they're often barred from trading with western countries by tariffs and quotas that block them out. That's wrong and in no way their fault.

Immigration is a similar barrier, because so many western countries block talented people from moving there to work and better themselves. You can see this with things like the US tech industry complaining bitterly about the challenges they face in recruiting talented people from overseas.

Whether you're a software developer in Pune or a farmer in Nairobi, neither of those things are your fault, yet both are massively harming your potential to get on in life. I'm not really sure how you can construe any of that as an attack on those individuals?

 

[Coach]

So I suppose those living in poverty in this country (where they are not restricted by the barriers you list) are simply there because they haven't 'worked their way out of it'?

 

[Clint Planet]

Not really. I'm saying that it's better, and more sustainable, for the poor to get out of poverty as a result of working than it is through welfare. Or to use Roydo's quote about fish and fishing from above.

I'm not talking about giving dole-ites loads of dosh (as I suspect you know). I'm talking about institutional societal poverty. Your comment implies that the poor can work themselves out of poverty if they only pulled their fingers out. The reality is that the cards are massively stacked against them. I agree that wealth creation has to be a part of any solution but it is only a small part. Trickled down is a myth. There has to be a political will to end poverty. The ruling class do not have that will. Neither do the huge corporations who, of course, exist only to maximise profit, no matter the social cost.

Like I said, Poverty is a political decision. It is not an inevitability. It could be ended next week if we only wanted it.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I'm not talking about giving dole-ites loads of dosh (as I suspect you know). I'm talking about institutional societal poverty...
Like I said, Poverty is a political decision. It is not an inevitability. It could be ended next week if we only wanted it.

I'm not really sure what that means? You've mentioned that poverty can be ended in a heartbeat if we wanted to. How would that happen?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

On an unrelated note, I'm attending an event next month with the chief of Buurtzorg, an innovative provider of nursing in Holland. Sounds like a neat approach. I also found out today that the RSA operate a couple of academy schools. Kinda interesting.

http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/media/jos-de-blok-buurtzorg-home-healthcare-nov13.pdf

http://www.buurtzorgnederland.com/

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Another interesting organisation

http://www.pratham.org/

 

[Groucho]

Funny this, coz I actually though he was at least a muppet - even The Echo saw fit to label the photo "Bungle (left)". Really glad @Bungle isn't in UKIP though....

 

[Jxg]

Cameron again singing the "vote UKIP, get Labour" song. Regardless of whether you support Labour, UKIP or whoever, it's brilliant to see just how scared he is right now at the rise of UKIP and how it will hurt the Tories. Him and Clegg have done nothing but lie and they deserve everything they get.

 

[SweetJesus849]

I'm not really sure what that means? You've mentioned that poverty can be ended in a heartbeat if we wanted to. How would that happen?

Depends how you spend/save/earn your money. The UK has billions and billions worth of unpaid tax from the rich and from big business, and spends ridiculous amounts on defence. It also outsources a lot of its services to private companies for rather pitiful amounts and continuously decides to asset strip and far below value. For example, Royal Mail.

Redirecting finances could go a long way. How you spend it afterwards is totally different. You could spend it on jobs/job creation, universal basic income. It all depends really.

Having said that for some bizarre reason they've come up with the idea that private is better and this whole "trickle down" thing. Which makes absolutely no sense to me personally, and if it does indeed "trickle down" it's coming down like treacle.

 

[Clint Planet]

Depends how you spend/save/earn your money. The UK has billions and billions worth of unpaid tax from the rich and from big business, and spends ridiculous amounts on defence. It also outsources a lot of its services to private companies for rather pitiful amounts and continuously decides to asset strip and far below value. For example, Royal Mail.

Redirecting finances could go a long way. How you spend it afterwards is totally different. You could spend it on jobs/job creation, universal basic income. It all depends really.

Having said that for some bizarre reason they've come up with the idea that private is better and this whole "trickle down" thing. Which makes absolutely no sense to me personally, and if it does indeed "trickle down" it's coming down like treacle.

Precisely. Like I keep saying, poverty is a political decision. It is not inevitable.

Too many people just accept inequality and poverty as a fact of life. They blame the disadvantaged for poor, as though it's simply a case of grsfting their way out of their circumstances. And in the meantime, the gap between the rich and the poor gets wider and wider and wider...

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Depends how you spend/save/earn your money. The UK has billions and billions worth of unpaid tax from the rich and from big business, and spends ridiculous amounts on defence. It also outsources a lot of its services to private companies for rather pitiful amounts and continuously decides to asset strip and far below value. For example, Royal Mail.

Redirecting finances could go a long way. How you spend it afterwards is totally different. You could spend it on jobs/job creation, universal basic income. It all depends really.

Having said that for some bizarre reason they've come up with the idea that private is better and this whole "trickle down" thing. Which makes absolutely no sense to me personally, and if it does indeed "trickle down" it's coming down like treacle.

For sure, the government waste an awful lot of money, I've no doubt about that at all. What would happen to it though? Social mobility has proved notoriously difficult to shift over the years, despite substantial attempts to provide equality of opportunity.

It would seem rather depressing to suggest that a proportion of society will always be poor and thus must be sustained by welfare, but is that really the case? Attempts to create a socially mobile society don't really seem to have worked thus far.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/may/22/social-mobility-data-charts

It makes really sad reading.

 

[Clint Planet]

For sure, the government waste an awful lot of money, I've no doubt about that at all.

Sigh. You don't get it, do you? It's not the wasting of money that is depressing or frustrating, it's the institutional inequality sustained by a chronic lack of government spending and redistribution of wealth.

What would happen to it though? Social mobility has proved notoriously difficult to shift over the years, despite substantial attempts to provide equality of opportunity.

Social mobility is notoriously difficult to shift because of the British class system. There is a ruling class, a middle class and the oiks. None of us may ever be completely accepted into another class, no matter what our change in circumstances - that privilege is reserved for the second generation at best (if you're lucky, your child's public school education will be enough to disguise their parents' humble beginnings).

It would seem rather depressing to suggest that a proportion of society will always be poor and thus must be sustained by welfare, but is that really the case? Attempts to create a socially mobile society don't really seem to have worked thus far.

It's hilarious that you you sound left-wing here and that's why you're so confused, like a teenager wrestling with his sexuality.[/quote]

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Sigh. You don't get it, do you? It's not the wasting of money that is depressing or frustrating, it's the institutional inequality sustained by a chronic lack of government spending and redistribution of wealth.



Social mobility is notoriously difficult to shift because of the British class system. There is a ruling class, a middle class and the oiks. None of us may ever be completely accepted into another class, no matter what our change in circumstances - that privilege is reserved for the second generation at best (if you're lucky, your child's public school education will be enough to disguise their parents' humble beginnings).



It's hilarious that you you sound left-wing here and that's why you're so confused, like a teenager wrestling with his sexuality.

[/QUOTE]

The Guardian piece I linked to suggested the biggest reason for the lack of social mobility was education rather than any class system that may still exist.

We also know that about half of this intergenerational transmission of income occurs through education: cognitive skills measured using standardised tests, which are highly rewarded in the labour market and are not evenly achieved by children from more or less affluent families. These cognitive skills (education) will be an important part of intergenerational inequality persisting across generations in highly unequal societies such as Britain, both because of these social gradients in acquiring them and in terms of how well they are rewarded. So to put it another way the issue of economic opportunity for children both reflects who gets the best jobs and how much more these jobs pay

I'm confused because I don't have the answers. I don't know why poor kids from some backgrounds (ie many ethnic minorities) do well in our schools, yet poor kids from other backgrounds (ie white British) tend to do badly.

 

[L4Everton]

Depends how you spend/save/earn your money. The UK has billions and billions worth of...

...Bank shares that are being detoxified where possible and sold off cheap and slowly the lump negativity is something the tax payer that was held up at gun point for the cash initially will be left with the liability. Its fantastic, and I strongly suspect it will pave the way for some very grateful donors to dig deep and fund another dose.