Poverty in the UK as bad as the 1940s

[Kizzy]

Have attitudes to people in poverty changed over a lifetime? Bob Holman put this to Guardian readers a year ago. He referred to a report on urban poverty written in 1943 by eight members of the hygiene committee of the Women’s Group on Public Welfare. Our Towns: A Close-Up was commissioned to investigate complaints from people in rural England about families evacuated from inner cities. Children were reported as dirty, inadequately clothed and badly behaved, and their parents were blamed as lazy and incompetent. Politicians and media reports supported this analysis.

The authors visited poor neighbourhoods and put a spotlight on the conditions that made life tough for the people who lived there. Instead of fuelling the growing hostility, they challenged public attitudes. They showed how resilient and resourceful families had to be to survive circumstances that most people would find overwhelming. The report was debated in parliament and influenced the Beveridge reforms that shaped the postwar welfare state.


Today the infrastructure of welfare support is under attack. Social security is deemed too costly; the principles of mutual support and solidarity are being replaced by selfish individualism. People in poverty are labelled shirkers and feel ashamed to claim the welfare support they need. Negative attitudes are reinforced by sensationalist media and opportunistic politicians, and the nasty and divisive public rhetoric that has emerged demonises those living in poverty in ways that are reminiscent of the early 1940s. It was this comparison that led Holman to call for a modern-day Our Towns.


Is this true? Have we lost empathy for individualism, has the media and 'poverty porn' skewed the view of the poor?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/27/poverty-study-uk-bad-1940s

Here is a recent document 'Our Lives: Challenging attitudes to poverty in 2015.' It gives a really enlightening overview of how poverty and reforms are are affecting lives in the UK.

http://www.ryantunnardbrown.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/FINAL-Our-Lives-18-March-2015-JT-TZ-with-foreword-20-march1.pdf

[MTVN]

I don't mean to be flippant or display the exact attitude the article talks about, but to me that headline is quite misleading and is based on a dubious premise. The Guardian risks being guilty of the same sensationalism it derides the rest of the media for, and risks falling into the same logic as the Daily Mail and the Sun in using a few examples to try and make a broad conclusion and come up with an eye catching headline.

[Kizzy]

Or... It could just be the truth? It's not sensationalist headline, it's a one sentence explanation of the findings of a research document that compares an attitudinal shift from the 40s and the present day.

[MTVN]

Or... It could just be the truth? It's not sensationalist headline, it's a one sentence explanation of the findings of a research document that compares an attitudinal shift from the 40s and the present day.

Well I don't think it's helpful to make such a statement, even if they changed it just slightly to "attitudes to poverty are as bad as in the 1940s" it would be a more appropriate reflection of the study findings. Otherwise it's quite problematic to say that 'attitudes' are the same and therefore poverty is and I'm not sure how much value there is in trying to make such comparisons.

[Kizzy]

Well I don't think it's helpful to make such a statement, even if they changed it just slightly to "attitudes to poverty are as bad as in the 1940s" it would be a more appropriate reflection of the study findings. Otherwise it's quite problematic to say that 'attitudes' are the same and therefore poverty is and I'm not sure how much value there is in trying to make such comparisons.

It's not helpful to make programmes entitled 'skint' 'on benefits and proud' or 'benefits street' however we disagree with the semantics of the titles there is a debate to be had if we can see past these.

[arista]

Well I don't think it's helpful to make such a statement, even if they changed it just slightly to "attitudes to poverty are as bad as in the 1940s" it would be a more appropriate reflection of the study findings. Otherwise it's quite problematic to say that 'attitudes' are the same and therefore poverty is and I'm not sure how much value there is in trying to make such comparisons.


Yes we are nothing like the 1940's
that was still suffering the effects of WW2.

[the truth]

It's not helpful to make programmes entitled 'skint' 'on benefits and proud' or 'benefits street' however we disagree with the semantics of the titles there is a debate to be had if we can see past these.

so its ok to sensationalize about the rich and the pro socialist / anti capitalist stories....but its wrong if its attacking socialism? those double standards don't fly.

the new labour movement failed absolutely everyone, especially the poor, passing 1000s of self defeating laws that made the gap between rich and poor bigger than for 200 years.

corporates and fakes like bono beckham phil Collins jimmy carr etc telling us working clases to give to charity, if they pay taxes properly thered be no need for charities for children in need.

[Kazanne]

I don't think anyone is in real poverty here are they? I mean REAL poverty.

[arista]

I don't think anyone is in real poverty here are they? I mean REAL poverty.


Yes thats in India


Bang On Right Kaz

[Kizzy]

Is there such a thing as social deprivation? Yes there is and that's what creates poverty.
We are not in India, we are a rich fully developed nation with a long history of democracy.

[Kazanne]

Is there such a thing as social deprivation? Yes there is and that's what creates poverty.
We are not in India, we are a rich fully developed nation with a long history of democracy.

Don't you think though Kizzy that because we are a rich fully developed nation that we are greedy and expect too much?:wavey:

[Cherie]

I don't think anyone is in real poverty here are they? I mean REAL poverty.

Don't you think though Kizzy that because we are a rich fully developed nation that we are greedy and expect too much?:wavey:

:clap1:

[arista]

Is there such a thing as social deprivation? Yes there is and that's what creates poverty.
We are not in India, we are a rich fully developed nation with a long history of democracy.



Yes Kizzy
There always has been
even under New Labour
and Labour

[Helen 28]

Poverty that existed in the 1940's simply doesn't exist at all now.

I remember some labour mp saying not having broadband was one of the measures of being in poverty - I mean what utter tosh.

If anybody is now in REAL poverty then it's self inflicted.

[joeysteele]

Yes ,real poverty exists in the UK,if people bothered to find those that are in it, they would get a real eye opener, sadly they are ignored or brushed aside socially.

Obviously it is nowhere near the scale it was in the 40s.
Which for most that were, must have been a really horrible time to be poor,unless you had some good neighbours and people around you.
When also looking out for each other was more the norm.

This is the example of change in attitude now in this day and age,staring us in the face,in the 40s no one could deny there were people in real poverty.
Here and now people actually think no one is because they don't know of anyone in it or see them and likely never look for them too.

Waiting for the media to find them and plead their cause,well we would wait for all eternity for that to come about.

It is easy to take the hardline view and judge and condemn,I have had to fight for a good few in real poverty, a house with just enough furniture, no 'luxuries' as to things like TVs,Hifi's.
Everything either given and by the time bills are paid,still a minus as to what is needed every week.
Food bought being the absolute cheapest possible and not a lot of it either,devastating to see and heartbreaking too, these such people are cast aside in the UK.

The UK in the 21st century doesn't want to admit it has anyone in real poverty,so denies there likely is.
Because everyone knows it would be a shocking condemnation of all govt's past and present to still have real poverty in the UK.
So it is best to just sweep it all under the carpet.
Probably to some a carpet is even seen as a luxury item too.

They are there, they can be found if people look hard enough and what an education it is when anyone sadly comes across its existence too.
The hardline view seems to generally win all the time however,even when it is wildly wrong.

This is however for me the political parties to blame for this, all of them, it is something every single one of them should hang their heads in shame at, since Labour and Conservatives have failed to address even the smallest amount of real poverty in the UK, despite them all knowing it does exist.
The whole lot of them should be condemned for their inaction on this and for allowing especially over the last 40 years at least,to just leave it hoping it goes away.

[arista]

"Obviously it is nowhere near the scale it was in the 40s."


Bang On Right Joey

[Kizzy]

Yes ,real poverty exists in the UK,if people bothered to find those that are in it, they would get a real eye opener, sadly they are ignored or brushed aside socially.

Obviously it is nowhere near the scale it was in the 40s.
Which for most that were, must have been a really horrible time to be poor,unless you had some good neighbours and people around you.
When also looking out for each other was more the norm.

This is the example of change in attitude now in this day and age,staring us in the face,in the 40s no one could deny there were people in real poverty.
Here and now people actually think no one is because they don't know of anyone in it or see them and likely never look for them too.

Waiting for the media to find them and plead their cause,well we would wait for all eternity for that to come about.

It is easy to take the hardline view and judge and condemn,I have had to fight for a good few in real poverty, a house with just enough furniture, no 'luxuries' as to things like TVs,Hifi's.
Everything either given and by the time bills are paid,still a minus as to what is needed every week, and food bought being the absolute cheapest possible and not a lot of it either,devastating to see and heartbreaking to this such people are cast aside in the UK.

The UK in the 21st century doesn't want to admit it has anyone in real poverty,so denies there likely is.
because everyone knows it would be a shocking condemnation of all govt's past and present to still have real poverty in the UK.
So it is just sweep it all under the carpet.
Probably to some a carpet is even seen as a luxury item too.

They are there, they can be found if people look hard enough and what an education it is when anyone sadly comes across its existence too.
The hardline view seems to generally win all the time however,even when it is wildly wrong.

This is however for me the political parties to blame for this, all of them it is something every single one of them should hang thei heads in shame at, since Labour and Conservatives have failed to address even the smallest amount of real poverty in the UK despite them all knowing it does exist.
The whole lot of them should be condemned for their inaction on this and for allowing especially over the last 40 years at least,to just leave it hoping it goes away.

I most certainly 100% agree with that and the paper suggests it's the age of individualism that we live in that is to blame, we don't have the same attitudes to family let alone strangers that are less fortunate.
The fact that subsequent governments and the loss of industry and community has created pockets of extreme socioeconomic deprivation.
It's the attitudinal shift that's the focus of the study, that cannot be denied. It's argued that absolute poverty exists in the same context it was in the 40s in the UK and yet the evidence is there, if some choose not to acknowledge it.

[the truth]

I most certainly 100% agree with that and the paper suggests it's the age of individualism that we live in that is to blame, we don't have the same attitudes to family let alone strangers that are less fortunate.
The fact that subsequent governments and the loss of industry and community has created pockets of extreme socioeconomic deprivation.
It's the attitudinal shift that's the focus of the study, that cannot be denied. It's argued that absolute poverty exists in the same context it was in the 40s in the UK and yet the evidence is there, if some choose not to acknowledge it.

all child benefit should be paid in vouchers that can only be spent on childrens food and clothes etc this would limit the amount that's wasted and would make people who breed for money think twice and actually plan for a family like working people

[jennyjuniper]

all child benefit should be paid in vouchers that can only be spent on childrens food and clothes etc this would limit the amount that's wasted and would make people who breed for money think twice and actually plan for a family like working people

I totally agree with this. I grew up in the fifties and my dad died when I was 8. We were a large family and whilst we never starved, we were often hungry. However what help my mother recieved was nearly always in vouchers.
There were vouchers for free milk, vitamins and orange juice and free school dinners.
My mum had a small widows pension and she went out cleaning to earn the rest. We often went without things, but as I say, we didn't starve and we got nowhere near the benefits that people get today.

[Nedusa]

I think if you want to carry out a proper comparison of poverty now and in the 1940's you need to compare living standards. If you look back at life for working class and below in those times and compare with today you would be shocked at how little we had back then.

With sometimes huge families they would be housed in small substandard housing sometimes with no bathrooms and outside toilets . To have all the children in shoes would be an achievement in itself.

Ill health , malnutrition were commonplace as was rickets and scurvy, polio and TB.

Holidays were few and far between and pawnbrokers were a way of life.

Working conditions were awful with low pay and terrible conditions leaving people in some industries with chronic conditions like miners lung and asbestosis .

Yet compared to today's world the lower working classes are certainly not in the same situation . Most people have bathrooms and inside toilets , all children are fed some might say considering the access to cheap junk food, rather too well fed. In fact considering the levels of childhood obesity access to food is certainly not a problem.

Also the general health and well being of children has improved vastly with innoculations for most children's diseases and screening program's to assess children's health generally.

We collectively take more holidays home and abroad have far more leisure time and children are not allowed to be exploited for work with legislation regulating the hours Children can work.

So I think because food banks have pricked the public's conscience due to their use as a political tool, we should not be fooled into thinking that as a Nation we have regressed to the poverty levels of the 1940's when clearly we haven't .

[user104658]

all child benefit should be paid in vouchers that can only be spent on childrens food and clothes etc this would limit the amount that's wasted and would make people who breed for money think twice and actually plan for a family like working people
Err... Working people get child benefit...

Also, what exactly is "children's food"? Is it different from normal food?? D: I've been feeding my kids regular food! Will they be OK?

[Kazanne]

I most certainly 100% agree with that and the paper suggests it's the age of individualism that we live in that is to blame, we don't have the same attitudes to family let alone strangers that are less fortunate.
The fact that subsequent governments and the loss of industry and community has created pockets of extreme socioeconomic deprivation.
It's the attitudinal shift that's the focus of the study, that cannot be denied. It's argued that absolute poverty exists in the same context it was in the 40s in the UK and yet the evidence is there, if some choose not to acknowledge it.

I don't choose not to acknowledge it Kizzy,I just have never seen families starving to death here,people are not intergrating as they used to I agree,but I think a lot of that is down to technology,and peoples lack of interest,I really think SOME people do not manage their money properly,or waste it on things that they really could live without.

[joeysteele]

all child benefit should be paid in vouchers that can only be spent on childrens food and clothes etc this would limit the amount that's wasted and would make people who breed for money think twice and actually plan for a family like working people

I don't agree with the vouchers route for anything at all I'm afraid.

For me, that would not be a good road to start going down at all and all entitlements should be paid in cash or into a bank account in my view, so that all people have the advantages of shopping around for the best bargains, in shops, markets,supermarkets and stores.just like everyone else can.

[joeysteele]

Err... Working people get child benefit...

Also, what exactly is "children's food"? Is it different from normal food?? D: I've been feeding my kids regular food! Will they be OK?

Exactly.
We are supposed be progressing in the 21st century not going backwards.

[joeysteele]

I don't choose not to acknowledge it Kizzy,I just have never seen families starving to death here,people are not intergrating as they used to I agree,but I think a lot of that is down to technology,and peoples lack of interest,I really think SOME people do not manage their money properly,or waste it on things that they really could live without.



Yes, but Kazanne, sorry there is a 'but' my friend,because I really hate disagreeing wth you at any time.
While doing so however you open up some very strong,valid and important facts as to dealing with money,that are not being addressed by any in power, past or present.

I have come across some horrific sights, a Mother left on her own, the Father gone for ages, she has what I would have termed a pittance to live on, no luxuries, just an old radio.

A lot of these people.like her, never have anyone checking up on them to see how they are, they are left to struggle day after day, week after week.
I thought one was bad enough, when I searched further and found a good number living this way,I was sickened.

These are the minorites that should be splashed all over the front pages to shame all govts; and those who seek power to govern, not the odd one or 2 with 10 children or the odd one that claimed x amount of benefits they shouldn't have.
These would not be news however ,and also the only bit of pride they may have left is their sadly 'isolation' from the rest of society.

Now you do make a fair point, some people are not good with money,it is not that they buy things they shouldn't,with respect that is another overpopularised genralisation, however people do get into difficulties I agree with that wholehearedly.

The problem is again, no officialdom is set up help for them to get 'confidential' advice, places like the CAB are bursting at the seams with loads of issues to deal with,so many slip through and are simple lost in the 'system',as politicians call it.

Universal credit from your govt;(had to get that in:joker:),will have housing benefit paid direct to the claimant, not the landlord.
That is going to cause massive problems I can see, in the future,for as you rightly said, some who maybe are poor in dealing with everyday things.

People with dementia for instance will be getting housing benefit paid direct to them,they then have to ensure they have to pay the landlord.
This govt; shows no responsibility at all as to such people.
The pressures will in some cases then fall on carers,or family who are then made to feel responsible for dealing with same.

I,taking on board your point as to some not managing money, well,then I would actually see that payments for all their essentials like Rent, council tax, water, electricity and gas were paid direct from their benefits.so what they had afterwards was what they knew was theirs to live on.
Sadly it seems this govt;particularly is putting the onus on those who receive 'entitlements' to have to struggle on and cope with all that themselves.
With less and less help being in place.

I agree some people are poor with money,that is a great point, leaving them to get on with things is not an answer however and also the answer is not to give them more, which was already paid direct to the source it was meant for however.
For me, it should be to extend that means, to those who would like it, or need it, to cover the other payments I mentioned above too.

What needs to be set in place are people to help claimants with their money,someone who has a good wage for decades, who then comes out of work,suddenly finds themself on a pittance.
really hard to adjust with the same bills and outgoings to have to do.

For those in absolute poverty,it is soul destroying, however they have come to know no different.
For govts; the good thing is likely these people will not have long lives,it is however still a disgrace,in my view, in the 21st century in the 5th or 6th largest economy in the World, that we have anyone in 'real' poverty at all.
Sadder still is that the vast majority of UK citizens neither think or believe it exists simply because they haven't seen it.

[user104658]

Once again I agree with most of what you have to say Joey. Though I would make the correction that Universal credit won't see a change in terms of rent going straight to claimants, that is already the case with "Local Housing Allowance" and has been for many years (it was that way when I was claiming it which would have been 5 or 6 years ago).

The real chaos I can see universal credit causing is being monthly lump sums rather than weekly. It's great for in-work benefits, with it all coming at the same time as a normal monthly pay cheque, makes it more like a wage top-up which is should be and is far more convenient for people who know how to manage a monthly budget.

However, for people who as you say have no skills with managing money, monthly will be a disaster. People will be broke by the 15th of the month and then getting themselves into serious issues, not eating properly or accumulating debt. It's all very well to say that it'll be their own fault, but real world skills are not taught to youngsters AT ALL in school, it's no surprise that people are bad at it. I've said before that I think there NEEDS to be a mandatory practical skills class introduced at schools for 14+ year olds. Managing a budget, paying bills, understanding and being responsible with credit, etc.

[Kazanne]

[/B]

Yes, but Kazanne, sorry there is a 'but' my friend,because I really hate disagreeing wth you at any time.
While doing so however you open up some very strong,valid and important facts as to dealing with money,that are not being addressed by any in power, past or present.

I have come across some horrific sights, a Mother left on her own, the Father gone for ages, she has what I would have termed a pittance to live on, no luxuries, just an old radio.

A lot of these people.like her, never have anyone checking up on them to see how they are, they are left to struggle day after day, week after week.
I thought one was bad enough, when I searched further and found a good number living this way,I was sickened.

These are the minorites that should be splashed all over the front pages to shame all govts; and those who seek power to govern, not the odd one or 2 with 10 children or the odd one that claimed x amount of benefits they shouldn't have.
These would not be news however ,and also the only bit of pride they may have left is their sadly 'isolation' from the rest of society.

Now you do make a fair point, some people are not good with money,it is not that they buy things they shouldn't,with respect that is another overpopularised genralisation, however people do get into difficulties I agree with that wholehearedly.

The problem is again, no officialdom is set up help for them to get 'confidential' advice, places like the CAB are bursting at the seams with loads of issues to deal with,so many slip through and are simple lost in the 'system',as politicians call it.

Universal credit from your govt;(had to get that in:joker:),will have housing benefit paid direct to the claimant, not the landlord.
That is going to cause massive problems I can see, in the future,for as you rightly said, some who maybe are poor in dealing with everyday things.

People with dementia for instance will be getting housing benefit paid direct to them,they then have to ensure they have to pay the landlord.
This govt; shows no responsibility at all as to such people.
The pressures will in some cases then fall on carers,or family who are then made to feel responsible for dealing with same.

I,taking on board your point as to some not managing money, well,then I would actually see that payments for all their essentials like Rent, council tax, water, electricity and gas were paid direct from their benefits.so what they had afterwards was what they knew was theirs to live on.
Sadly it seems this govt;particularly is putting the onus on those who receive 'entitlements' to have to struggle on and cope with all that themselves.
With less and less help being in place.

I agree some people are poor with money,that is a great point, leaving them to get on with things is not an answer however and also the answer is not to give them more, which was already paid direct to the source it was meant for however.
For me, it should be to extend that means, to those who would like it, or need it, to cover the other payments I mentioned above too.

What needs to be set in place are people to help claimants with their money,someone who has a good wage for decades, who then comes out of work,suddenly finds themself on a pittance.
really hard to adjust with the same bills and outgoings to have to do.

For those in absolute poverty,it is soul destroying, however they have come to know no different.
For govts; the good thing is likely these people will not have long lives,it is however still a disgrace,in my view, in the 21st century in the 5th or 6th largest economy in the World, that we have anyone in 'real' poverty at all.
Sadder still is that the vast majority of UK citizens neither think or believe it exists simply because they haven't seen it.

I would never fall out with you Joey simply because you have a different opinion to me,that would be very silly of me,I also know you know far more about politics than me,I guess I have to go by my own experiences,I just see people abusing the system all the time and it's so unfair as peoples greed takes away from the very people who really need help,I don't see how the government can be blamed for that,people will always try and get something for nothing whatever help is put in place,I DO think people should maybe help themselves a bit,I know there must be cases that are genuine and they should get help,but the majority are lazy,devious buggars,LOL,now vote for Dave you know it makes sense:dance:

[joeysteele]

I would never fall out with you Joey simply because you have a different opinion to me,that would be very silly of me,I also know you know far more about politics than me,I guess I have to go by my own experiences,I just see people abusing the system all the time and it's so unfair as peoples greed takes away from the very people who really need help,I don't see how the government can be blamed for that,people will always try and get something for nothing whatever help is put in place,I DO think people should maybe help themselves a bit,I know there must be cases that are genuine and they should get help,but the majority are lazy,devious buggars,LOL,now vote for Dave you know it makes sense:dance:



With total a full respect for you Kazanne,:joker: never in a million years would I vote for him,never ever, I think he is beyond all trust.

I don't know more about politics than others really, I surprisingly got an eye opener at UNI, when I got involved in many things that took me out of my sort of protected bubble and into others lives of those far less fortunate than myself.
I then found I wanted to really help and learn far more than what was just on the surface.
Something my Grandmother always taught me was never take for granted what those in power say, search out the real answers and things for yourself.

I actually really don't find many people abusing the system really, I have found many people however 'abused' badly by the system.

[user104658]

As for whether or not poverty exists in this country - it definitely does. Is it relative poverty on a global scale? No, probably not, but in terms of having a liveable existence in this country it is. 5 and a half years ago, we had a newborn, I only had a part time minimum wage job, and we were poor. There's no two ways about it. We were "poor people". My personal rock bottom was walking down the street in the pouring rain, feet soaked through because my shoes had massive holes in them, ripped coat, probably holes in my jeans as well and I could not - literally COULD not - afford to replace any of them. Our daughter was first priority, then rent, bills and food. There was nothing left after that. We don't smoke, we don't drink, we weren't wasting a penny but at the end of any week that's what there was: pennies. Was I starving and dying of AIDS in a war-time country? No... But I challenge anyone to live like that and not consider themselves to be struggling. Financially, emotionally, existentially.

Situation has changed immeasurably since. No debts, a respectable sum in various savings account, and I'm almost disgusted to say that we probably (definitely...) waste more money on frivolities now than we used to have for basics.

I won't ever forget what it was like to live like that though and it's why I would never condemn anyone who is stuck in that situation and I definitely wouldn't shame and embarrass them by forcing them to pay for everything with vouchers.

I'll be brutally honest and say that both me and my wife are competent, intelligent and well educated and so weren't stuck for too long. Some people just aren't so lucky and are genuinely stuck, for decades or forever. I actually genuinely understand why so many end up addicts, actually.

[arista]

"why so many end up addicts, actually. "


Yes they need Treating , Correcting


Sign Of The Times

[joeysteele]

Once again I agree with most of what you have to say Joey. Though I would make the correction that Universal credit won't see a change in terms of rent going straight to claimants, that is already the case with "Local Housing Allowance" and has been for many years (it was that way when I was claiming it which would have been 5 or 6 years ago).

The real chaos I can see universal credit causing is being monthly lump sums rather than weekly. It's great for in-work benefits, with it all coming at the same time as a normal monthly pay cheque, makes it more like a wage top-up which is should be and is far more convenient for people who know how to manage a monthly budget.

However, for people who as you say have no skills with managing money, monthly will be a disaster. People will be broke by the 15th of the month and then getting themselves into serious issues, not eating properly or accumulating debt. It's all very well to say that it'll be their own fault, but real world skills are not taught to youngsters AT ALL in school, it's no surprise that people are bad at it. I've said before that I think there NEEDS to be a mandatory practical skills class introduced at schools for 14+ year olds. Managing a budget, paying bills, understanding and being responsible with credit, etc.

Absolutely, you are right but it is also going to part of the Universal credit plan.
A claimant I was dealing with a while back where Universal credit has been rolled out,had the letter saying they would be paid their housing benefit direct.
Also that they would now be paid monthly in arrears.

As you say, this is going to cause chaos,I think it wrong that people in work cannot have the choice of being paid weekly,fortnightly or monthly, rather than be forced to wait a month for their work done over the last 4 weeks.

For those on benefits,this will cause big problems,fine if it was 2 weeks in arrears and 2 weeks in advance but it will be a month in arrears.
That will mean in effect,due to likely needing to seek other assistance, they will every month be playing catch up, at least for a fair period.

I see no reason or in fact how it should be allowed to be the case, that anything you are 'entitled' to, should be held back for a month from you if that is not acceptable to you.

It is something I like more too with the SNP,they would like to see the roll out of Universal credit stopped and the thing done away with really.
If they have any real influence at all after May 7th,i if Ed Miliband is going to give way on anything at all, that is one thing I would love to see him do.

[joeysteele]

As for whether or not poverty exists in this country - it definitely does. Is it relative poverty on a global scale? No, probably not, but in terms of having a liveable existence in this country it is. 5 and a half years ago, we had a newborn, I only had a part time minimum wage job, and we were poor. There's no two ways about it. We were "poor people". My personal rock bottom was walking down the street in the pouring rain, feet soaked through because my shoes had massive holes in them, ripped coat, probably holes in my jeans as well and I could not - literally COULD not - afford to replace any of them. Our daughter was first priority, then rent, bills and food. There was nothing left after that. We don't smoke, we don't drink, we weren't wasting a penny but at the end of any week that's what there was: pennies. Was I starving and dying of AIDS in a war-time country? No... But I challenge anyone to live like that and not consider themselves to be struggling. Financially, emotionally, existentially.

Situation has changed immeasurably since. No debts, a respectable sum in various savings account, and I'm almost disgusted to say that we probably (definitely...) waste more money on frivolities now than we used to have for basics.

I won't ever forget what it was like to live like that though and it's why I would never condemn anyone who is stuck in that situation and I definitely wouldn't shame and embarrass them by forcing them to pay for everything with vouchers.

I'll be brutally honest and say that both me and my wife are competent, intelligent and well educated and so weren't stuck for too long. Some people just aren't so lucky and are genuinely stuck, for decades or forever. I actually genuinely understand why so many end up addicts, actually.

Brilliant post and the main thing about is it comes from personal experience and the real knowledge gained at the time too.

One of the most admirable things about it, is you haven't lost the empathy for those still in that rut,you can still see the real issues there.
You haven't turned to being judgemental and condemnatory towards those in that situation.

Great post Toy Soldier, you have my respect and good wishes even more after reading that.

[user104658]

"why so many end up addicts, actually. "


Yes they need Treating , Correcting


Sign Of The Times
They do, though many are beyond help being honest. Which is why there needs to be much (SO much) more focus on stopping people from going down that route in the first place rather than simply treating them once they're already pretty broken. Not very many people actually "come back" to a normal life after being hard drug addict.

Being shamed, vilified and made to feel like pariahs is not going to help people to make good life choices, I should add, and is exactly why "vouchers" are a terrible idea. Makes people feel like an "underclass" and not part of a "real" society like everyone else and that simply doesn't inspire people to pull themselves up and do better - it pushes them down, drives them to despair, and all of the associated problems like drugs and alcohol (and yes, sometimes gambling, though I'm not supposed to say that...).

[kirklancaster]

I think if you want to carry out a proper comparison of poverty now and in the 1940's you need to compare living standards. If you look back at life for working class and below in those times and compare with today you would be shocked at how little we had back then.

With sometimes huge families they would be housed in small substandard housing sometimes with no bathrooms and outside toilets . To have all the children in shoes would be an achievement in itself.

Ill health , malnutrition were commonplace as was rickets and scurvy, polio and TB.

Holidays were few and far between and pawnbrokers were a way of life.

Working conditions were awful with low pay and terrible conditions leaving people in some industries with chronic conditions like miners lung and asbestosis .

Yet compared to today's world the lower working classes are certainly not in the same situation . Most people have bathrooms and inside toilets , all children are fed some might say considering the access to cheap junk food, rather too well fed. In fact considering the levels of childhood obesity access to food is certainly not a problem.

Also the general health and well being of children has improved vastly with innoculations for most children's diseases and screening program's to assess children's health generally.

We collectively take more holidays home and abroad have far more leisure time and children are not allowed to be exploited for work with legislation regulating the hours Children can work.

So I think because food banks have pricked the public's conscience due to their use as a political tool, we should not be fooled into thinking that as a Nation we have regressed to the poverty levels of the 1940's when clearly we haven't .

:clap1::clap1::clap1: A superb post.

[kirklancaster]

I would never fall out with you Joey simply because you have a different opinion to me,that would be very silly of me,I also know you know far more about politics than me,I guess I have to go by my own experiences,I just see people abusing the system all the time and it's so unfair as peoples greed takes away from the very people who really need help,I don't see how the government can be blamed for that,people will always try and get something for nothing whatever help is put in place,I DO think people should maybe help themselves a bit,I know there must be cases that are genuine and they should get help,but the majority are lazy,devious buggars,LOL,now vote for Dave you know it makes sense:dance:

:clap1::clap1::clap1: All perfectly true.

[Northern Monkey]

I would'nt like to comment on the 1940's but there definately are people really struggling today.
There will always be people less well off than others and poor people.
However in a country like ours nobody should be living in 'poverty'.Everyone should be able to afford a roof over their head and 3 meals a day as a minimum.
Even benefits should cover this otherwise they are pointless.
Letting people starve and food banks is a disgrace in a rich country like our own.
If we want the finer things in life like the 50" HD 3D telly with built in Blueray and cable TV with all the movies and sports channels then we need to work for them but fgs don't let anyone starve.

[Kizzy]

The reforms have done nothing to help those in the poorest areas and they will no doubt descend deeper into poverty, if the feeling is they're lazy and devious then there won't be much call to aid them as the issues they face are presented as self inflicted.
Sanctions for an individual may appear warranted if you presume the claimants mental health or education is sufficient to ensure they can achieve expectations, sanctions for a parent is plain wrong and punishes the child for the perceived sins of the parent/s.

[Kazanne]

[/B]


With total a full respect for you Kazanne,:joker: never in a million years would I vote for him,never ever, I think he is beyond all trust.

I don't know more about politics than others really, I surprisingly got an eye opener at UNI, when I got involved in many things that took me out of my sort of protected bubble and into others lives of those far less fortunate than myself.
I then found I wanted to really help and learn far more than what was just on the surface.
Something my Grandmother always taught me was never take for granted what those in power say, search out the real answers and things for yourself.

I actually really don't find many people abusing the system really, I have found many people however 'abused' badly by the system.

:joker:I was only joking Joey,I know you wouldn't,it's funny how we see things differently but I guess that makes for a good debate,so if Labour get in ,they better do a bloody good job Joey otherwise I will be blaming you:joker:

[Kazanne]

Kizzy and Eyeball,do you really think people are starving? just curious as my idea of starving may be different to yours.

[Kizzy]

I think if you want to carry out a proper comparison of poverty now and in the 1940's you need to compare living standards. If you look back at life for working class and below in those times and compare with today you would be shocked at how little we had back then.

With sometimes huge families they would be housed in small substandard housing sometimes with no bathrooms and outside toilets . To have all the children in shoes would be an achievement in itself.


Have you ever been to Blackpool, Jaywick or merthyr?
http://www.theguardian.com/society/shortcuts/2012/jul/01/jaywick-sands-most-deprived-uk

Ill health , malnutrition were commonplace as was rickets and scurvy, polio and TB.

All of these seemingly eradicated diseases with the exception of polio are on the rise today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10158690/Scurvy-returns-among-children-with-diets-worse-than-in-the-war.html

Holidays were few and far between and pawnbrokers were a way of life.

If people are too poor to put electric in the meter it's safe too say they can't afford a holiday.

'When Finch started working for the National Pawnbrokers Association of the UK 22 years ago, there were 70 shops in the country – now there are 2,500.'
(2013)[/B]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/pawnbroking-the-business-that-always-does-well-in-hard-times-8558926.html


Working conditions were awful with low pay and terrible conditions leaving people in some industries with chronic conditions like miners lung and asbestosis .

Advances in health and safe working practices would have accommodated the difficulties associated with heavy industry. Outsourcing was an ultimately more costly solution.

Yet compared to today's world the lower working classes are certainly not in the same situation . Most people have bathrooms and inside toilets , all children are fed some might say considering the access to cheap junk food, rather too well fed. In fact considering the levels of childhood obesity access to food is certainly not a problem.

We are not discussing the world, the only comparison being drawn in the OP is the UK then and now.

Also the general health and well being of children has improved vastly with innoculations for most children's diseases and screening program's to assess children's health generally.

'HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
Similarly, temporal patterns of child health reflect differences in income and material wealth. Over the past 70 years the differences in infant and child mortality between the social classes have been wider during periods when income and material differences were wider, and narrower during periods of greater social equality'

http://adc.bmj.com/content/76/5/463.full

We collectively take more holidays home and abroad have far more leisure time and children are not allowed to be exploited for work with legislation regulating the hours Children can work.

'6. Zero hour contracts
Zero hour contracts are also known as casual contracts. Zero hour contracts are usually for ‘piece work’ or ‘on call’ work, eg interpreters.

This means:

they are on call to work when you need them
you don’t have to give them work
they don’t have to do work when asked'

https://www.gov.uk/contract-types-and-employer-responsibilities/zero-hour-contracts

So I think because food banks have pricked the public's conscience due to their use as a political tool, we should not be fooled into thinking that as a Nation we have regressed to the poverty levels of the 1940's when clearly we haven't .

' I heard from elderly members of church congregations who lived through the scarcity of the 1940s and 50s and wanted to help those facing hunger and poverty today. '

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/10/foodbank-dilemma


http://www.trusselltrust.org/resources/images/foodbank/stats/2015/numbers-helped-2015.png

[Kizzy]

Kizzy and Eyeball,do you really think people are starving? just curious as my idea of starving may be different to yours.

I read the study kaz. The level of poverty in some areas is dropping to levels not seen since the 40s, if you're wanting to see images of people 3rd world stylee starving before you admit there's a problem that's your issue. It is not however the measure of poverty in the UK.

[Kazanne]

I read the study kaz. The level of poverty in some areas is dropping to levels not seen since the 40s, if you're wanting to see images of people 3rd world stylee starving before you admit there's a problem that's your issue. It is not however the measure of poverty in the UK.

Fair enough Kizzy,I haven't studied it so perhaps I shouldn't comment,but to me there is a difference between being hungry and starving and although I was not around in the 40s,people say they were the good old days,yes they struggled,but in those days people helped out each other,and cooked their own fresh food,sometimes in life we have to rely on ourselves and not other people,I am all for helping the very needy,hell, my mom has tried to get stuff for a disabled man she has looked after for years and he cant get it so she improvises,I am sure there are so many people worse off than us in this world,but as I say I haven't studied it , I don't want anyone to starve or even be hungry,but I do know people who would rather have a fag than a meal.

[joeysteele]

:joker:I was only joking Joey,I know you wouldn't,it's funny how we see things differently but I guess that makes for a good debate,so if Labour get in ,they better do a bloody good job Joey otherwise I will be blaming you:joker:

:wavey:If it is a Labour led govt; after May and they let their voters down,(in any way as badly as this PM and his govt; has done),people who had believed them and put their trust in them,I will be one of the first slating them for that.

I expect a lot for my trust,I got nothing at all last time,so I am as ready to fire off at any govt; as I am to praise if its warranted.

[Kizzy]

Sanctions on families with children
On 19 February the DWP published Freedom of Information response 2014-4805 giving the
number of households with children in GB subjected to sanctions in the 12 months June 2012 to
May 2013 inclusive.6
This shows that there were at least 93,410 children in households affected by
sanctions, of whom at least 89,300 children in 46,160 households were affected by JSA sanctions
and 4,110 children in 2,290 households by ESA sanctions.7
FoI 2014-4972 shows that in financial
year 2012-13, which is almost the same period, the number of individual JSA claimants sanctioned
was 557,858. It can be inferred that one dependant child will be affected for approximately
every six JSA claimants who are sanctioned.

http://www.welfareweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Dr-Weston-Benefit-Sanctions-Analysis.pdf?9d99d7

And this is before the proposed £12 million cuts, if it can be argued that the level of poverty isn't quite low enough now, it for certain will be by this time next year.

[Livia]

If you're on benefits and you have kids you are considerably more well off now than the average working man would have been in the 1940s. The Guardian have surpassed themselves with this one. It just shows that you can say anything if you massage the statistics hard enough.

[Kizzy]

That is not the issue, it's whether comparisons can be drawn in relations to attitudes to poverty, the Guardian did not compile the study they just reported on it.

[Northern Monkey]

Kizzy and Eyeball,do you really think people are starving? just curious as my idea of starving may be different to yours.

I bet without the food banks some people literally would be starving.I'm not comparing now to the 1940's because i see that comparison as too extreme and there are alot of lazy *****ers about who get too much money for doing nothing but i've seen programmes where mothers have enough money to feed their kid but not themselves and can't even afford a Christmas present for the kid.

[Kazanne]

I bet without the food banks some people literally would be starving.I'm not comparing now to the 1940's because i see that comparison as too extreme and there are alot of lazy *****ers about who get too much money for doing nothing but i've seen programmes where mothers have enough money to feed their kid but not themselves and can't even afford a Christmas present for the kid.

Dont mean to sound unfeeling here ,but,a bag of potatoes is a £1,tin beans 30p and maybe pack fishfingers for a quid,or similar,that would be roughly £3,that would feed more than one,so are people REALLY saying people aren't eating?

[Northern Monkey]

Dont mean to sound unfeeling here ,but,a bag of potatoes is a £1,tin beans 30p and maybe pack fishfingers for a quid,or similar,that would be roughly £3,that would feed more than one,so are people REALLY saying people aren't eating?

Have you seen the price of baby milk,nappies,calpol,gripe water,wipes,baby food,clothes.After bills are paid etc some people are skinto.

[AnnieK]

This is a serious question but do parents on benefits still get milk tokens? My sister in law was on benefits when she had my nephew and she did get milk tokens then (he's 15 now). She could spend them on her local shop on anything...

There are many many families living close to the breadline now, if not over it. In many ways things are harder now for families whose children see their better of friends with all the technology there is and hard for kids to understand if their parents can't afford it. I know people who feed their kids and eat virtually nothing themselves but leftovers to try and save money and keep their kids on trend. It's shameful really but just goes to show how times have changed. In the 40s most people who lived in close nit communities were in the same boat financially and there was more of a community spirit, now it's very much every man for himself and who can get the newest gadgets etc....

[Niamh.]

This is a serious question but do parents on benefits still get milk tokens? My sister in law was on benefits when she had my nephew and she did get milk tokens then (he's 15 now). She could spend them on her local shop on anything...

There are many many families living close to the breadline now, if not over it. In many ways things are harder now for families whose children see their better of friends with all the technology there is and hard for kids to understand if their parents can't afford it. I know people who feed their kids and eat virtually nothing themselves but leftovers to try and save money and keep their kids on trend. It's shameful really but just goes to show how times have changed. In the 40s most people who lived in close nit communities were in the same boat financially and there was more of a community spirit, now it's very much every man for himself and who can get the newest gadgets etc....

That's a very good point actually Annie. "Community" is certainly not what it was

[Livia]

in the 1940s poor people wouldn't have bought disposable nappies, wipes and special baby food even if they had been around then.

[Kazanne]

Have you seen the price of baby milk,nappies,calpol,gripe water,wipes,baby food,clothes.After bills are paid etc some people are skinto.

Ok ,and yes,I have 3 little ones,baby milk is probably the most expensive on that list and surely the things listed don't need buying every day,babyfood can be made along with your own food,it's not as though people have no money at all coming in,a lot of these people are skint as they are living above their means,NOT ALL but some.

[Kazanne]

in the 1940s poor people wouldn't have bought disposable nappies, wipes and special baby food even if they had been around then.

Yes Livia,didn't the nappies get washed and used time and time again

[AnnieK]

Yes Livia,didn't the nappies get washed and used time and time again

They did Kaz and continued to do so until the 80s when disposables became more prevalent even though they add massively to landfills etc as they take something like 10 years to break down. It's a crime really but again it's another way in which as a society we have moved on to just look for quick convenience rather than economise etc

A breast fed baby in the original terry nappies would cost far less than a bottle fed baby in pampers. (Although I know not all women are able to breast feed)

[user104658]

If you're on benefits and you have kids you are considerably more well off now than the average working man would have been in the 1940s. The Guardian have surpassed themselves with this one. It just shows that you can say anything if you massage the statistics hard enough.
Livia... You don't have kids and I'm going to make an educated bet that you've never lived on benefits either. So this is pure guesswork as you actually have absolutely no idea.

Whilst I will agree that if you wa t to break out a spreadsheet and look at the literal amount of money, then yes you would be right, however the world is a completely different place to the world of the 1940s making a like for like comparison of which was "worse" more or less impossible.

[user104658]

Would also point out that if I was a single working man, I could live on next to nothing. Things are a lot less simple once a family is involved.

[the truth]

Would also point out that if I was a single working man, I could live on next to nothing. Things are a lot less simple once a family is involved.

these people choose to have children so they are ultimately responsible for raising for their kids and paying for them....however in the case of benefits they should be paid for child benefits in vouchers that can only be spent on childrens goods.

[user104658]

these people choose to have children so they are ultimately responsible for raising for their kids and paying for them....however in the case of benefits they should be paid for child benefits in vouchers that can only be spent on childrens goods.
No.

[the truth]

No.

hell yes. why not?

[Kazanne]

They did Kaz and continued to do so until the 80s when disposables became more prevalent even though they add massively to landfills etc as they take something like 10 years to break down. It's a crime really but again it's another way in which as a society we have moved on to just look for quick convenience rather than economise etc

A breast fed baby in the original terry nappies would cost far less than a bottle fed baby in pampers. (Although I know not all women are able to breast feed)

My mom was on about this the other day ,she said nappies were soaked in a bucket of Napisan overnight,then boiled and hung on the line,and a little off topic,maybe people are heavier today as they don't know what hard work really is like.

[the truth]

Would also point out that if I was a single working man, I could live on next to nothing. Things are a lot less simple once a family is involved.

how can a single working man or woman live on next to nothing? rent/gas/water/electric/food/drink/clothes/travel/fuel/car? plus he/she is planning and saving for the future

[Niamh.]

My mom was on about this the other day ,she said nappies were soaked in a bucket of Napisan overnight,then boiled and hung on the line,and a little off topic,maybe people are heavier today as they don't know what hard work really is like.

yeah my mom used them with me and my older brother I think, they were awful she said :laugh:

[user104658]

hell yes. why not?
Read my previous posts. Not going round in circles. If you disagree I... Err.. Don't care. It's not a surprise.

[Northern Monkey]

Ok ,and yes,I have 3 little ones,baby milk is probably the most expensive on that list and surely the things listed don't need buying every day,babyfood can be made along with your own food,it's not as though people have no money at all coming in,a lot of these people are sking as they are living above their means,NOT ALL but some.

I agree.

[the truth]

Read my previous posts. Not going round in circles. If you disagree I... Err.. Don't care. It's not a surprise.

Clearly you cant back up your absurd replies, this one doesn't even make sense. The child benefits must be paid by vouchers to ensure the money for the children isn't squandered as it is in many cases

[Livia]

Livia... You don't have kids and I'm going to make an educated bet that you've never lived on benefits either. So this is pure guesswork as you actually have absolutely no idea.

Whilst I will agree that if you wa t to break out a spreadsheet and look at the literal amount of money, then yes you would be right, however the world is a completely different place to the world of the 1940s making a like for like comparison of which was "worse" more or less impossible.

No, I don't have kids and I've never lived on benefits. That doesn't mean that I'm not in touch with the real world and my post was in response to someone making the point about nappies.

And actually, you're right, the world IS a completely different place from the 1940s and making comparisons are more or less impossible. And that is the whole crux of this thread.

[joeysteele]

No, I don't have kids and I've never lived on benefits. That doesn't mean that I'm not in touch with the real world and my post was in response to someone making the point about nappies.

And actually, you're right, the world IS a completely different place from the 1940s and making comparisons are more or less impossible. And that is the whole crux of this thread.

Not as to attitudes towards poverty though..

The point has I would say been made that in the 40s the poverty then could not be compared to now as there was in effect no welfare state.

However, I think even you said it too, people were in the same boat and had empathy with each other, so tried their best to come together to help too.
There was also the knowledge too that there was poverty at that time.

Now the attitudes seem to be, no one should be in poverty so there needn't be poverty and some don't think there is so dismiss it, despite others saying that they have seen and come across.

It is different poverty and the attitudes are different because now in the main, people don't pull together as much or look out for one another.

It is really startling to hear that people should be washing nappies and heading back to such times.
Especially when those who have had children, would have possibly hated themselves to do that,as to cleaning nappies, washing them and drying them,who will have bought constantly the pampers style of nappies for their children,to then think other children, just because they are in a poor family, should not have them too.

It is the more,'I'm alright Jack' attitude now that is bad as to poverty, rather than that coming together in the main that likely existed in the 40s.

I wouldn't deprive anyone of anything I have myself,I have already upgraded 2 TVs in the last 4 years and given the other 2 to someone who had smaller TV's,one person who had none even.
A daft example to some maybe but to some, seeing those people with that newer,larger TV that they never had to buy, would be seen as someone on benefits getting more than they should.
I know because I have heard it directly.

It is ridiculous the way attitudes are thrown out as to demonisation as to all on benefits, because I have yet to see from someone who calls or terms those on benefits scroungers, the real thing, that is in fact, that it is a minority and not the vast majority who likely are scounging as to benefits.

It is easy when all is going good for anyone to look down on those who are far poorer, it's the easiest thing in the world to do but for me it is totally wrong,that is my opinion.

Things I have come across as to how some people have to live in the UK now in this day and age, have made me really sick and the hardline attitudes of those who can just judge and condemn,well that really makes me feel even more sick as to the UK in the 21st century.

What some would expect and only give to their children, that should be their right,to then go on and say it should not be the same for all children,especially if they are part of a very poor family is unbelievale..
If anything, attitudes towards the poor and any poverty have got worse than likely in the 40s and that is really saying something and nothing to be proud of in my view.

I have no children, I may never have chidlren but I would never,if I had anything to do with things, give to one child what I would expect another child to be deprived of.
I prefer the word 'selfless' anyday to 'selfish',I hope I never change from that either.

[Nedusa]

' I heard from elderly members of church congregations who lived through the scarcity of the 1940s and 50s and wanted to help those facing hunger and poverty today. '

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/10/foodbank-dilemma


http://www.trusselltrust.org/resources/images/foodbank/stats/2015/numbers-helped-2015.png

Nice post Kizzy, but I do think you need to get out more....:wavey::wavey:

[Livia]

I think what we all ought to understand is that the generation of people who lived through the war are nothing like the current generation. This is like comparing apples and oranges. The social structure was vastly different in the 1940s, the class system was vastly different and the Guardian trying to compare 2015 to 1943 is ludicrous but not wholly unexpected.

[smudgie]

Didn't people go into the poor houses still in the 40's.?
Now that was poor...and family and friends never had enough to spare to keep them out of those terrible places.
So, no competition for me.
Nowadays a lot of people do feel poverty stricken, some of it down to high expectations and a feeling of entitlement.
Strewth, we had to put coats on the bed to keep warm when we were young, so poverty and hardship are nothing new.
My father and his extended family all had to go to his granny's house for their tea, money was that tight so they all had to chip in and take what was on offer.

That is not to say that some people are Not hard up. Just that they tend to moan more.

[Kizzy]

Nice post Kizzy, but I do think you need to get out more....:wavey::wavey:

I addressed the issues you raised, it's serious debates why post if you don''t want a reasoned response to your points?

[Kizzy]

I think what we all ought to understand is that the generation of people who lived through the war are nothing like the current generation. This is like comparing apples and oranges. The social structure was vastly different in the 1940s, the class system was vastly different and the Guardian trying to compare 2015 to 1943 is ludicrous but not wholly unexpected.

I did comment on this earlier, 'the Guardian did not compile the study they just reported on it'.
I'm not sure why it's impossible to compare attitudes to poverty, the older generation are better equipped than anyone as they can give a personal account of both eras.
It's not a class issue either as the study is not alluding to any differences due to social stratification.
Social structure was different back then yes that is the whole point, as it was the publics reaction to the plight of people living in severe social deprivation which led to the welfare reforms initially.
Studies that question whether poverty is again reaching those depths and what modern attitudes are to that possibility is not ludicrous. As Joey said there always was the 'I'm alright Jack' voice but it was smaller, today it's deafening.

[user104658]

Clearly you cant back up your absurd replies, this one doesn't even make sense. The child benefits must be paid by vouchers to ensure the money for the children isn't squandered as it is in many cases

What exactly doesn't make sense? I can make it as simple as possible for you, if you want:

1) A section of my post earlier in the thread on the topic of "why they shouldn't be paid as vouchers" was fairly extensive. I have nothing to add to it. If you want to know why I oppose it, go back and read it, it's still there, I'm not going to repeat posts endlessly.

2) I know that you don't agree with me.

3) I know, based on a couple of years' experience of your posts, that you will never agree with me.

4) I'm therefore not going to bother to try to change your mind and so it follows that;

5) I don't care what you think. I think you are wrong. It's more or less a given before I even enter a thread.

[joeysteele]

I did comment on this earlier, 'the Guardian did not compile the study they just reported on it'.
I'm not sure why it's impossible to compare attitudes to poverty, the older generation are better equipped than anyone as they can give a personal account of both eras.
It's not a class issue either as the study is not alluding to any differences due to social stratification.
Social structure was different back then yes that is the whole point, as it was the publics reaction to the plight of people living in severe social deprivation which led to the welfare reforms initially.
Studies that question whether poverty is again reaching those depths and what modern attitudes are to that possibility is not ludicrous. As Joey said there always was the 'I'm alright Jack' voice but it was smaller, today it's deafening.


Well put Kizzy, that was the point I was trying to make,you managed to do so more succintly.
Really great post overall from you too.

[Kizzy]

[/B]

Well put Kizzy, that was the point I was trying to make,you managed to do so more succintly.
Really great post overall from you too.

Thanks Joey, I was just going to clap yours as I couldn't fault your view, but I thought I'd have a go at dragging it back on topic.
I looked on and thought nappies!?.... is that what defines attitudes to those living in poverty today washing nappies? :laugh:
Having the hot water, soap powder, sterilising soloution and electric to wash terry nappies would have to be factored into the equation, not to mention a washing machine .. unless it's expected that those on welfare wash them down by the canal with a rock? :hehe:

[joeysteele]

Thanks Joey, I was just going to clap yours as I couldn't fault your view, but I thought I'd have a go at dragging it back on topic.
I looked on and thought nappies!?.... is that what defines attitudes to those living in poverty today washing nappies? :laugh:
Having the hot water, soap powder, sterilising soloution and electric to wash terry nappies would have to be factored into the equation, not to mention a washing machine .. unless it's expected that those on welfare wash them down by the canal with a rock? :hehe:

Indeed, all excellent and valid points again Kizzy,it does seem,for the really poor at any rate, there is a feeling such people should really be totally lower class UK citizens with no rights and probably no privileges at all either,even as to their children.

I just get more and more dismayed and saddened really.

[Kizzy]

Indeed, all excellent and valid points again Kizzy,it does seem,for the really poor at any rate, there is a feeling such people should really be totally lower class UK citizens with no rights and probably no privileges at all either,even as to their children.

I just get more and more dismayed and saddened really.

Ah don't worry it's mainly us 80s kids and 'mrs bucket' (bouquet) types that are the like to have a pop at the guttersnipes :) The yoof like you and my daughter are not as easily persuaded and tend to analyse rather than swallow rhetoric.

[Ammi]

Not as to attitudes towards poverty though..

The point has I would say been made that in the 40s the poverty then could not be compared to now as there was in effect no welfare state.

However, I think even you said it too, people were in the same boat and had empathy with each other, so tried their best to come together to help too.
There was also the knowledge too that there was poverty at that time.

Now the attitudes seem to be, no one should be in poverty so there needn't be poverty and some don't think there is so dismiss it, despite others saying that they have seen and come across.

It is different poverty and the attitudes are different because now in the main, people don't pull together as much or look out for one another.

It is really startling to hear that people should be washing nappies and heading back to such times.
Especially when those who have had children, would have possibly hated themselves to do that,as to cleaning nappies, washing them and drying them,who will have bought constantly the pampers style of nappies for their children,to then think other children, just because they are in a poor family, should not have them too.

It is the more,'I'm alright Jack' attitude now that is bad as to poverty, rather than that coming together in the main that likely existed in the 40s.

I wouldn't deprive anyone of anything I have myself,I have already upgraded 2 TVs in the last 4 years and given the other 2 to someone who had smaller TV's,one person who had none even.
A daft example to some maybe but to some, seeing those people with that newer,larger TV that they never had to buy, would be seen as someone on benefits getting more than they should.
I know because I have heard it directly.

It is ridiculous the way attitudes are thrown out as to demonisation as to all on benefits, because I have yet to see from someone who calls or terms those on benefits scroungers, the real thing, that is in fact, that it is a minority and not the vast majority who likely are scounging as to benefits.

It is easy when all is going good for anyone to look down on those who are far poorer, it's the easiest thing in the world to do but for me it is totally wrong,that is my opinion.

Things I have come across as to how some people have to live in the UK now in this day and age, have made me really sick and the hardline attitudes of those who can just judge and condemn,well that really makes me feel even more sick as to the UK in the 21st century.

What some would expect and only give to their children, that should be their right,to then go on and say it should not be the same for all children,especially if they are part of a very poor family is unbelievale..
If anything, attitudes towards the poor and any poverty have got worse than likely in the 40s and that is really saying something and nothing to be proud of in my view.

I have no children, I may never have chidlren but I would never,if I had anything to do with things, give to one child what I would expect another child to be deprived of.
I prefer the word 'selfless' anyday to 'selfish',I hope I never change from that either.




...I really don’t think it is more of an ‘I’m alright Jack’ attitude now, Joey...I agree with you in that one of the fundamental differences was the absence of a welfare state back in the day ..you know, when people receive acts of thought and kindness directly from someone they know or even a stranger, that touches them so much more because it’s so personal so it would obviously create much more of a community and pulling together type feeling ..and obviously that’s all there was back in the day without any state help, so the feeling would be that people were kinder/more caring back then..but equally as in now, some people/neighbours etc would have been thoughtful for struggling families and some wouldn’t have been, I don’t think that’s something you can generalise about either because it’s just people and their different characters like everything in life and like then and like now... and I think that there was probably as much ‘judgement’ back in the day/the gossipy over the garden fence type thing... it’s just that it wasn’t media/internet fed and driven but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist, I think that it more meant that people were more only prone to be aware of their own small community/environment and very little beyond that...so really only had a much more limited perspective...

...hmmmmm, I remember a thread once on here and I think it was a single mum who was on benefits who had spent a huge sum of money on her children at Christmas..it was quite a while ago and I think you can imagine there where many judgements of her in that and many opinions etc...but those negative judgements of her if I recall came from both people who were in work and people who weren’t...hmmmm, should she really be spending all of that money on gifts when I have a job and I can’t afford or wouldn’t do that ..?..but also from those in a not too dissimilar situation to hers because her choices were different to those that they themselves would make and there was a large amount of disapproval with that...so there will always be and has always been judgements ..but from my experience many people do still pull together and think of others as you have shown with your old TVs etc, for some it might be something similar, or maybe making sure that someone is able to do their shopping if they struggle with transport, or making sure that they’re aware of all benefits that they’re entitled to, that they have the facilities to and are able to prepare hot meals for themselves etc...and just generally doing whatever they can if they see a family struggling or someone living on their own, someone who is less able etc...those things are still around, Joey because they’re to do with people and people’s character just as much as they always were and yeah equally there are and always have been people who don’t think about others so much or what they can actively do to help ....

...the technology that we have now and the information available now is a great thing and a really positive thing but obviously there will always be some negatives as well with that, and one of those is the often negative portrayal and judgement of anyone who is unable to work for whatever reason...but virtually no one I know in real life or indeed on the forum ‘buys into’ thinking that it’s any more than the small percentage of what could be described as ‘scroungers’ than it actually is ..in the same way though, I think it’s also equally wrong to generalise in an ‘I’m alright Jack’ kind of way because that’s lumping together and judging a huge amount of people wrongly and it makes me sad that you feel that’s your overall experiences of the many people you have met... because some with less will still give and do whatever they actively can and think of others and some will not..some with more will give and do whatever they actively can and think of others and some will not and I think really that’s always been the way through times and times and times....

[kirklancaster]

Chew on some REAL TRUTH:

A hell of a lot of people on Benefits are FAR better OFF than a hell of a lot of people who work damned hard for a living but who do not have 'comfortable' 'stress-free' lifestyles where everything is 'found' for them, and who struggle monthly to exist.

These include young people 'doing the right thing' and prioritising their incomes so that bills and food come first and some meagre savings are apportioned from whatever disposable income they have left.

[Kizzy]

...I really don’t think it is more of an ‘I’m alright Jack’ attitude now, Joey...I agree with you in that one of the fundamental differences was the absence of a welfare state back in the day ..you know, when people receive acts of thought and kindness directly from someone they know or even a stranger, that touches them so much more because it’s so personal so it would obviously create much more of a community and pulling together type feeling ..and obviously that’s all there was back in the day without any state help, so the feeling would be that people were kinder/more caring back then..but equally as in now, some people/neighbours etc would have been thoughtful for struggling families and some wouldn’t have been, I don’t think that’s something you can generalise about either because it’s just people and their different characters like everything in life and like then and like now... and I think that there was probably as much ‘judgement’ back in the day/the gossipy over the garden fence type thing... it’s just that it wasn’t media/internet fed and driven but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist, I think that it more meant that people were more only prone to be aware of their own small community/environment and very little beyond that...so really only had a much more limited perspective...

...hmmmmm, I remember a thread once on here and I think it was a single mum who was on benefits who had spent a huge sum of money on her children at Christmas..it was quite a while ago and I think you can imagine there where many judgements of her in that and many opinions etc...but those negative judgements of her if I recall came from both people who were in work and people who weren’t...hmmmm, should she really be spending all of that money on gifts when I have a job and I can’t afford or wouldn’t do that ..?..but also from those in a not too dissimilar situation to hers because her choices were different to those that they themselves would make and there was a large amount of disapproval with that...so there will always be and has always been judgements ..but from my experience many people do still pull together and think of others as you have shown with your old TVs etc, for some it might be something similar, or maybe making sure that someone is able to do their shopping if they struggle with transport, or making sure that they’re aware of all benefits that they’re entitled to, that they have the facilities to and are able to prepare hot meals for themselves etc...and just generally doing whatever they can if they see a family struggling or someone living on their own, someone who is less able etc...those things are still around, Joey because they’re to do with people and people’s character just as much as they always were and yeah equally there are and always have been people who don’t think about others so much or what they can actively do to help ....

...the technology that we have now and the information available now is a great thing and a really positive thing but obviously there will always be some negatives as well with that, and one of those is the often negative portrayal and judgement of anyone who is unable to work for whatever reason...but virtually no one I know in real life or indeed on the forum ‘buys into’ thinking that it’s any more than the small percentage of what could be described as ‘scroungers’ than it actually is ..in the same way though, I think it’s also equally wrong to generalise in an ‘I’m alright Jack’ kind of way because that’s lumping together and judging a huge amount of people wrongly and it makes me sad that you feel that’s your overall experiences of the many people you have met... because some with less will still give and do whatever they actively can and think of others and some will not..some with more will give and do whatever they actively can and think of others and some will not and I think really that’s always been the way through times and times and times....

It has always existed, as you say there was always those who believed you make your own luck, yet due to work from reformists and philanthropists the message got to those who did feel that a progressive community would benefit from the promotion of an altogether more equal civilised society.
At first the support came from the church and friendly societies.
There wasn't any state help and therefore more were willing to see them get a leg up, today that process appears to be moving in reverse as sanctions make those who can't manage worse off and the slums areas are reappearing.
Therefore comparisons can be drawn, it's becoming more accepted that sections of society be left to 'sink or swim', and again it's the role of the churches, hostels and benevolent trusts set up to provide aid.
With working people conditioned not to concern themselves as these shirkers are not tax payers., it's made even worse as there's no excuse now that you aren't aware of it because in the modern day the word is the touch of a button away.

Was this me?... It could've been. This is a perfect example of the individualism argument, its not seen as a positive that this woman whoever she was made an enjoyable Christmas for her children on welfare...
It's not taken into consideration the child support received from the absent parent, any loans taken, toy/food savings clubs, help from family. But yes the general consensus is now how can she do that? It almost seems they would be more satisfied if the kids had nothing and she was begging for scraps doesn't it?..

The removal of coverage to protests, media bias, demonisation of sub groups, removal of charity funding, reforms it all adds to the burden, and yes there will always be nice people who will try to help its not advocated, in fact it's the welfare reforms that are blamed for many of the issues in the UK today. From the leafy burbs to major towns and cities the neo liberal laissez faire attitude is generally accepted as it was in the 40s, a direct correlation, that can be denied and ignored but it doesn't make it any less true.

[joeysteele]

...I really don’t think it is more of an ‘I’m alright Jack’ attitude now, Joey...I agree with you in that one of the fundamental differences was the absence of a welfare state back in the day ..you know, when people receive acts of thought and kindness directly from someone they know or even a stranger, that touches them so much more because it’s so personal so it would obviously create much more of a community and pulling together type feeling ..and obviously that’s all there was back in the day without any state help, so the feeling would be that people were kinder/more caring back then..but equally as in now, some people/neighbours etc would have been thoughtful for struggling families and some wouldn’t have been, I don’t think that’s something you can generalise about either because it’s just people and their different characters like everything in life and like then and like now... and I think that there was probably as much ‘judgement’ back in the day/the gossipy over the garden fence type thing... it’s just that it wasn’t media/internet fed and driven but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist, I think that it more meant that people were more only prone to be aware of their own small community/environment and very little beyond that...so really only had a much more limited perspective...

...hmmmmm, I remember a thread once on here and I think it was a single mum who was on benefits who had spent a huge sum of money on her children at Christmas..it was quite a while ago and I think you can imagine there where many judgements of her in that and many opinions etc...but those negative judgements of her if I recall came from both people who were in work and people who weren’t...hmmmm, should she really be spending all of that money on gifts when I have a job and I can’t afford or wouldn’t do that ..?..but also from those in a not too dissimilar situation to hers because her choices were different to those that they themselves would make and there was a large amount of disapproval with that...so there will always be and has always been judgements ..but from my experience many people do still pull together and think of others as you have shown with your old TVs etc, for some it might be something similar, or maybe making sure that someone is able to do their shopping if they struggle with transport, or making sure that they’re aware of all benefits that they’re entitled to, that they have the facilities to and are able to prepare hot meals for themselves etc...and just generally doing whatever they can if they see a family struggling or someone living on their own, someone who is less able etc...those things are still around, Joey because they’re to do with people and people’s character just as much as they always were and yeah equally there are and always have been people who don’t think about others so much or what they can actively do to help ....

...the technology that we have now and the information available now is a great thing and a really positive thing but obviously there will always be some negatives as well with that, and one of those is the often negative portrayal and judgement of anyone who is unable to work for whatever reason...but virtually no one I know in real life or indeed on the forum ‘buys into’ thinking that it’s any more than the small percentage of what could be described as ‘scroungers’ than it actually is ..in the same way though, I think it’s also equally wrong to generalise in an ‘I’m alright Jack’ kind of way because that’s lumping together and judging a huge amount of people wrongly and it makes me sad that you feel that’s your overall experiences of the many people you have met... because some with less will still give and do whatever they actively can and think of others and some will not..some with more will give and do whatever they actively can and think of others and some will not and I think really that’s always been the way through times and times and times....

Good post and great read as ever Ammi.

However,I never generalise.I said the people who usually are hardline and mention benefit scroungers,never add that they know the scroungers are a minority and that the vast majority of those on benefits are not so.

The press do this all the time, highlight, one or 2 extreme cases and never highlight that they are the minority,thereby by having such things all over their front pages, they present it as the norm and not a rarity.
Which some people then pick up and sadly take as gospel.

Also, (extreme luxuries are obviously different), for people to say however,who have used the conveneince of things like pampers for their own children,to then expect people on low incomes to have to use different means, such as towelling nappies,that need to be washed, dried and used over and over,for those children in very poor families,well I think that is wrong.
What would be good for say my child,if I ever have any, is something I would hope to see available for all Parents and their children.
Just one example.

Why should a poor family or one on benefits,be expected to not only be but to have to treat their babies and children like really low class individuals.

Actually, aside from the hardliners, I don't find that attitude, I find Mothers who know some parents cannot afford pampers or huggies in a week,that help out by giving some of theirs.
They don't expect them to, or tell them they should buy towelling nappies and have to clean, them, steep them, even boil them at times then wash them and dry them.

It is the hardline attitude of 'I'm alright Jack',that helps demonise the poor and those on 'entitlements',(I actually hate the word benefits as to such individuals too),that helps fuel stronger and less caring attitudes towards such individuals via the media and in some others too.

I have seen the desperation of people going to a foodbank, in the 21st century in the UK.
They need generally to be referred to same,and can only go a few times,just for basic food items, they maybe could buy cheaper food,no doubt about that but much of the cheaper food is vile, Asda smart price food is gross,I wouldn't touch that with a bargepole or expect anyone to eat it,let alone buy it.

Buying food still has to be cooked,uless they are expetced too to have to live on cold food, if you have one those obscene pre pay meters for gas and/or electric, they are paying over the odds for the energy to do so,which causes more 'poverty' for want of a better word.

Here is an example I have been given permission to mention while out canvassing,which fortunately with help from the law firm I was at had a reasonably better outcome in the end after unfortuately 2 court cases however.
One individual who became really ill and could no longer work, got into difficulties with their energy payments.
They had pay as you go meters installed and the arrears they had were set at a figure each week as to repayments which would be taken off the funds they put on when they topped up the meters.

They were in hospital later for further operation and treatment,for over 8 weeks.
When they came out, there was no electricity or gas in the house as the payments had still been taken,despite them not topping the meters up when in hospital.
They then topped the meters up with some funds, the repayment figure was taken off the topped up amount as usual but because theyw ere in arrears on the arrears, they then found each day a further 80p was being deducted from the meter in addition to the repayment figure.

In that instance,they were back in the same boat again in a short time, either paying loads as to topping up, that left them with even less funds,or having no gas or electricity.
Those on these pre pay meters, get the worst possible deal as to energy prices yet they are ones with the least funds.

So foodbanks are needed,other help is needed too and this is a spiral that goes on day after day, week after week, year after year.
You can get on such a meter an emergency credit of I believe of £5, however once that is used, you will have to pay that back out of the topped up meter as well as the repayment figure, and then also the catch up as to arrears on arrears.

It was Kazanne, I think who said some people are bad with money and that is very true,that shouldn't be a condemnation of someone however, it should be seen as a cry for help once it is unearthed.
However there again,there are so few outlets now that really help people with this kind of scenario.
Which is why I believe, taking more as a basic out of 'entitlements' for essentials like rent,council tax, water, electricity and gas, is the way forward,not under this pay the claimants monthly as to Universal credit nonsense and leave them to get on with it.

People who are bad with money and planning,a good number should be seen as being vulnerable, leaving them to get on with it and making things harder for them should not be in any way seen as a way forward.
No govts; have done enough,this one has done even less on this situation as to energy.
These pre pay meters should be outlawed in my view,usage assessed and the average weekly payment deducted from the entitlements and paid direct to the supplier.

Most of these people don't have bank accounts either so they cannot pay by direct debit, which will cost them even more to pay cash or by pre pay meter again.
Energy costs as is the case for many average working people too, is a big contributor to helping create poverty.
The big companies do nothing and want nothing done either.

Yes food may be cheap,however it is one thing among many that for anyone with a really low income, is just one more thing in a load of minus situations a what you spend limited funds on.
Sometimes, more often than people may care to think, it does come down to, even if you have children too, do you eat or heat in the home.
What can you afford to do least.
Often it is really impossible to do both.

The difference between now and the 40s is that likely little could be done to help people in poverty whereas now it should be possible to eradicate it.
Sadly govts; do little, in this ones case nothing at all, they have even removed the funding as to places where people in difficulites could get at least advice from or even legal help when needed.

When I come across it, and it is happily not the majority, the hardline attitudes I do come across have no little or no solutions and are said in dismissive tones as to the indications that is 'the poors fault'.
When it is never as simple as that,nothing to me is either all balck or all white.
I find even more and more, situations have loads of grey areas as to them, and often in the things I have come across, it is rarely just the individual poor's fault at all.

[Ammi]

It has always existed, as you say there was always those who believed you make your own luck, yet due to work from reformists and philanthropists the message got to those who did feel that a progressive community would benefit from the promotion of an altogether more equal civilised society.
At first the support came from the church and friendly societies.
There wasn't any state help and therefore more were willing to see them get a leg up, today that process appears to be moving in reverse as sanctions make those who can't manage worse off and the slums areas are reappearing.
Therefore comparisons can be drawn, it's becoming more accepted that sections of society be left to 'sink or swim', and again it's the role of the churches, hostels and benevolent trusts set up to provide aid.
With working people conditioned not to concern themselves as these shirkers are not tax payers., it's made even worse as there's no excuse now that you aren't aware of it because in the modern day the word is the touch of a button away.

Was this me?... It could've been. This is a perfect example of the individualism argument, its not seen as a positive that this woman whoever she was made an enjoyable Christmas for her children on welfare...
It's not taken into consideration the child support received from the absent parent, any loans taken, toy/food savings clubs, help from family. But yes the general consensus is now how can she do that? It almost seems they would be more satisfied if the kids had nothing and she was begging for scraps doesn't it?..
The removal of coverage to protests, media bias, demonisation of sub groups, removal of charity funding, reforms it all adds to the burden, and yes there will always be nice people who will try to help its not advocated, in fact it's the welfare reforms that are blamed for many of the issues in the UK today. From the leafy burbs to major towns and cities the neo liberal laissez faire attitude is generally accepted as it was in the 40s, a direct correlation, that can be denied and ignored but it doesn't make it any less true.

..I don't know what you mean by was it you/who made the thread, I have no idea, it was quite a while ago ..but the point of my mentioning it as an example is that judgements are made from people whatever their personal situation and most of those negative judgements even from people who would relate more closely to her...I think that feeling it's an 'I'm alright Jack' thing is equally taking a section of society and labelling them in a negative way, much like with 'scroungers' being referred to as a label from some....for many people it's less of an I'm alright Jack and more ...there but for the grace of good go I and many, may people do what they can and are able to...there still obviously is also charity and help organisations as well as there always was...and those are still going because people do care and there is empathy and they do want to give their time to actively do something....

..I personally don't believe that anyone on benefits should only have those to be on breadline and not be able to have some luxuries as well, whether it be for themselves or their children...because without those the stress factors become higher, which just creates more health issues and less likelihood of being able to work etc..

[Kizzy]

..I don't know what you mean by was it you/who made the thread, I have no idea, it was quite a while ago ..but the point of my mentioning it as an example is that judgements are made from people whatever their personal situation and most of those negative judgements even from people who would relate more closely to her...I think that feeling it's an 'I'm alright Jack' thing is equally taking a section of society and labelling them in a negative way, much like with 'scroungers' being referred to as a label from some....for many people it's less of an I'm alright Jack and more ...there but for the grace of good go I and many, may people do what they can and are able to...there still obviously is also charity and help organisations as well as there always was...and those are still going because people do care and there is empathy and they do want to give their time to actively do something....

..I personally don't believe that anyone on benefits should only have those to be on breadline and not be able to have some luxuries as well, whether it be for themselves or their children...because without those the stress factors become higher, which just creates more health issues and less likelihood of being able to work etc..

The study is based on attitudinal change, you can't really debate that without referring to attitudes, and that is just one...
I don't think the case for luxuries will be won, a warm secure home and food is the minimum requirement, that's all anyone truly needs to be able to attempt to lift themselves out of poverty initially, sadly that for many is a dream.

[Ammi]

Good post and great read as ever Ammi.

However,I never generalise.I said the people who usually are hardline and mention benefit scroungers,never add that they know the scroungers are a minority and that the vast majority of those on benefits are not so.

The press do this all the time, highlight, one or 2 extreme cases and never highlight that they are the minority,thereby by having such things all over their front pages, they present it as the norm and not a rarity.
Which some people then pick up and sadly take as gospel.

Also, (extreme luxuries are obviously different), for people to say however,who have used the conveneince of things like pampers for their own children,to then expect people on low incomes to have to use different means, such as towelling nappies,that need to be washed, dried and used over and over,for those children in very poor families,well I think that is wrong.
What would be good for say my child,if I ever have any, is something I would hope to see available for all Parents and their children.
Just one example.

Why should a poor family or one on benefits,be expected to not only be but to have to treat their babies and children like really low class individuals.

Actually, aside from the hardliners, I don't find that attitude, I find Mothers who know some parents cannot afford pampers or huggies in a week,that help out by giving some of theirs.
They don't expect them to, or tell them they should buy towelling nappies and have to clean, them, steep them, even boil them at times then wash them and dry them.

It is the hardline attitude of 'I'm alright Jack',that helps demonise the poor and those on 'entitlements',(I actually hate the word benefits as to such individuals too),that helps fuel stronger and less caring attitudes towards such individuals via the media and in some others too.

I have seen the desperation of people going to a foodbank, in the 21st century in the UK.
They need generally to be referred to same,and can only go a few times,just for basic food items, they maybe could buy cheaper food,no doubt about that but much of the cheaper food is vile, Asda smart price food is gross,I wouldn't touch that with a bargepole or expect anyone to eat it,let alone buy it.

Buying food still has to be cooked,uless they are expetced too to have to live on cold food, if you have one those obscene pre pay meters for gas and/or electric, they are paying over the odds for the energy to do so,which causes more 'poverty' for want of a better word.

Here is an example I have been given permission to mention while out canvassing,which fortunately with help from the law firm I was at had a reasonably better outcome in the end after unfortuately 2 court cases however.
One individual who became really ill and could no longer work, got into difficulties with their energy payments.
They had pay as you go meters installed and the arrears they had were set at a figure each week as to repayments which would be taken off the funds they put on when they topped up the meters.

They were in hospital later for further operation and treatment,for over 8 weeks.
When they came out, there was no electricity or gas in the house as the payments had still been taken,despite them not topping the meters up when in hospital.
They then topped the meters up with some funds, the repayment figure was taken off the topped up amount as usual but because theyw ere in arrears on the arrears, they then found each day a further 80p was being deducted from the meter in addition to the repayment figure.

In that instance,they were back in the same boat again in a short time, either paying loads as to topping up, that left them with even less funds,or having no gas or electricity.
Those on these pre pay meters, get the worst possible deal as to energy prices yet they are ones with the least funds.

So foodbanks are needed,other help is needed too and this is a spiral that goes on day after day, week after week, year after year.
You can get on such a meter an emergency credit of I believe of £5, however once that is used, you will have to pay that back out of the topped up meter as well as the repayment figure, and then also the catch up as to arrears on arrears.

It was Kazanne, I think who said some people are bad with money and that is very true,that shouldn't be a condemnation of someone however, it should be seen as a cry for help once it is unearthed.
However there again,there are so few outlets now that really help people with this kind of scenario.
Which is why I believe, taking more as a basic out of 'entitlements' for essentials like rent,council tax, water, electricity and gas, is the way forward,not under this pay the claimants monthly as to Universal credit nonsense and leave them to get on with it.

People who are bad with money and planning,a good number should be seen as being vulnerable, leaving them to get on with it and making things harder for them should not be in any way seen as a way forward.
No govts; have done enough,this one has done even less on this situation as to energy.
These pre pay meters should be outlawed in my view,usage assessed and the average weekly payment deducted from the entitlements and paid direct to the supplier.

Most of these people don't have bank accounts either so they cannot pay by direct debit, which will cost them even more to pay cash or by pre pay meter again.
Energy costs as is the case for many average working people too, is a big contributor to helping create poverty.
The big companies do nothing and want nothing done either.

Yes food may be cheap,however it is one thing among many that for anyone with a really low income, is just one more thing in a load of minus situations a what you spend limited funds on.
Sometimes, more often than people may care to think, it does come down to, even if you have children too, do you eat or heat in the home.
What can you afford to do least.
Often it is really impossible to do both.

The difference between now and the 40s is that likely little could be done to help people in poverty whereas now it should be possible to eradicate it.
Sadly govts; do little, in this ones case nothing at all, they have even removed the funding as to places where people in difficulites could get at least advice from or even legal help when needed.

When I come across it, and it is happily not the majority, the hardline attitudes I do come across have no little or no solutions and are said in dismissive tones as to the indications that is 'the poors fault'.
When it is never as simple as that,nothing to me is either all balck or all white.
I find even more and more, situations have loads of grey areas as to them, and often in the things I have come across, it is rarely just the individual poor's fault at all.

..I'm just going to look at a little section of your post for now Joey, just because I haven't got much time but I'll read it all through again later...but I do think that diet issues are a real problem and I guess all came about with the rise of the fast/convenience foods..because also there are more working parents now, either single parents or both parents working which they often have to do financially so obviously a lot more convenient etc...it's worrying that some children can't identify common fruits or vegetables in their 'natural' form...but often schools do find it difficult to educate on this and on healthy eating etc because many parents don't actually want it either, the children may be willing to try things but some parents oppose it and say they would rather their children eat chicken nuggets etc ..and I agree, it's not all black and white and also why I have this thing about parent's being judged and ughhh, they're a bad parents etc...because in my experience there are very few bad parents, most parents do what they think is best for their children and act out of love even when their action might be a bit misguided..so that's more about helping to educate them rather than judge them..and who responds positively to being judged/that's not the way at all to try to make anything better...

[Ammi]

The study is based on attitudinal change, you can't really debate that without referring to attitudes, and that is just one...
I don't think the case for luxuries will be won, a warm secure home and food is the minimum requirement, that's all anyone truly needs to be able to attempt to lift themselves out of poverty initially, sadly that for many is a dream.

..and it's just as much as a generalisation than other ones are and just as negative...


..and I don't agree, I think that a holiday/break of some kind for a family who has struggled for many years can be of importance as well...there again it would be judging them to feel that we know what they need ....every case is different....

[Kizzy]

..and it's just as much as a generalisation than other ones are and just as negative...


..and I don't agree, I think that a holiday/break of some kind for a family who has struggled for many years can be of importance as well...there again it would be judging them to feel that we know what they need ....every case is different....

I think you're getting bogged down with the terms used they are not in the study and have nothing to do with it, 'I'm alright jacks' and 'scroungers' are just terms used on here in fairness.

Every case is not different, What point is a week in bognor if your basic needs are not met? It's a sticking plaster.

[joeysteele]

Chew on some REAL TRUTH:

A hell of a lot of people on Benefits are FAR better OFF than a hell of a lot of people who work damned hard for a living but who do not have 'comfortable' 'stress-free' lifestyles where everything is 'found' for them, and who struggle monthly to exist.

These include young people 'doing the right thing' and prioritising their incomes so that bills and food come first and some meagre savings are apportioned from whatever disposable income they have left.

That is true as to some not all on benefits which you point out, however this thread is 'attitudes' to poverty.
How people end up in any kind of poverty is often dictated by income,personal circumstances, such as the homeless, and then as Kazanne said, people can be bad with money too.

There will be some people better off on benefits probably,however a great many people on benefits should be in my view.
If you have had someone who has a had a good career,maybe a Nurse or Doctor or Teacher,who has worked a fair bit of their lives,who then through illness or disability then cannot work any more ,they should be still have an income at a decent level.

In addition,I haven't a clue how someone working, who then finds themselves out of work due to the loss of their jobs,who then have to cope with running a home, pay bills and feed and clothe themselves on the paltry jobseekers allowance they get, survive at all.
That is an obscene amount to pay adults.

However,this is about attitude to poverty, I mentioned some instances I have come across and the cost of energy, I found, is what was pushing a good many people into poverty.
Then this obscene bedroom tax, that in another instance ended up taking around £15 from someone out of their entitlements they were told they had to have to live on, also help push people into poverty.

Real poverty, apart from the homeless is more rare,I admit,however in the last 5 years particularly,with energy costs rising massively, then the bedroom tax/charge too,things have got worse.
People have in effect had benefits payments drastically cut in real terms.
With the bedroom charge.
There were few smaller properties for anyone living in a 2 bedroomed or 3 bedroomed house/flat to move to, however they were still expected to pay the extra charge, even though they can go nowhere else at present.
Out of what they should have to live on.

All those things and more, add to reduction of income,and end up helping as to creating poverty.
Even people working are struggling,people who have part time work,don't have part time bills for instance.
I am only 23 and now living on my own, with 2 Cousins, however even I am appalled at my energy costs over the last 4 years in the main.
Nothing has come down, since they have risen so heavily.
The govt; altered things as to energy bills but that didn't make the bills less, it made the 'increase to the bills less'
They still went up, that all adds to poverty too.

It is the attitudes to poverty that is behind this good thread of Kizzy's,contrasting it with the 40s.
In the 40s,likely people made massive pans of broth etc; and not only one family benefited from that as it was shared.
That is unlikely to be the case now and some people probably do eat badly and unhealthily because it is cheaper to do so.
That's when they can make a decision as to heat or eat.

Managing ever rising costs, is bad enough for anyone, for someone on a tighter budget it must be near impossible, who by robbing Peter to pay Paul a lot of the time,then that can take them into poverty, who then get a usually cold response and are seen as wasters by some.

As I pointed out, in response to Kazanne's valid poinnt to that, as to some people being bad with money, then they need help to manage it, and deal with people as to business for them.
Not judge them or condemn them but help them, answer all cries for help and also look for them too.
Not sweep them under the carpet like the past few govts; have done, which have now seen and presided over record rises in usage of foodbanks.

Easy to scoff at people in difficulty,easy to dismiss them as irrelevant too.
I never really thought people in any kind of poverty existed,then I came across one, then more, then in my view ,far too many I already know about,with the figures rising.
Nothing done to find them and help them 'cope'.
That is a good word 'cope',most people can easily, a great many others cannot, often through their own failure but also through absolutely no fault of their own.

Poverty should be a really dirty word in the UK in the 21st century and govts; have the power to look for them and give crisis assistance when needed.
Do they seek them out, no, there are no likely votes from them and so like others they dismiss poverty as if it doesn't exist.
Which only makes the problem get bigger and thereby worse.

The media, when this comes up and supporters of the Conservatives particularly,always say, there were foodbanks under Labour too.
There were and it is right to criticise that fact they needed to be in existence at all then too.

However,in 2010,something like 45,000 usage of foodbanks was the situation, now it is, in just the last 5 years, now over 1,000,000 usage,recently announced.
These are mostly people in poverty in the UK in the 21st century and some are working people too.

Everyone is not perfect and people get into great difficulties, the hands to help them out of that are getting fewer and fewer, and the policies of this govt; in particular as to energy bills inaction and the introduction of things like the bedroom tax/charge, have made things a great deal worse,in my view.

As I said, easy to be in a comfy chair and brand them all incompetent wasters, sadly that isn't an answer, nor even right actually in my view.
People in poverty.I see as a cry for help and it is time, since there is more of it now, that more was done to practically help,rather than take the atitude of just dismissing them or pay a bit of lip service to the issue.

[Ammi]

I think you're getting bogged down with the terms used they are not in the study and have nothing to do with it, 'I'm alright jacks' and 'scroungers' are just terms used on here in fairness.

Every case is not different, What point is a week in bognor if your basic needs are not met? It's a sticking plaster.

..I'm not bogged down with anything, they're both terms of generalising people and inaccurate....

..I think that things like holidays/breaks etc can be much of much benefit in terms of stress related mental health issues which can make trying to find employment even more difficult or even impossible in some cases and definitely something that children would benefit from rather than never have anything nice or to look forward to like their peers and that people deserve more than just being on the breadline and that's something I've known communities to come together to provide for families on occasions and knowing those family's problems and their struggles and I guess that showing 'community' is still very much present today ...but we're obviously not going to agree so I'm just going to leave it at that, I don't think I have anything else to add to the thread or my previous thoughts....

[Kizzy]

..I'm not bogged down with anything, they're both terms of generalising people and inaccurate....

..I think that things like holidays/breaks etc can be much of much benefit in terms of stress related mental health issues which can make trying to find employment even more difficult or even impossible in some cases and definitely something that children would benefit from rather than never have anything nice or to look forward to like their peers and that people deserve more than just being on the breadline and that's something I've known communities to come together to provide for families on occasions and knowing those family's problems and their struggles and I guess that showing 'community' is still very much present today ...but we're obviously not going to agree so I'm just going to leave it at that, I don't think I have anything else to add to the thread or my previous thoughts....

They are both accurate... it's to what extent they are accurate that is the question, again this isn't really the real issue though what labels differing sub groups are given.
I've never known a community to provide a holiday for anyone, where is this wonderful community?

[the truth]

Chew on some REAL TRUTH:

A hell of a lot of people on Benefits are FAR better OFF than a hell of a lot of people who work damned hard for a living but who do not have 'comfortable' 'stress-free' lifestyles where everything is 'found' for them, and who struggle monthly to exist.

These include young people 'doing the right thing' and prioritising their incomes so that bills and food come first and some meagre savings are apportioned from whatever disposable income they have left.

100% true...what people also forget is in addition to the £600 tax free incomes with 2 parents who don't work and half a dozen children, theres the ncome for both, the child benefit for 6, free house, free nhs, free dental, free glasses etc but also in some cases as crazy as it sounds children are living with parents so irresponsible and selfish, the kids are developing health problems as a result....through the smoking in the home, the dreadful diet, the boozing, the drugs in the house, the general ggression and borish behaviour has impacted upons the childrens emotional and mental development too, some fo these parents are into dog breeding too as a means of supporting their partying life styles...ive known some parents in these kind of homes who tie the bedroom doors shut to lock the kids up all day...in many cases kids have developed such health problems they've qualified for disability living allowance. I kid you not. and of course all of that money is spent on the parents. ive seen it. no wonder such people can afford to trash homes or throw out kids toys and tv sets

this does happen and it happens all the time behind closed doors. with social services cut backs and political correctness gone mad, its gotten harder for social workers or the general public to actually intervene. and so the madness goes on

[Kizzy]

Nope, with the 'troubled' families' initiative intervention is actually easier if it's required.

[the truth]

Nope, with the 'troubled' families' initiative intervention is actually easier if it's required. its not, it just appears to be. this is one reason we saw with the horrific Rochdale abuses for thousands of victims over 20 years.....there were simply to many laws too many rules and regulations so much so that no one could actually interfene sufficiently....look how long it takes us to export terrorists? its idiotic laws written by idiots who never actually calculate the damage these laws do...they actually prevent us in many cases from acting on our most basic moral principles

[joeysteele]

Nope, with the 'troubled' families' initiative intervention is actually easier if it's required.

You are right again Kizzy.

[joeysteele]

100% true...what people also forget is in addition to the £600 tax free incomes with 2 parents who don't work and half a dozen children, theres the ncome for both, the child benefit for 6, free house, free nhs, free dental, free glasses etc but also in some cases as crazy as it sounds children are living with parents so irresponsible and selfish, the kids are developing health problems as a result....through the smoking in the home, the dreadful diet, the boozing, the drugs in the house, the general ggression and borish behaviour has impacted upons the childrens emotional and mental development too, some fo these parents are into dog breeding too as a means of supporting their partying life styles...ive known some parents in these kind of homes who tie the bedroom doors shut to lock the kids up all day...in many cases kids have developed such health problems they've qualified for disability living allowance. I kid you not. and of course all of that money is spent on the parents. ive seen it. no wonder such people can afford to trash homes or throw out kids toys and tv sets

this does happen and it happens all the time behind closed doors. with social services cut backs and political correctness gone mad, its gotten harder for social workers or the general public to actually intervene. and so the madness goes on

You've seen all this., well I know from things I see, if I see something I perceive to be wrong, I do all I can to see that it is put right.

If I actually saw for sure what you state above,then I would be calling the police,especially if children were being kept behind tied doors.
Have you reported this after seeing it with your own eyes and therefore able to prove what is happening.

If you have,what happened and did you keep on at it.Surely it was investigated when you reported it.

I came across someone in desperate need, they were totally unable to fend for themselves and would have been walkovers from any officialdom, sadly there are loads of people like that, who do not and also cannot speak up for themselves.
I was sure they should have more entitlements and made calls on their behalf.

When they heard nothing,I did so again, with them at my side obviously to give me the authority too.
Eventually after persistence, they did get more funds coming in, funds they should have had ages ago but no one did anything to find such people.

So if I had seen what you decribe in the post above,I 'd have acted bigtime.
Did you report it, not once but as many times as necessary, to get results and what happned if you did.
I would love to know as that is what I would have done had I come across the horrific scenario you outline in the post above.

If that goes on anywhere, it should be stamped out totally,all authorities and in some cases,like the one above, the police too, should be informed.
You seem sure you have seen all this,enough to publicly say it, and you clearly also believe it to be wrong, hopefully you acted on it too,I know I surely would have and gone on and on about it too until something was done.

[Livia]

There are a myriad of agencies in this country helping people in need. I'm not saying everything is perfectf, obviously it's not - far from it, but to compare it with the 1940s, when we were at war and when we were immediately post-war, continues to be one of the more ridiculous discussions on this forum.

[Kizzy]

There are a myriad of agencies in this country helping people in need. I'm not saying everything is perfectf, obviously it's not - far from it, but to compare it with the 1940s, when we were at war and when we were immediately post-war, continues to be one of the more ridiculous discussions on this forum.

Again the study is concerned with attitudinal change in the general population not what help is and isn't available Why when there are a million people relying on foodbanks these agencies aren't acting as a safety net?
It's not ridiculous Livia, it's very apt due to the widening social gap.

[joeysteele]

My own view is that no topic as to poverty or injustice is ridiculous,if it gets people talking about it, learning one or two things they maybe didn't know.
Which also gathers a cross section of opinion and possibly even makes someone or even more than one think a bit more as to it,

The attitude of doing nothing and discussing nothing as to it, is why it largely gets swept under the carpet by many,particularly those in power.
Sometimes the more extreme the comparison can be the trigger for a far wider debate, which in my view, has happily happened and for me, been welcome to see on this thread.

[Livia]

Again the study is concerned with attitudinal change in the general population not what help is and isn't available Why when there are a million people relying on foodbanks these agencies aren't acting as a safety net?
It's not ridiculous Livia, it's very apt due to the widening social gap.

A million people? One in sixty? I doubt it.

[Kizzy]

Of course its apt, and as the gulf between the richest and the poorest widens it will be more and more apt as the opinions as to what could and should be done swing wildly depending on what newspaper you read instead of peeping through the net curtains.

[Kizzy]

A million people? One in sixty? I doubt it.

Considering you can visit a food bank 3 times even if these visits are based on that it's anything upwards of 333,333 if that is more acceptable.

[smudgie]

Ok, so if attitudes have really changed for the worse, how come so many food banks can spring up?
These food banks are made up of charitable donations from schools, churches, businesses and the public, therefore showing we do care in general.

[Livia]

I don't know what you mean about net curtains...

I doubt very much that one in sixty of the population cannot feed themselves. I wonder how many of those people smoke, drink, own a smartphone etc. etc...? In the 1940s people if you needed money you'd get a visit from the Relief Office and they'd point out which of your meagre possessions you should sell before they gave you a penny. Can't really compare that with today.

[kirklancaster]

Ok, so if attitudes have really changed for the worse, how come so many food banks can spring up?
These food banks are made up of charitable donations from schools, churches, businesses and the public, therefore showing we do care in general.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[kirklancaster]

I don't know what you mean about net curtains...

I doubt very much that one in sixty of the population cannot feed themselves. I wonder how many of those people smoke, drink, own a smartphone etc. etc...? In the 1940s people if you needed money you'd get a visit from the Relief Office and they'd point out which of your meagre possessions you should sell before they gave you a penny. Can't really compare that with today.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[Kizzy]

Ok, so if attitudes have really changed for the worse, how come so many food banks can spring up?
These food banks are made up of charitable donations from schools, churches, businesses and the public, therefore showing we do care in general.

Churches and the public can only do so much that are squeezed too, and the proportion of those who require help is becoming too great.
The change is that many are happy to see governmental support removed via 'spare room subsidies', sanctions to benefits, implement payment of a percentage of council tax from benefits and housing benefit caps but what does that in turn do? Puts huge amounts of pressure on communities to aid the poor in some areas the pressure then affects public services and the poor get the blame.
High streets are full of shiny betting shops and pawnbrokers not reasonably priced butchers and grocers as they were, now we have the cartelesque supermarkets selling high priced low quality food.
The energy companies keep people on low incomes on meters set at one of the highest rates.
What should everyone do? Ask why they're doing it.

[Kizzy]

I don't know what you mean about net curtains...

I doubt very much that one in sixty of the population cannot feed themselves. I wonder how many of those people smoke, drink, own a smartphone etc. etc...? In the 1940s people if you needed money you'd get a visit from the Relief Office and they'd point out which of your meagre possessions you should sell before they gave you a penny. Can't really compare that with today.

It was just an analogy, don't worry about it I'll get sidetracked if I try to explain.

I've covered your 1 in 60 query, in order to sell something you first have to own it, if someone has a smartphone and a big telly on JSA they are most likely on HP,the difference then was it was impossible to get an unsecured loan for goods. Poverty and addiction has been an issue for years, it was prior to the 40s and it continues to be.

[Livia]

Yes in order to sell something you do first have to own it. But I'm not talking about luxuries like big tellies and smartphones, in the 1940s you'd be required to sell your furniture, such as it was, a chair, some saucepans...

I've said all I have to say about this; it's impossible to compare need today to need in the forties.

[Kizzy]

Yes in order to sell something you do first have to own it. But I'm not talking about luxuries like big tellies and smartphones, in the 1940s you'd be required to sell your furniture, such as it was, a chair, some saucepans...

I've said all I have to say about this; it's impossible to compare need today to need in the forties.

Seeing as the thread is nothing to do with comparing that then that's fine. it's about changes in attitudes to the poor.

'One resident is shown telling a journalist on the estate: “You talk about Benefits Street exploiting us, it’s the press that’s exploiting us. The Sun are exploiting the people who live here.

“We stick together on this estate. What gives you the right to come down this road and take photos? We are not scum we are good people.”

Producer Kieran Smith from Love Productions said: “It’s not a deliberate attack on the press but you know what, having made series one it’s quite hard to sit there and see the misreporting, the lack of factual argument that people put into the reporting of Benefits Street'

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/30/benefits-street-press-series-two

[Kazanne]

I just think 'some' people are greedy and expect too much sometimes ,even though times are hard , you can get a certain amount of pride from sorting things out yourself,I often see people standing outside job centers smoking and chatting on smartphones ,how can they afford that? I am all for helping people but not helping them to have a good lifestyle from being lazy.I have not seen anyone use a foodbank here,infact not sure we even have one.We all eat far beyond what we need to survive anyway.less food ,healthier people:laugh:

[Kizzy]

Healthier kids?

'Nearly 100,000 of the poorest children in the UK went hungry last year because their parents’ benefits were stopped or cut, according to a report by a coalition of churches.

A total of more than a million benefit sanctions were imposed last year - sometimes simply because people were late for an appointment at the Jobcentre - although more than 120,000 of those decisions were overturned on appeal.

Researchers found that more than 100 people with severe mental health problems a day were sanctioned. '

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nearly-100000-of-britains-poorest-children-go-hungry-after-parents-benefits-are-cut-10079056.html

[joeysteele]

Considering you can visit a food bank 3 times even if these visits are based on that it's anything upwards of 333,333 if that is more acceptable.

The wording is usage of over 1,000,000, not just one million actually.It exceeded 1,000,000 in figures out near 2 weeks ago.
People do use them sometimes once, twice and up to 3 times.

Foodbanks can at present only be a temporary measure and it is all donated voluntarily from the kindness of other shoppers in the main.

The point is that anyone needing foodbanks at all in the 21st century in the UK should make the UK powers that be feel really ashamed, it is beyond defending that anyone has to be so down, to have to rely on them in any shape or form.

Volunteers at them are worn out with the ever growing numbers of different people and you have to realise,someone using them up to 3 times, means after them it is near always new people using them afterwards.

Also, even at 1,000,000 usage, if it was assumed and we don't know,that this was in effect something like 334,000 actual people using them, that is still an almightly disgrace and should be a universal massive condemnation of this govt; that has let this happen over the last 5 years alone too.

The cry that Labour had foodbanks too gets made, well fair enough but then that would also need counter balancing, if we all accepted it is 334,000 people with 1,000,000 usage now.
Then as to Labour,who by 2010 had something like only 45,000 usage, that would mean only 15,000 people using them by the same token.

It does not alter in any way, the justified criticism as to this heartless lot as to a massive rise in foodbanks usage over just 5 years.
Labour's figure of 45,000 was at the end of 13 years of govt;,not just 5 years,where this present gov't has seen the figures soar to over 1,000,000.

Or assuming it is people rather than usage, Labour's figure of 15,000 after 13 years of govt; as opposed to the Conservative led govt;of 5 years taking it from 15,000 to 334,000,well over a quarter of a million at least, in that very short time.
Not a statistic I would like a party I supported to have as a fact.

Foodbanks shouldn't exist in the UK at all and if the Conservative party win this election,with their unspecified extra welfare cuts to come of around 10 billion, they have only told us 2 billion so far.
Then foodbanks and I feel sure those in poverty will see numbers soaring like never before,likely eclipsing the numbers rise of just the last 5 years.

[joeysteele]

I just think 'some' people are greedy and expect too much sometimes ,even though times are hard , you can get a certain amount of pride from sorting things out yourself,I often see people standing outside job centers smoking and chatting on smartphones ,how can they afford that? I am all for helping people but not helping them to have a good lifestyle from being lazy.I have not seen anyone use a foodbank here,infact not sure we even have one.We all eat far beyond what we need to survive anyway.less food ,healthier people:laugh:

So these people using foodbanks and foodbanks don't exist because you haven't seen them.
I help out at one Kazanne,I for sure know they exist alright and I have near cried at the situations some of those desperate for their help are in.

People also have to be referred to them by social services, a Church or a welfare organisation or charity.
They cannot and do not just walk in and demand stuff.

[Kazanne]

So these people using foodbanks and foodbanks don't exist because you haven't seen them.
I help out at one Kazanne,I for sure know they exist alright and I have near cried at the situations some of those desperate for their help are in.

People also have to be referred to them by social services, a Church or a welfare organisation or charity.
They cannot and do not just walk in and demand stuff.

I am not saying they don't exist Joey,I just haven't seen any myself,people are making it sound as though there is one on every street corner Joey,Yes by all means help the needy,but just make sure they are needy first Joey,humans can be devious and will play on people if they can, I am not heartless,i always give to beggars on the street and you know and I know a lot of them are doing ok,but I still give because I also know I will give to one that really needs it,I'm maybe not getting my point across well,I would help anyone ,but also feel people rely too much on others.There is a lot of help out there for people,what more can we do?

[joeysteele]

I am not saying they don't exist Joey,I just haven't seen any myself,people are making it sound as though there is one on every street corner Joey,Yes by all means help the needy,but just make sure they are needy first Joey,humans can be devious and will play on people if they can, I am not heartless,i always give to beggars on the street and you know and I know a lot of them are doing ok,but I still give because I also know I will give to one that really needs it,I'm maybe not getting my point across well,I would help anyone ,but also feel people rely too much on others.There is a lot of help out there for people,what more can we do?

Calm down you little tinker, if you could hear how I say what I say you would hear it all done softly.:wavey:
I know you are one of the most decent people on here and even in your 'harder' line at times, you still make valid points

In fact on this thread, I have quoted things you have raised as very valid quite a lot.

Some people desperately need to really on others however,my way is not to turn my back on those people.
You said yourself,some people are bad with money,there are however less and less organisations with the 'time needed' now to ensure they get sorted out.

Even if the usage of foodbanks is only around 334,000,that is no doubt in relation to the population a small number,however it is in my view a disgrace that anyone needs to use them in the UK,and as I said, they cannot just walk in to one, they have to be referred after they have been assessed as being in urgent/dire need.

I think the 45,000 usage left in 2010 by Labour was totally unacceptable too, they didn't get my vote.
A rise however from 45,000 to over 1,000,000 as to usage in just 5 years,well sorry, I would condemn massively anyone in power who presided over that.

[Livia]

Why when there are a million people relying on foodbanks these agencies aren't acting as a safety net?


Considering you can visit a food bank 3 times even if these visits are based on that it's anything upwards of 333,333 if that is more acceptable.

Wow. that's a drop isn't it. From 1 person in 60 using a food bank to 1 person in 180.

[Kazanne]

Calm down you little tinker, if you could hear how I say what I say you would hear it all done softly.:wavey:
I know you are one of the most decent people on here and even in your 'harder' line at times, you still make valid points

In fact on this thread, I have quoted things you have raised as very valid quite a lot.

Some people desperately need to really on others however,my way is not to turn my back on those people.
You said yourself,some people are bad with money,there are however less and less organisations with the 'time needed' now to ensure they get sorted out.

Even if the usage of foodbanks is only around 334,000,that is no doubt in relation to the population a small number,however it is in my view a disgrace that anyone needs to use them in the UK,and as I said, they cannot just walk in to one, they have to be referred after they have been assessed as being in urgent/dire need.

I think the 45,000 usage left in 2010 by Labour was totally unacceptable too, they didn't get my vote.
A rise however from 45,000 to over 1,000,000 as to usage in just 5 years,well sorry, I would condemn massively anyone in power who presided over that.

:joker: Joey I haven't been called a little tinker for years,I quite like it,I hate not agreeing with you as you know how much regard I have for you ,the,same with Kizbot:hehe:, I am just not so read up on it as some,and I suppose I was brought up with the notion,you get out of life what you put in and you get nothing in this life for nothing.I am going to read and study it more as,as I get older politics gets more interesting:blush:

[joeysteele]

:joker: Joey I haven't been called a little tinker for years,I quite like it,I hate not agreeing with you as you know how much regard I have for you ,the,same with Kizbot:hehe:, I am just not so read up on it as some,and I suppose I was brought up with the notion,you get out of life what you put in and you get nothing in this life for nothing.I am going to read and study it more as,as I get older politics gets more interesting:blush:

I somehow thought that would make you smile,:wavey:

[joeysteele]

Wow. that's a drop isn't it. From 1 person in 60 using a food bank to 1 person in 180.

That isn't the figure though Livia, some people only use it once or twice.
For me in any event, even a quarter of a million plus by a good margin is way too many and is a disgrace.
Nothing at all for the UK to be proud of.

[Kizzy]

Wow. that's a drop isn't it. From 1 person in 60 using a food bank to 1 person in 180.

nope, 333,333 is the figure if 1 person used the foodbank 3 times based on 1 million visits. I really hope we don't have to visit this issue again as it's in danger of derailing the thread.

[Ninastar]

Ok, so if attitudes have really changed for the worse, how come so many food banks can spring up?
These food banks are made up of charitable donations from schools, churches, businesses and the public, therefore showing we do care in general.

As much as I hate people, I do believe that we are more generous than ever before. For example, a lady in my town started to go through the process of a homeless cafe where homeless people could eat for free and now she's raised over £10,000 for it and has the rent sorted for the place for over a year now. She's had all kinds of people donate things like clothes, cutlery, kitchen equipment and so much more.

Her cafe opens tomorrow and I'm so happy for her. It will be nice for the homeless to have a nice and safe place to eat.

[Kizzy]

:joker: Joey I haven't been called a little tinker for years,I quite like it,I hate not agreeing with you as you know how much regard I have for you ,the,same with Kizbot:hehe:, I am just not so read up on it as some,and I suppose I was brought up with the notion,you get out of life what you put in and you get nothing in this life for nothing.I am going to read and study it more as,as I get older politics gets more interesting:blush:

Are you suggesting Joey an I were not brought up with said notion?
Yes I read up on it, the information is there for anyone who wishes to do so.
Joey is young and he has always been into politics, we may be a little more socially aware. :blush:

[bots]

The fact that we need food banks is an awful situation, no one can argue against that. However, before saying the number have increased with the current government, one needs to examine the reason why. Is it because people are in more need? Is it because the criteria for being eligible has been relaxed? Is it because the current government decided that sufficient banks should be available such that people who need to use one have easy access to it.

I've said this before and I will say it again. Statistics can be manipulated to prove anything. We have a huge deficit, with both parties determined to wipe it out in the next 5 years. I hope people honestly don't expect the number of needy people to reduce in that period, because its just not going to happen, things will get worse, much worse, with either a tory or labour government

[MTVN]

The fact that we need food banks is an awful situation, no one can argue against that. However, before saying the number have increased with the current government, one needs to examine the reason why. Is it because people are in more need? Is it because the criteria for being eligible has been relaxed? Is it because the current government decided that sufficient banks should be available such that people who need to use one have easy access to it.

I've said this before and I will say it again. Statistics can be manipulated to prove anything. We have a huge deficit, with both parties determined to wipe it out in the next 5 years. I hope people honestly don't expect the number of needy people to reduce in that period, because its just not going to happen, things will get worse, much worse, with either a tory or labour government

I agree, there are various factors like increased awareness, more referrals, a more concerted effort on the part of some charities etc. that have boosted the number of food banks massively, it would always have snowballed so it can be a bit of a fallacy to argue, say, that because ten times more people are using food banks than 5 years ago that ten times more people are in poverty. Germany has many more food banks than the UK has. That is not necessarily a bad thing, Smudgie's point is a very fair one that their growth also demonstrates the strength of charity in this country.

[Kazanne]

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/news/scarlett-johansson-my-family-survived-on-handouts/ar-BBiVbHa?ocid=LENDHP

America have them too !! maybe the tons of food wasted they mention could be used in some way http://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/news/scarlett-johansson-my-family-survived-on-handouts/ar-BBiVbHa?ocid=LENDHP

[joeysteele]

I agree, there are various factors like increased awareness, more referrals, a more concerted effort on the part of some charities etc. that have boosted the number of food banks massively, it would always have snowballed so it can be a bit of a fallacy to argue, say, that because ten times more people are using food banks than 5 years ago that ten times more people are in poverty. Germany has many more food banks than the UK has. That is not necessarily a bad thing, Smudgie's point is a very fair one that their growth also demonstrates the strength of charity in this country.

If it wasn't for the charities as Smudgie said, there likely would be fewer foodbanks,which would probably mean an even worse situation for those 'deemed' in poverty and needing that emergency assistance.
Not that we would likely hear of much of that,if that were the case.

Many charities,across the board, are clearing up the mess of both govts; over the last decade or so,however it is only this govt; who has cut charitable funding, so now it is even more stretched charities also dealing with the foodbank necessity.

It is shoppers in the main who supply the goods given out,which is wonderful to see and massively welcome.
However, charities should be being aided by govt; to make this service available,not have their funding cut to the bone and still be expected to.

The criteria for the use of foodbanks, remains the same too as it was before 2010, the CAB,social services, or charitable/welfare organisations have to assess people and refer them to a foodbank otherwise they cannot use them,resources are way too low.

[MTVN]

If it wasn't for the charities as Smudgie said, there likely would be fewer foodbanks,which would probably mean an even worse situation for those 'deemed' in poverty and needing that emergency assistance.
Not that we would likely hear of much of that,if that were the case.

Many charities,across the board, are clearing up the mess of both govts; over the last decade or so,however it is only this govt; who has cut charitable funding, so now it is even more stretched charities also dealing with the foodbank necessity.

It is shoppers in the main who supply the goods given out,which is wonderful to see and massively welcome.
However, charities should be being aided by govt; to make this service available,not have their funding cut to the bone and still be expected to.

The criteria for the use of foodbanks, remains the same too as it was before 2010, the CAB,social services, or charitable/welfare organisations have to assess people and refer them to a foodbank otherwise they cannot use them,resources are way too low.

Sure but the huge increase in the number of food banks means that more people can now be referred surely, the supply has finally started to catch up with a need that was always there. I can understand the criticism of cutting charity funding but the Trussell Trust has never received government funding anyway, and I suppose there's always a risk that when charities are government funded they might lose their independence which is so important to their operations

[joeysteele]

Sure but the huge increase in the number of food banks means that more people can now be referred surely, the supply has finally started to catch up with a need that was always there. I can understand the criticism of cutting charity funding but the Trussell Trust has never received government funding anyway, and I suppose there's always a risk that when charities are government funded they might lose their independence which is so important to their operations

They are good points too.
However I didn't say the Trussell trust got funding, it is some other charities that to get funding from the govt; for their work,that have had the funding reduced or even stopped altogether.
They are the charities that in part help assess and find those who need help with food and then get them referred to the foodbanks.

The Trussel trust relies on companies and shoppers for the goods they can give out as emergency food rations for a limited time.
The very fact the word ration has to be used again is one of the saddest for me.

I just think it wrong that in my Country, the UK,in the 21st century that anyone,has to use something called a foodbank.
While those in power do not a thing to alter the situation.
It makes me feel shame as to what is supposed to be a great Nation, even when I am just helping out at one.

Now, Kazanne made another good point,as to wasted food.
Across the UK everyday, food still edible is being thrown out left,right and centre.
Companies could do a lot more to solve that,firstly by reducing the price in the first place and although I am against vouchers,the govt; could give a card to vulnerable people that would get them something like 25% off the cost of their shopping,possibly say once a month.
All that would help and it would be surprising how much it would too.
Leaving people with dignity still, and addressing the problem in some way at least at likely very little cost too.

That is just something I am just throwing out that I think could be done by govt;and enacted by supermarkets.
For instance, places can offer 10% off here and there for Pensioners and Students for goods and services,so clearly it can be easy to do.
My annoyance is govts; don't even look at what they could do to help.

Then charities could get back to giving advice and practical support as to their various identities,the way they used to before having to take on, vulnerable people, needing help now and then, with food.

[the truth]

They are good points too.
However I didn't say the Trussell trust got funding, it is some other charities that to get funding from the govt; for their work,that have had the funding reduced or even stopped altogether.
They are the charities that in part help assess and find those who need help with food and then get them referred to the foodbanks.

The Trussel trust relies on companies and shoppers for the goods they can give out as emergency food rations for a limited time.
The very fact the word ration has to be used again is one of the saddest for me.

I just think it wrong that in my Country, the UK,in the 21st century that anyone,has to use something called a foodbank.
While those in power do not a thing to alter the situation.
It makes me feel shame as to what is supposed to be a great Nation, even when I am just helping out at one.

Now, Kazanne made another good point,as to wasted food.
Across the UK everyday, food still edible is being thrown out left,right and centre.
Companies could do a lot more to solve that,firstly by reducing the price in the first place and although I am against vouchers,the govt; could give a card to vulnerable people that would get them something like 25% off the cost of their shopping,possibly say once a month.
All that would help and it would be surprising how much it would too.
Leaving people with dignity still, and addressing the problem in some way at least at likely very little cost too.

That is just something I am just throwing out that I think could be done by govt;and enacted by supermarkets.
For instance, places can offer 10% off here and there for Pensioners and Students for goods and services,so clearly it can be easy to do.
My annoyance is govts; don't even look at what they could do to help.

Then charities could get back to giving advice and practical support as to their various identities,the way they used to before having to take on, vulnerable people, needing help now and then, with food.

labour will create even more poverty with their anti small business insanity....more expensive time consuming rules and regs, more EU enslavement, scrapping zero hours contracts (even for seasonal part time jobs or commission jobs all based on sales or performance levels - INSANE) no fall in vat, minimum wage rising again....all of this whacks small business employers every time and loses jobs

[joeysteele]

labour will create even more poverty with their anti small business insanity....more expensive time consuming rules and regs, more EU enslavement, scrapping zero hours contracts (even for seasonal part time jobs or commission jobs all based on sales or performance levels - INSANE) no fall in vat, minimum wage rising again....all of this whacks small business employers every time and loses jobs

I disagree 100% as to that.I see no reason why they should or would.

For me, the sooner zero hours contracts are a thing of the past, except for those who 'really' want them, the better too.

You will never get a fall in VAT from any major party,it is the easiest and quickest tax to bring in.
However Labour has yet to increase Vat in govt; actually since it was first brought in.

[Kizzy]

I agree, there are various factors like increased awareness, more referrals, a more concerted effort on the part of some charities etc. that have boosted the number of food banks massively, it would always have snowballed so it can be a bit of a fallacy to argue, say, that because ten times more people are using food banks than 5 years ago that ten times more people are in poverty. Germany has many more food banks than the UK has. That is not necessarily a bad thing, Smudgie's point is a very fair one that their growth also demonstrates the strength of charity in this country.

I'm sorry that's not true more people are not using food banks because they're better advertised, it is because there are more referrals and that is due to the fact that medical/social and education professionals are worried about the health of an increasing number of people.
It cannot be argued that there are more people living in poverty, due to bedroom tax, council tax and sanctions it is not a fallacy.
What other countries do or don't do is irrelevant, we are not Germany.
Yes there is charity in this country, and that's fantastic to a point but is leaning on the already strained pockets of those in the local community the answer?...
Where is the government response? They can't cut and cut and cut and expect those who appreciate there's a problem to cope it's not a sustainable long term plan.
It's going to create more and more resentment.

[the truth]

I disagree 100% as to that.I see no reason why they should or would.

For me, the sooner zero hours contracts are a thing of the past, except for those who 'really' want them, the better too.

You will never get a fall in VAT from any major party,it is the easiest and quickest tax to bring in.
However Labour has yet to increase Vat in govt; actually since it was first brought in.

1) your answer is anti economic nonsense, clearly you've never employed people. The majority like zero hour contracts, they help create jobs when an employed doesn't know if there will be enough guaranteed work for the next 6 to 12 months, especially if its seasonal or sales etc
2) Labour brought it down so youre wrong.
3) labour brought in endless stealth taxes and only changed the vat and tax right at the end, when it was all too little too late
4) these mindless policies added to the 3000 plus new labour laws, stealth taxes, European constitution signed up to by labour, 587 pages of mostly unreadable laws, all hurts employers and jobs. this is why the European countries are in such a diabolical mess. youth unemployment is over 50% in several nations, the overall unemployment rate is over 12%. you help employers, you help them create jobs, jobs create wealth , wealth pays the bills, the taxes, pays the nhs the police, the council, everything...all the wealth comes from the private employers and youre ideas are destroying them and their job creation

[the truth]

I'm sorry that's not true more people are not using food banks because they're better advertised, it is because there are more referrals and that is due to the fact that medical/social and education professionals are worried about the health of an increasing number of people.
It cannot be argued that there are more people living in poverty, due to bedroom tax, council tax and sanctions it is not a fallacy.
What other countries do or don't do is irrelevant, we are not Germany.
Yes there is charity in this country, and that's fantastic to a point but is leaning on the already strained pockets of those in the local community the answer?...
Where is the government response? They can't cut and cut and cut and expect those who appreciate there's a problem to cope it's not a sustainable long term plan.
It's going to create more and more resentment.

cuts are made due to unpayable debt create by new labours insane laws and 1000s of new rules and regs plus new regs of the EU and even more new rules and regulations and red tape and expense from the devolved powers....new labours anti economic policies bankrupted the country

[Kizzy]

cuts are made due to unpayable debt create by new labours insane laws and 1000s of new rules and regs plus new regs of the EU and even more new rules and regulations and red tape and expense from the devolved powers....new labours anti economic policies bankrupted the country

I disagree with that, further this isn't a debate into what created the poverty but attitudes to it, whether the further apart the division between the rich and the poor gets will we begin to see more asking the government to buoy them or not?

[joeysteele]

1) your answer is anti economic nonsense, clearly you've never employed people. The majority like zero hour contracts, they help create jobs when an employed doesn't know if there will be enough guaranteed work for the next 6 to 12 months, especially if its seasonal or sales etc
2) Labour brought it down so youre wrong.
3) labour brought in endless stealth taxes and only changed the vat and tax right at the end, when it was all too little too late
4) these mindless policies added to the 3000 plus new labour laws, stealth taxes, European constitution signed up to by labour, 587 pages of mostly unreadable laws, all hurts employers and jobs. this is why the European countries are in such a diabolical mess. youth unemployment is over 50% in several nations, the overall unemployment rate is over 12%. you help employers, you help them create jobs, jobs create wealth , wealth pays the bills, the taxes, pays the nhs the police, the council, everything...all the wealth comes from the private employers and youre ideas are destroying them and their job creation

No and if I ever did employ people I would give them proper hours and not zero hours contracts.
I know people on them and they hate them they haven't a clue what they will be earning one week to the next.
While their 'bosses' know exactly what they will be getting.

Absolute rubbish,with respect,that so many need to be on zero hours contracts.
Also anyone that is should still be classed as not being fully employed too.

The rest of your post,I dispute as to its conclusions.

[Kizzy]

The country survived fine before 0hrs, how can anyone live independently, run a car, buy a house or have any kind of security in their employment status on such a contract?
Not knowing when they go to sleep if they will have a job in the morning or not?

[bots]

Casual labour has been with us for many many many years, its just 0 hours contracts under a different name. It has been both a useful and necessary employment type for generations

[Kizzy]

Casual labour has been with us for many many many years, its just 0 hours contracts under a different name. It has been both a useful and necessary employment type for generations

Yes casual cash in hand labourers perhaps, but care workers, retail and bar staff? No, they're just creeping into every sector. This isn't really the thread to discuss employment law but I'm surprised they're so advocated by this govt, people in work on these especially with kids will need a lot of tax credit top ups :/

[the truth]

I'm sure I heard dimblebore say the majority of those on them preferred them tonight :/ I couldn't believe my ears.

the reality is those staff who are good at their jobs will always be of immense value to all emplyers and will always keep their jobs and always be in high demand, the market dictates this and also dictates they may leave to a better job unless they are treated well and rewarded in line with their value to the business

[bots]

There isn't an inherent problem with 0 hours contracts. The problem arises where unscrupulous employers use them as a method of avoiding the added burden associated with offering full time employment. There are many job types where it is eminently suitable to offer 0 hour contracts, and its not beyond the wit of man to identify where a company is taking advantage. In those cases fine them, ban them or whatever rather than removing a perfectly legitimate type of employment.

[Kizzy]

please don't EVER start any business, you will go bust within a year and owe a lot of money some of which will be to incompetent or unreliable or in some cases dishonest staff who will milk you for sickness....your business ideas are incredibly destructive and dangerous which is why I have had to speak to you very plainly

I don't appreciate the off topic slurs if you wish to discuss employment law make your own thread please.

[the truth]

There isn't an inherent problem with 0 hours contracts. The problem arises where unscrupulous employers use them as a method of avoiding the added burden associated with offering full time employment. There are many job types where it is eminently suitable to offer 0 hour contracts, and its not beyond the wit of man to identify where a company is taking advantage. In those cases fine them, ban them or whatever rather than removing a perfectly legitimate type of employment.

you cant make a blanket law for every situation and every business, as every situation and every business is entirely different. as ive tried to point out

[Kizzy]

Schools are providing an estimated £43.5m of unfunded support for children from low income families who have been left “high and dry” as a result of coalition cuts, a poll of headteachers has revealed.

According to the survey, published on Friday, eight out of 10 headteachers (84%) who responded said they were providing more support than five years ago, including food, clothes and washing facilities.

Others said their schools were paying for outings, head lice treatment and haircuts, as well as birthday cards and presents for pupils who would not otherwise receive any. Often teachers were paying out of their own pockets to help those most in need.

More than four out of five (84%) identified a change in financial circumstances among parents of those children affected, while 66% said they were having to step in to provide services that would previously have been delivered by health and social services – of which more than seven in 10 (72%) said they were providing mental health support.'

I expect teachers are especially looking forward to the 12 billion of welfare cuts?

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/may/01/schools-providing-435m-of-extra-support-to-children-due-to-cuts-poll

[Kizzy]

'Every week for the past year, Neil Robson has made a trip to his local Co-op and spent around £20 on a bag of shopping that he then carries to the Wandsworth food bank in south London. Before he leaves home, he consults a list of the most-wanted items on their website, noting what they’re running out of (basic toiletries, UHT milk, tinned meat, tinned fish). This week he adds a tin of sustainably-sourced tuna to the bag.

Robson is a retired human resources manager in his 60s, who has never previously been involved in community charity projects. What drives him to make this regular gesture? “Anger. How can it be that there should be people so stretched for cash that they can’t get the money they need for food? I am not a churchgoer; I do this in a secular capacity. My motto, like a Victorian embroidered sampler, is: ‘My neighbour must not go hungry.’”

Robson has devoted considerable time to researching what might be causing the huge surge in food bank use. “I’ve been reading about people who, through no fault of their own, are not getting the money they need. I am affronted – shocked that in this wonderful country, people are stuck in a situation where they truly don’t have enough money to eat for the next couple of days.”

Food banks have become one of the most potent symbols of the coalition administration and a key theme in the election campaign. In 2010, the food bank was an unfamiliar concept, but five years later, more than 1,000 are operating around the country. The UK’s largest food bank operator said that in 2014-15, it distributed enough emergency food to give more than a million people three days’ supply. The first issue Jeremy Paxman confronted David Cameron with in his televised interview was food banks; Cameron revealed that he did not know how many there were in the UK. The Labour party has said the rise in food bank use is a sign of a failed welfare state, and promised to slash the number of people reliant on them.'

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/01/food-banks-most-people-at-the-school-gates-have-used-them

[the truth]

all cuts are down to labour bankrupting the nation and also pandering to the workless entitlement bums who have no health problems yet milk every benefit their whole workless lives

[user104658]

all cuts are down to labour bankrupting the nation and also pandering to the workless entitlement bums who have no health problems yet milk every benefit their whole workless lives
That seems unlikely.

[Kizzy]

The thread is about attitude, if that's his then that's that, he's not the only one to hold that view and it is a perfect example of how the poor are seen by many.

[empire]

are homeless rate is high, but the same time are leaders care more for outsiders, than helping are own, are country is flooded with refugees, who get treated far better than the people who are trying to find work,

[Kizzy]

'Asda has removed permanent collection points for food banks from stores across the UK, in a move that has caused alarm among charities and the supermarket chain’s customers.

Following reports on social media that collection trolleys and boxes had disappeared from stores across Scotland, as well as in Hampshire, Lancashire, Norwich and Newcastle, the Guardian has established that Asda, which is owned by the US retail giant Walmart, has removed donation points from all of its UK stores.

Food bank points offer shoppers the chance to donate items they have bought in stores, as well as food brought from home; in some cases Asda’s contributions accounted for 15%-25% of a single charity’s donations.

Several charities told the Guardian they had been affected by Asda’s new policy, which was instituted in January, apparently unannounced.'

Complicit in the cull.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/17/asda-removes-food-bank-donation-points-from-uk-stores?CMP=fb_gu

[joeysteele]

'Asda has removed permanent collection points for food banks from stores across the UK, in a move that has caused alarm among charities and the supermarket chain’s customers.

Following reports on social media that collection trolleys and boxes had disappeared from stores across Scotland, as well as in Hampshire, Lancashire, Norwich and Newcastle, the Guardian has established that Asda, which is owned by the US retail giant Walmart, has removed donation points from all of its UK stores.

Food bank points offer shoppers the chance to donate items they have bought in stores, as well as food brought from home; in some cases Asda’s contributions accounted for 15%-25% of a single charity’s donations.

Several charities told the Guardian they had been affected by Asda’s new policy, which was instituted in January, apparently unannounced.'

Complicit in the cull.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/17/asda-removes-food-bank-donation-points-from-uk-stores?CMP=fb_gu

I think ASDA has problems looming, listening to the staff, very few are happy at all at present.

This is a bad move from ASDA,it looks petty and uncaring.

[kirklancaster]

I don't mean to be flippant or display the exact attitude the article talks about, but to me that headline is quite misleading and is based on a dubious premise. The Guardian risks being guilty of the same sensationalism it derides the rest of the media for, and risks falling into the same logic as the Daily Mail and the Sun in using a few examples to try and make a broad conclusion and come up with an eye catching headline.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: Nothing 'flippant' at all in your comments Matt - the article and headline is a load of B.S.

What is regarded as 'poverty' today is NOWHERE near the REAL poverty of the 40's, 50's, AND 60's.

I KNOW - I lived through part of the 50's in REAL POVERTY.

[Kizzy]

Poverty as defined by our 21 century AAA rated world power status naturally.

[smudgie]

:clap1::clap1::clap1: Nothing 'flippant' at all in your comments Matt - the article and headline is a load of B.S.

What is regarded as 'poverty' today is NOWHERE near the REAL poverty of the 40's, 50's, AND 60's.

I KNOW - I lived through part of the 50's in REAL POVERTY.

Aye, the 70's were hard as well Kirk.
I can remember my mother trying to batter a tin of peas one Sunday, we had nothing else in the house to eat....mind you we had the excitement of watching the peas escaping from the batter in the hot fat.
She worked full time but never enough money to go around:shrug:

[kirklancaster]

Aye, the 70's were hard as well Kirk.
I can remember my mother trying to batter a tin of peas one Sunday, we had nothing else in the house to eat....mind you we had the excitement of watching the peas escaping from the batter in the hot fat.
She worked full time but never enough money to go around:shrug:

:laugh: I love yer Smudgie. You have to laugh - Do you know that until I was in my late teens (and in charge of my own destiny :laugh:) I thought 'Scallops' were a slice of potato coated in batter and deep fried, because THAT is what my old man told us they were when he made them that way for us as a 'luxurious treat' when we were kids.

Remember 'bread pobs' - bits of stale bread soaked in gravy? :laugh:

And my mother had three jobs and the old man was a coal miner. :shrug:

[smudgie]

:laugh: I love yer Smudgie. You have to laugh - Do you know that until I was in my late teens (and in charge of my own destiny :laugh:) I thought 'Scallops' were a slice of potato coated in batter and deep fried, because THAT is what my old man told us they were when he made them that way for us as a 'luxurious treat' when we were kids.

Remember 'bread pobs' - bits of stale bread soaked in gravy? :laugh:

And my mother had three jobs and the old man was a coal miner. :shrug:

Haha At the Scallop potatoes.
The batter made them bigger and more filling..wise parents back in the day.
I hated them as I am not a potato fan.

[user104658]

And there are "starving kids in Africa" who would kill for a deep fried battered potato or a bit of bread soaked in gravy.

Comparing ye-olde-timey poverty to modern poverty in an attempt to make it seem like poor people today "have it easy" is both arrogant, and completely pointless. The social and economic contexts are completely different. You're right in that it "doesn't compare" but only because it flat out can't be compared. It wasn't "as bad as" or "easier" OR "harder" - it was an entirely different situation.

[DemolitionRed]

Poverty that existed in the 1940's simply doesn't exist at all now.

I remember some labour mp saying not having broadband was one of the measures of being in poverty - I mean what utter tosh.

If anybody is now in REAL poverty then it's self inflicted.

Wow...I was a bit shocked that you think like that to be honest.

[DemolitionRed]

I've not read all the responses as its been a long day so forgive me if I repeat something someone's already said.

I think modern poverty is very different to the poverty of old. Back then survival for the poor was their only purpose in life. So long as they could put bread on the table and have a suit to pawn to get them through to pay day, they just buckled down and got on with life.

Today we are driven by our aspirations and those aspirations go much further than putting bread on the table and a roof over our heads. We all engage with it, we are surrounded by it; our life is full of material things we think we need.

If you're poor in the modern world you can still have a wide screen tv. Modern poverty can come and go because a lot of people, including the hard working ones, can't manage to sustain comfortability for long. With minimum salaries that haven't kept up with inflation, zero contract hours that give unpredictable earnings and a position of never being able to save because whatever they earn is swallowed up by the cost of living; there are many people in Britain that are okay today but may not be okay tomorrow.

Poverty is subjective. I would consider someone living on baked beans and fears turning the heating up poor. I would consider someone who doesn't own property, has no savings and becomes unemployed poor and I would consider a homeless person to be extremely poor.

[smudgie]

And there are "starving kids in Africa" who would kill for a deep fried battered potato or a bit of bread soaked in gravy.

Comparing ye-olde-timey poverty to modern poverty in an attempt to make it seem like poor people today "have it easy" is both arrogant, and completely pointless. The social and economic contexts are completely different. You're right in that it "doesn't compare" but only because it flat out can't be compared. It wasn't "as bad as" or "easier" OR "harder" - it was an entirely different situation.

Our going back in time comparing our lives then to now has nothing to do with arrogance TS, it is no different to your little tale of your hard times:shrug:
We have all bad them, or at least fear that we will at some point in life.
The gist of the thread has been the difference in poverty in the 40s and modern day, so hearing people's actual experiences in the years in between is more real to me than reading some statistics written down by somebody I don't know a thing about.

[user104658]

Our going back in time comparing our lives then to now has nothing to do with arrogance TS, it is no different to your little tale of your hard times:shrug:
We have all bad them, or at least fear that we will at some point in life.
The gist of the thread has been the difference in poverty in the 40s and modern day, so hearing people's actual experiences in the years in between is more real to me than reading some statistics written down by somebody I don't know a thing about.

No,what is being said (quite explicitly) is that poverty "in those days" was real poverty and that the idea of poverty today is somehow laughable in comparison. A sort of "they wouldn't know hardship if it smacked them in the face, we knew REAL hard times" sort of thing. It's dismissive, disrespectful, arrogant, and shows a huge misunderstanding of how different the issues faced by people in poverty today are compared to yesteryear. Neither has it easier, it's completely different.

Incase you're going to suggest that's not what was being implied:



What is regarded as 'poverty' today is NOWHERE near the REAL poverty of the 40's, 50's, AND 60's.

I KNOW - I lived through part of the 50's in REAL POVERTY.

It wasn't just implied it was stated outright.

[Kizzy]

The thread isn't a comparison to the 40's in terms of how relative poverty is to then, but the attitudes to poverty and how the public respond to those in need.

[joeysteele]

I've not read all the responses as its been a long day so forgive me if I repeat something someone's already said.

I think modern poverty is very different to the poverty of old. Back then survival for the poor was their only purpose in life. So long as they could put bread on the table and have a suit to pawn to get them through to pay day, they just buckled down and got on with life.

Today we are driven by our aspirations and those aspirations go much further than putting bread on the table and a roof over our heads. We all engage with it, we are surrounded by it; our life is full of material things we think we need.

If you're poor in the modern world you can still have a wide screen tv. Modern poverty can come and go because a lot of people, including the hard working ones, can't manage to sustain comfortability for long. With minimum salaries that haven't kept up with inflation, zero contract hours that give unpredictable earnings and a position of never being able to save because whatever they earn is swallowed up by the cost of living; there are many people in Britain that are okay today but may not be okay tomorrow.

Poverty is subjective. I would consider someone living on baked beans and fears turning the heating up poor. I would consider someone who doesn't own property, has no savings and becomes unemployed poor and I would consider a homeless person to be extremely poor.

Wow, amazing post, well said and even if I was looking to, which I am not,I could not be able to find a thing to disagree on as to it.

Your last paragraph totally spot on and a really fair presentation of the issue.

[bots]

My take on it is that no matter if the country is in boom times or recession, there will always be those that are homeless or not know where the next meal is coming from.

On top of that we have aspirations and expectations today that just weren't a consideration in previous generations, but as poverty bites, it all boils down to basic survival in the end.

Governments were considered uncaring and aloof in previous generations and the same applies today - conservative or labour, we really haven't progressed, we just wrap it up better in sound bites and give an illusion of care, but the same contempt exists.

So my conclusion is that poverty is just as bad as it was in the 40's and it really hasn't changed in generations since, nor is it likely to change any time soon in the future

[smudgie]

The thread isn't a comparison to the 40's in terms of how relative poverty is to then, but the attitudes to poverty and how the public respond to those in need.

Right, I think the public have a better attitude in some ways.
The food banks show that the public are charitable and try and help people who are struggling.
Soup kitchens and charity cafes try to help as well. So some people are making an effort.
Back in the forties the work house was still going strong, it changed name at some point but didn't shut fully until forties.
Family and friends were in similar situations back in the workhouse days and couldn't help out in a lot of cases.
The benefit system, while not being fantastic, has to be better than the options back in the day so attitudes will naturally be different nowadays.

[Ammi]

...obviously none of us can compare through actual experience of the 1940s because t'was before our time but whatever our own 'back in the day' is, it's still hard to do because we tend to look back more with nostalgia and of being younger/rose tainted glasses, type thing..so of times/decades when we were children, our view of less or more poverty would be through a child's eye or a young person's eye, whereas now we're looking through the eyes of adults, so more 'reality/more responsibilities', I guess...as a child for instance, I never really had much 'new'..t'was the world of second hand Rose for many people, which still is as well, siblings inheriting from older siblings/clothes/toys etc...but obviously getting new stuff more..I guess an equivalent to 'second hand' now, would be Ebay..not everyone Ebays, some people give to someone they know for no return financially but many people do Ebay, so selling rather than giving...nothing was wasted in terms of food and many other things etc...but many people owned though in terms of their own house/flat etc...at a much younger age than they do now...now it's much more difficult to own at young ages and even for those that are fortunate enough to, it'll most likely mean a huge mortgage/debt...and on top of student loans debt as well...and because people did own back in the day at much younger ages, that's meant for many a generation of 'inheritance'...which I doubt will be the case with the younger generation now and a possible inheritance for their children ...



...anyways, these are just some musings and have no relevance at all to the article but one part of it is quite interesting...


Children were reported as dirty, inadequately clothed and badly behaved, and their parents were blamed as lazy and incompetent. Politicians and media reports supported this analysis.



..this was about evacuees, so still even in a 'pulling together' of wartimes, such judgements of parents/parenting and those judgements of 'laziness' being supported by the media..sound familiar..:laugh:...so not a lot really changed then from that view...and when we look at minimum paid jobs and things like that/exploitation type things of today...that could also be compared (maybe)...with those evacuees of the 40s, in that they weren't all homed through a sense of caring, some children were treated extremely badly/very bad living and care conditions for the only purpose of being 'free help'...and had some very wrong/cruel and unhappy experiences...and they had them old 'yanks' back in the 40s as well, coming over here, charming our ladies with their nylons and chocolate...'taking what is ours'.../and completely different again but still the 'old foreigners' coming over and taking 'our benefits' etc...


..anyways, there are just musings and thoughts more than anything else because comparisons are quite difficult..one of the big things though is the power of the internet and judgements being enabled to be made more en masse, rather than more, just within a community..but as the article says, there was still media influence to add then as well...I personally don't think media influences most people unless it's their leaning to be influenced anyway/their own personal thought process...but yeah, just musings really...

[kirklancaster]

[QUOTE=Toy Soldier;8523727]And there are "starving kids in Africa" who would kill for a deep fried battered potato or a bit of bread soaked in gravy.

Yes - and there were "starving kids in Africa" who would kill for a deep fried battered potato or a bit of bread soaked in gravy" back in the 40's and '50's, only far, far more of them, and because we did not have widespread television and the internet, 'Public Perception' and 'Awareness' was extremely LOW, and because Beveridge's 'Welfare State'' was in it's infancy and the poor here had their very own 'fight to survive', the 'Working Classes' ability to 'contribute' aid to "starving kids in Africa" was virtually non-existant.

Over the past 40 years Africa has received $400billion of aid from the developed world and that figure does not include the hundreds of millions of pounds of 'non official' donations given by the public and raised by events such as Band Aid etc.

The "past 40 years" means from the late 1970's onwards, not the 40's, 50's 60's and early 70's - and this is solely due to the reasons outlined above - because 'Public Perceptions' to poverty HAS increasingly greatly improved over the past 40 years.

"Comparing ye-olde-timey poverty to modern poverty in an attempt to make it seem like poor people today "have it easy" is both arrogant, and completely pointless. The social and economic contexts are completely different. You're right in that it "doesn't compare" but only because it flat out can't be compared. It wasn't "as bad as" or "easier" OR "harder" - it was an entirely different situation."

I'll tell you what is 'arrogant' T.S. - 'Arrogant' is when one person denies, or denigrates the GENUINE DIRECT PERSONAL EXPERIENCES of another person without having shared those experiences.

I LIVED through the end of the 50's and through the early 60's and I was not some unintelligent or unread or unaware little kid trapped in a unique 'bubble' of poverty - I was POLITICALLY AWARE from a very early age, and aware of the great SOCIAL INEQUALITY which was prevalent at the time.

MY EXPERIENCE of poverty was not 'peculiar' to my family, because there were countless rows of squalid Victorian crumbling red brick, 'two down three up' terrace houses where families existed in poverty - DESPITE one or BOTH parents working hard for a pittance.

The windows were draughty Victorian sliding sashes where ice clung to the INSIDES during Winter. The interiors were lit by gas mantles, and hot water - such as it was - was provided by a tiny steel box back boiler heated by a coal fire in an open range fire.

And a 'Bathroom'? LOL. A galvanised tin bath half-filled with tepid water (the best that the small coal-fired back boiler could do) placed in the only living room in front of the coal fire, and a piece of old flannel and bar of carbolic soap was the 'Bathroom'. Oh, and we kids HAD to get in the previous kid's bath water.

Coarse old khaki army blankets and even a couple of army greatcoats were used to keep warm in bed - because shared body heat from 2 to a single bed wasn't enough to do the trick.

A coal fired 'Set Pot' - a huge cast iron inverted bell - was used to boil clothes one day and for cooking potato 'stew' in the next. Wet clothes were put through a hand 'mangle' wringer prior to being put out to 'dry' on a washing line strung across the rear access 'road' because we had no back gardens - just a 'coal house' and OUTSIDE toilets, where the 'toilet roll' was cut up squares of old newspapers hung by a nail on the ill-fitting planked door of the loo.

All cooking was done on two cast iron paddles fixed to the fire grate on which one stood pans or the kettle and which then were pushed over the fire.

Baking was done in an oven which was incorporated into the fireplace.

No fuel - no cooking.

There were NO fitted carpets, just 'damp, uneven, Yorkshire slab floors over which 'Peggy Rugs' - home made rugs fashioned from cut up strips of old clothing punched through a piece of old gunny sackloth - were laid.

There was no central heating - just the coal fire which filled the dingy rabbit hutch of a room with toxic smoke every time the wind blew down the chimney.

Mice, cockroaches and 'bed bugs' were prevalent - in the cleanliest of households.

I will never forget the chorus of severely violent coughing at 4.30 am every morning as numerous miners awoke to get ready for their shift at the local 'pit', or how I clutched a mug of tea with no milk and no sugar as I watched from my window at them them cycling down the street under the street gas lamps on their way to work with their metal 'snap tins' of pork dripping sandwiches, or 'potted beef' if they were really 'well off', in their saddle bags.

Mortality rates among the poor 'working class' were much higher then than now - I lost two sisters, one at birth and one in early infancy - and it was never due to heroin overdoses and rarely due to chronic alcoholism. Diseases which killed the poor in their thousands do not do so now.

TV's, Playstations and Designer Fashion clothes and accessories were unknown, as were take-away meals and holidays.

Do not make me laugh by accusing me of arrogance or by maintaining that the poverty we know in the UK today is worse, as bad as, or is 'different' to that which I KNEW in the late '50's and early '60's, because THERE IS NO COMPARISON. What is deemed poverty today would have been sheer 'middle class' bliss back then.

[kirklancaster]

I've not read all the responses as its been a long day so forgive me if I repeat something someone's already said.

I think modern poverty is very different to the poverty of old. Back then survival for the poor was their only purpose in life. So long as they could put bread on the table and have a suit to pawn to get them through to pay day, they just buckled down and got on with life.

Today we are driven by our aspirations and those aspirations go much further than putting bread on the table and a roof over our heads. We all engage with it, we are surrounded by it; our life is full of material things we think we need.

If you're poor in the modern world you can still have a wide screen tv. Modern poverty can come and go because a lot of people, including the hard working ones, can't manage to sustain comfortability for long. With minimum salaries that haven't kept up with inflation, zero contract hours that give unpredictable earnings and a position of never being able to save because whatever they earn is swallowed up by the cost of living; there are many people in Britain that are okay today but may not be okay tomorrow.

Poverty is subjective. I would consider someone living on baked beans and fears turning the heating up poor. I would consider someone who doesn't own property, has no savings and becomes unemployed poor and I would consider a homeless person to be extremely poor.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: Superbly written.

[lostalex]

I've never seen a person here in the US that was on food stamps (welfare) that looked like they were starving. in fact usually they are more obese than rich people.

[user104658]

I specifically said that it was different. That's my entire point. And that's why using it as an example to make it seem like modern poverty is "nothing", or even "luxury", is arrogant and completely ignorant to the differences between the two situations.

Its just one big "lol what are people moaning about they are lucky" when they are anything but lucky, and often live miserable existences.

[Kizzy]

...obviously none of us can compare through actual experience of the 1940s because t'was before our time but whatever our own 'back in the day' is, it's still hard to do because we tend to look back more with nostalgia and of being younger/rose tainted glasses, type thing..so of times/decades when we were children, our view of less or more poverty would be through a child's eye or a young person's eye, whereas now we're looking through the eyes of adults, so more 'reality/more responsibilities', I guess...as a child for instance, I never really had much 'new'..t'was the world of second hand Rose for many people, which still is as well, siblings inheriting from older siblings/clothes/toys etc...but obviously getting new stuff more..I guess an equivalent to 'second hand' now, would be Ebay..not everyone Ebays, some people give to someone they know for no return financially but many people do Ebay, so selling rather than giving...nothing was wasted in terms of food and many other things etc...but many people owned though in terms of their own house/flat etc...at a much younger age than they do now...now it's much more difficult to own at young ages and even for those that are fortunate enough to, it'll most likely mean a huge mortgage/debt...and on top of student loans debt as well...and because people did own back in the day at much younger ages, that's meant for many a generation of 'inheritance'...which I doubt will be the case with the younger generation now and a possible inheritance for their children ...



...anyways, these are just some musings and have no relevance at all to the article but one part of it is quite interesting...


Children were reported as dirty, inadequately clothed and badly behaved, and their parents were blamed as lazy and incompetent. Politicians and media reports supported this analysis.



..this was about evacuees, so still even in a 'pulling together' of wartimes, such judgements of parents/parenting and those judgements of 'laziness' being supported by the media..sound familiar..:laugh:...so not a lot really changed then from that view...and when we look at minimum paid jobs and things like that/exploitation type things of today...that could also be compared (maybe)...with those evacuees of the 40s, in that they weren't all homed through a sense of caring, some children were treated extremely badly/very bad living and care conditions for the only purpose of being 'free help'...and had some very wrong/cruel and unhappy experiences...and they had them old 'yanks' back in the 40s as well, coming over here, charming our ladies with their nylons and chocolate...'taking what is ours'.../and completely different again but still the 'old foreigners' coming over and taking 'our benefits' etc...


..anyways, there are just musings and thoughts more than anything else because comparisons are quite difficult..one of the big things though is the power of the internet and judgements being enabled to be made more en masse, rather than more, just within a community..but as the article says, there was still media influence to add then as well...I personally don't think media influences most people unless it's their leaning to be influenced anyway/their own personal thought process...but yeah, just musings really...

You initially misinterpreted the article Ammi in the OP the reports in the Guardian in 1943 did not fuel public perception of the poor they changed it. Due to those women travelling to the areas the kids were being evacuated from seeing ,where,when and how they lived and worked.
As you say we view those in poverty through the magic of television and trust what we see is a true representation instead of seeing the issues faced like these women did in 43 for themselves.
It's not a case of are you influenced, but to what degree.

[Ammi]

..I didn't misinterpret anything, I posted some thoughts and musings/some possible comparisons that could be made or not etc...to be either interpreted or misinterpreted as anyone chooses...

[Kizzy]

..I didn't misinterpret anything, I posted some thoughts and musings/some possible comparisons that could be made or not etc...to be either interpreted or misinterpreted as anyone chooses...

Sorry but you did, as the reports in the media were not supporting they were exposing which to all intents and purposes is the opposite of what we have now in some newspapers.

[Ammi]

..there are many 'exposing' balances now of any slanting, we just have to choose to and be inclined to look at all of those balances...which is why it's so great to have access to so much more information in the present day...and of course, 'see for ourselves' in so much as we're able to/gather our own information...anyways I could choose to pass the while away in dissecting my musings further or I could not and get along with my day...I choose the not to, ya'll have a good day....

[Kizzy]

It is interesting that the unlike the 40s there is all this new media with which to help shape attitudes. Yet unlike the 40s when confronted with the truth and the reality of situations many aren't compelled as they were then to advocate change.

[DemolitionRed]

It is interesting that the unlike the 40s there is all this new media with which to help shape attitudes. Yet unlike the 40s when confronted with the truth and the reality of situations many aren't compelled as they were then to advocate change.

Its a very neo-liberal attitude and I'm not surprised its happened. Margaret Thatcher once said, "you all middle class now". Those words really didn't help the 'working poor'. What Margaret Thatcher did was open the door to the working class and invite them to join the middle classes but inevitably some people were going to get stuck in the cracks.

Our aspirations changed. Most of us believe the worlds our oyster and we all have the opportunity to achieve great things if only we try, therefore, those at the bottom of the pile are the undeserving; the none tryers. If however, we find ourselves in that 'undeserving' category its because policy has put us there and if we find ourselves unsympathetic towards the poor, its the way modern society has been designed.

People don't choose to be poor so how do they end up there?

[DemolitionRed]

Whilst our parents and grandparents may of struggled to pay the accumulating tab at their local butchers or greengrocers, in today's Britain, borrowing is far easier. Back in our grandparents or even parents day, credit was small and bank loans were difficult to obtain, so although they were poor, their debts were small.

In modern times even a poor earner can have credit debts amounting to many thousands of pounds and modern day aspirations have ensured a fairly high percentage of people have what could quickly become crippling debt if they had to take a pay cut or god forbid, become unemployed even for a short time. Easy borrowing has allowed most of us to buy the goodies we want. Credit cards, finance agreements, pay day loans and large mortgages are what affords us the big house, the new car, the fancy clothes and a home furnished with every conceivable gadget.

We can build our castle on borrowed money, unlike back in the 30s, 40s and 50s when what you had is what you usually owned outright. Now we can appear to have everything whilst having nothing; we can be poor with an outward appearance of being comfortably off. Most of us are okay so long as we can keep borrowing but once our line of credit is cut off, we would quickly fall into the poverty trap.

Here’s a question: If our banks were to stop lending money from tomorrow onwards; if all credit, finance and pay day loans and mortgages were to cease which meant people could only buy something if they could pay for it outright, do you think people would adapt? would we all have considerably less in the way of material wealth?

[user104658]

Exactly DR, like I said the situations are entirely different and neither is "better" or "worse", they can't be compared.

As Kirk says, yes, people might have had to bundle up in bed because it was so cold, but how often did they find themselves terrified to leave that bed because of what might be waiting for them next to the letterbox? Fearful of small debt demands that quickly become large amounts, of constant payments to dozens of people, missing just one of which could cause a debt spiral ending in bankruptcy?

There's also the element of hope. Kirk describes the "real poverty" of yesteryear, my dad talks about his childhood the same way. He now does pretty well for himself, as does Kirk based on what he's posted. How many children living in modern poverty really have any hope at all of pulling themselves out of that and into a better life? Some will but it's a tiny minority and no, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how "hard they work". Generations of families are STUCK in these situations, with little opportunity to work out of it.

But they can buy new trainers on their "Very" account and they have central heating so I guess they live lives of plenty. Whoopeedoo.

[DemolitionRed]

We've lived both TS

We had the nice house in the outer suburbs of W London and all the niceties that went with the sort of lifestyle we lived. All those things come with a cost though. We both had to work long hours which meant we never got time to go climbing or sailing. We constantly worried about enough money being in our accounts to pay the right bills at the right time and we constantly fretted about the vulnerability of my husbands job.

After two years of him being on anti-depressants he made a joke, he suggested we should just sell up, pay off everything, do up the boat and go off sailing and climbing for a few years. I knew he was being serious, he just never thought I'd be prepared to do that.

We had two fantastic years being totally irresponsible. We spent hardly anything because our boats got wind generators, solar panels and a log burning stove. There's a great barter system here in sea gypsy world!, you climb and fix someone's mast and they keep you in baked bread for six months; but I know what its like to be so cold you have to get dressed before you get out of bed in the morning because the fires gone out. I appreciate its tough when you have to be frugal with water and electricity (so lots of candle lit dinners have been had in our humble abode) and I know what its like to run out of fuel half way through cooking and having to hand pump water because the electric ones failed.

My parents keep telling us how irresponsible we were to sell up and its time we started bettering ourselves again, but I always tell them, we may have little but we feel like the richest people in the world and now we can afford the time to do all the things we love doing.

[Kizzy]

Its a very neo-liberal attitude and I'm not surprised its happened. Margaret Thatcher once said, "you all middle class now". Those words really didn't help the 'working poor'. What Margaret Thatcher did was open the door to the working class and invite them to join the middle classes but inevitably some people were going to get stuck in the cracks.

Our aspirations changed. Most of us believe the worlds our oyster and we all have the opportunity to achieve great things if only we try, therefore, those at the bottom of the pile are the undeserving; the none tryers. If however, we find ourselves in that 'undeserving' category its because policy has put us there and if we find ourselves unsympathetic towards the poor, its the way modern society has been designed.

People don't choose to be poor so how do they end up there?

I saw an article in the mirror saying something like we are a nation of Hyacinth Buquets... Never a truer word spoken for me, nation of snobs on finance.
Illness/injury, divorce, redundancy, 'restructuring' many are much closer to the breadline than they care to admit.

[Ammi]

Exactly DR, like I said the situations are entirely different and neither is "better" or "worse", they can't be compared.

As Kirk says, yes, people might have had to bundle up in bed because it was so cold, but how often did they find themselves terrified to leave that bed because of what might be waiting for them next to the letterbox? Fearful of small debt demands that quickly become large amounts, of constant payments to dozens of people, missing just one of which could cause a debt spiral ending in bankruptcy?

There's also the element of hope. Kirk describes the "real poverty" of yesteryear, my dad talks about his childhood the same way. He now does pretty well for himself, as does Kirk based on what he's posted. How many children living in modern poverty really have any hope at all of pulling themselves out of that and into a better life? Some will but it's a tiny minority and no, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how "hard they work". Generations of families are STUCK in these situations, with little opportunity to work out of it.

But they can buy new trainers on their "Very" account and they have central heating so I guess they live lives of plenty. Whoopeedoo.


..yeah, this for me is the best comparison of 'modern day poverty' to 'back in the day' and something I see all of the time sadly, with many children having their lives almost 'mapped out'...in terms of materialistic things/possessions etc, people had less back in the day because there was less available to have back in the day/things that just didn't even exist...it was a much 'smaller world' before things like overseas travel/holidays became an availability to everyone for instance...now a family holiday to Europe for instance, can be reasonably priced/affordable for all and that's cool and fine for those who aren't on low incomes or are on benefits...which would be 'an equivalent poor to back in the day..'...but the problem is for those who are on low incomes, if that family holiday were to be something that they could consider, then there is a high likelihood that they could only consider it, if they were to go during school times when it's much cheaper....and why shouldn't they go/have that holiday..?..family time together (I think is essential to everyone/regardless of income..)...and a very valuable and important time spent for any family...but if they do go and during the school time, which is the only way it would be affordable, they then have to face fines for doing so, so basically being fined for not being able to afford in the first place/those very people who struggled to be able to afford a holiday, are given another 'debt' to pay/crazy.. if people who aren't on low incomes/parents make the choice of taking their children out of school because 'it's cheaper anyway even with the fine', then they're making a choice to do so..( I still don't think fines should apply though..).. but lower incomes don't have that choice because their choice would be that holidays would be unaffordable to them so they just couldn't have that leisure time with their family...

..it's not about, for most who have low incomes/are on benefits etc, having debt to have nicer 'luxury' things, I don't think either..(and it's all relevant to the present day, because many people also had debt back in the day to buy the larger things or things that were needed but wouldn't have been able to have been afforded outright/children's Christmas gifts etc.. debt in the form of things like Hire Purchase, pay weekly catalogues etc..also those who loaned money for interest...)...it's more about having debt for what's considered basic essentials now...how can for instance, someone look for employment without access to home internet in some form, so that would mean a computer/laptop/tablet etc...they're not 'luxury items'...would we expect someone on a low income to have no TV in their home/have no form of 'entertainment' if it wasn't an option to be affordable to go out... and as the availability of today, is of all flat screen TVs, then that's what a low income/on benefits person will probably have...would we expect them to hand wash nappies if they have children...?../no, of course not so a washing machine becomes an essential/a dryer becomes an essential/for parents working long hours, a microwave becomes an essential etc etc and all things that wouldn't have been available in the 40s but considered essentials of today because yes, a different world and a different world's needs....and of course, some form of central heating/all 'basics' because if these things weren't basic then we really would be sending 'the poor back to the 1940s' really...

..the single biggest expense for most people is the purchase of a house/for those who are fortunate enough to be able to make that purchase... and many more homeowners back in the day, owned their homes outright, with either no mortgage at all or a very small one, so whatever their shortage in other things may have been, they had that 'biggie'/much more affordable...young people today/many young people won't ever have that or they'll have to burden themselves with a huge mortgage to be able to have it/a mortgage that they then are going to be looking at trying to achieve in income to match the debt...we know that there are many older people now who have worked hard all of their lives and come from a childhood of what would have been considered 'poverty' back in the day, but now are in a position of being able to 'downsize' and think about lifestyle changes because they have worked hard all of their lives and have 'built something'...but for those on low incomes/on benefits.. the struggle is to be able to even upsize in the first place/to be able to build anything to even think about the downsizing...it's not even the low incomes either, is it...it's that it's much more difficult today in 2016..(imo..)...than it was back in the day and considering all things of the differences...but as you say, the two are hard to directly compare...I just know that I would rather be me and being me back in my day, than being either of my sons in the here and now and this day...

[Kizzy]

..yeah, this for me is the best comparison of 'modern day poverty' to 'back in the day' and something I see all of the time sadly, with many children having their lives almost 'mapped out'...in terms of materialistic things/possessions etc, people had less back in the day because there was less available to have back in the day/things that just didn't even exist...it was a much 'smaller world' before things like overseas travel/holidays became an availability to everyone for instance...now a family holiday to Europe for instance, can be reasonably priced/affordable for all and that's cool and fine for those who aren't on low incomes or are on benefits...which would be 'an equivalent poor to back in the day..'...but the problem is for those who are on low incomes, if that family holiday were to be something that they could consider, then there is a high likelihood that they could only consider it, if they were to go during school times when it's much cheaper....and why shouldn't they go/have that holiday..?..family time together (I think is essential to everyone/regardless of income..)...and a very valuable and important time spent for any family...but if they do go and during the school time, which is the only way it would be affordable, they then have to face fines for doing so, so basically being fined for not being able to afford in the first place/those very people who struggled to be able to afford a holiday, are given another 'debt' to pay/crazy.. if people who aren't on low incomes/parents make the choice of taking their children out of school because 'it's cheaper anyway even with the fine', then they're making a choice to do so..( I still don't think fines should apply though..).. but lower incomes don't have that choice because their choice would be that holidays would be unaffordable to them so they just couldn't have that leisure time with their family...

..it's not about, for most who have low incomes/are on benefits etc, having debt to have nicer 'luxury' things, I don't think either..(and it's all relevant to the present day, because many people also had debt back in the day to buy the larger things or things that were needed but wouldn't have been able to have been afforded outright/children's Christmas gifts etc.. debt in the form of things like Hire Purchase, pay weekly catalogues etc..also those who loaned money for interest...)...it's more about having debt for what's considered basic essentials now...how can for instance, someone look for employment without access to home internet in some form, so that would mean a computer/laptop/tablet etc...they're not 'luxury items'...would we expect someone on a low income to have no TV in their home/have no form of 'entertainment' if it wasn't an option to be affordable to go out... and as the availability of today, is of all flat screen TVs, then that's what a low income/on benefits person will probably have...would we expect them to hand wash nappies if they have children...?../no, of course not so a washing machine becomes an essential/a dryer becomes an essential/for parents working long hours, a microwave becomes an essential etc etc and all things that wouldn't have been available in the 40s but considered essentials of today because yes, a different world and a different world's needs....and of course, some form of central heating/all 'basics' because if these things weren't basic then we really would be sending 'the poor back to the 1940s' really...

..the single biggest expense for most people is the purchase of a house/for those who are fortunate enough to be able to make that purchase... and many more homeowners back in the day, owned their homes outright, with either no mortgage at all or a very small one, so whatever their shortage in other things may have been, they had that 'biggie'/much more affordable...young people today/many young people won't ever have that or they'll have to burden themselves with a huge mortgage to be able to have it/a mortgage that they then are going to be looking at trying to achieve in income to match the debt...we know that there are many older people now who have worked hard all of their lives and come from a childhood of what would have been considered 'poverty' back in the day, but now are in a position of being able to 'downsize' and think about lifestyle changes because they have worked hard all of their lives and have 'built something'...but for those on low incomes/on benefits.. the struggle is to be able to even upsize in the first place/to be able to build anything to even think about the downsizing...it's not even the low incomes either, is it...it's that it's much more difficult today in 2016..(imo..)...than it was back in the day and considering all things of the differences...but as you say, the two are hard to directly compare...I just know that I would rather be me and being me back in my day, than being either of my sons in the here and now and this day...

People who are on low incomes or on benefits don't get in debt to have nice things?... They do, that's why the rise in brighthouse, perfect home and wonga, they offer whatever you like unsecured nothing like the 'layaways your parents did at the local toy shop, this is 3-4000% interest loans.
Is the discrepancy becoming more apparent, is it evident that most can't afford to buy a home?
I'd like to think everyone who has will join those that don't in questioning why it's getting so hard to achieve security in both jobs and living arrangements.

[Ammi]

..for me in my experiences no, it isn't about what would be luxuries in modern society, family holidays/quality of time together which is just as necessary to a child, as school education, children of minimum wage and benefit families having Christmas/Birthday gifts/having a family computer/internet etc...the things that many people go into debt for...rather than to be some kind of aspiring Hyacinth Bucket show lifestyle as was mentioned...maybe we just have different personal experiences of a 'modern day poverty' .../struggling family...and what defines as luxury in the modern day v luxury back in the day...obviously there are always going to be exceptions to everything as well but I don't see a struggling family as aspiring to having a 'show' lifestyle as being a 'norm'.../in my personal experience..

[Ammi]

..oh btw, just a slight off-topic thing...there was a government grant/large subsidy for benefit families/parents to all own a home computer, a while ago..a great idea, we had many parents at our school owning one for the first time... but sadly, only seemed to be a short lived thing, rather than a permanent thing..

[Kizzy]

Poverty is defined regardless of what you or I may define it as, it's a given amount/standard. The query is are attitudes towards the poor similar to in the 40's?
Is the media helping or hindering in their portrayal of those living in poverty?

Bet that computer thing was a looong time ago haha.

[DemolitionRed]

Poverty is defined regardless of what you or I may define it as, it's a given amount/standard. The query is are attitudes towards the poor similar to in the 40's?
Is the media helping or hindering in their portrayal of those living in poverty?

Bet that computer thing was a looong time ago haha.



Its hindering. The media treats those on benefits like the scum they think they are and every time they make an example of them, we get a large amount of collective thinkers, who go online, share the story further and find hundreds, sometimes thousands of people all giving their own condemning opinions. Looking down ones nose at the poor was bound to escalate with the power of the media and social networking groups.

I'm sure we've always had Hyacinth Buquet types. I mean, Britain is inherently snobby regardless of class.
Inverse snobbery seems to be a thing of the working class but I think its always gone on. In the past though, you just found pockets of snobbery...the foreman who looked down his nose at his labourers, the shop keeper who didn't want those dirty bagabonds in his shop and the mother who told her children not to play with that poor family down the street; but that's as far as it went.
The poor were aware of the snobs and because they couldn't then hide their poverty, they avoided those people. Today, people hide their poverty because they know they can't avoid snobbery.

[Kizzy]

Its hindering. The media treats those on benefits like the scum they think they are and every time they make an example of them, we get a large amount of collective thinkers, who go online, share the story further and find hundreds, sometimes thousands of people all giving their own condemning opinions. Looking down ones nose at the poor was bound to escalate with the power of the media and social networking groups.

I'm sure we've always had Hyacinth Buquet types. I mean, Britain is inherently snobby regardless of class.
Inverse snobbery seems to be a thing of the working class but I think its always gone on. In the past though, you just found pockets of snobbery...the foreman who looked down his nose at his labourers, the shop keeper who didn't want those dirty bagabonds in his shop and the mother who told her children not to play with that poor family down the street; but that's as far as it went.
The poor were aware of the snobs and because they couldn't then hide their poverty, they avoided those people. Today, people hide their poverty because they know they can't avoid snobbery.

Yep that's my view too but why, why is this image being purported? What purpose does it serve to create this kind of division in society, what is the bigger picture, the long term goal?

[DemolitionRed]

Yep that's my view too but why, why is this image being purported? What purpose does it serve to create this kind of division in society, what is the bigger picture, the long term goal?

I'm going to go off at a tangent here Kizzy because I know you understand quite a lot of the neo-liberal philosphy. Just remind yourself, this was a long term goal, this was meant to happen.

Neo-liberalism hasn't only changed the fundamental nature of politics; its changed the fundamental thinking of people. It was always meant to do this because for neo-liberalism to survive it has to trend toward radical exclusion of the poor and greater inequality of the poor.

Go and remind yourself what Friedrich Von Hayeks philosophy was and then think on, every PM we have had since Thatcher have been Hayek scholars.

[user104658]

Kizzy: because if you keep people distracted and squabbling with each other over various things (race, class, gender) it makes easier for the real villains who are sucking the world dry to fly under the radar.

[Kizzy]

I know :worry: Yet if anyone dare speak out they are seized upon, why is it not obvious.. Are we as a nation that blinkered?
It for me seems to be taking an even more sinister turn than the neo liberalists vision of a laissez faire society cast adrift to make their own way in the world free of the 'nanny state' and yet today it's passed even that. I'd say the 'big society' is anyone who falls through the cracks in the splintering welfare system, and god help them there's precious little aid as the state won't help and many charities can't.

[jennyjuniper]

In the 1940's many people were poor. My family was one of them. We were often hungry, but never starved. One thing that is a major difference between then and now is that poor people had pride in working hard instead of accepting handouts. My mother had to accept charity on a few occasions, but hated it.
Now so many seem to feel entitled to sit back and be 'looked after' by the state. I'm not bashing those who are genuinely looking for work or who are vulnerable in other ways, but the personal pride and work ethic that I grew up with is sadly lacking in today's society.

[Kizzy]

In the 1940's many people were poor. My family was one of them. We were often hungry, but never starved. One thing that is a major difference between then and now is that poor people had pride in working hard instead of accepting handouts. My mother had to accept charity on a few occasions, but hated it.
Now so many seem to feel entitled to sit back and be 'looked after' by the state. I'm not bashing those who are genuinely looking for work or who are vulnerable in other ways, but the personal pride and work ethic that I grew up with is sadly lacking in today's society.

Is it though, how many do you know who love their hand to mouth existence?
Welfare was/is not charity, it was a hand up not a hand out.
The perception of this has changed, nobody is looked after by the state.
De-motivation I could see being a factor, lack of jobs in industry specific communities, contractual issues such as reduced hours, wages and job security.

Working people didn't used to still have to be reliant on welfare to top up wages when they worked, now poverty in work is the norm,which of course impacts on personal pride.
People were proud of the organisation they worked for or the industry they were raised with, what is there to be proud of now?

0hrs contracts, no holiday pay, no sick pay, no share scheme, no hospital fund, no social club, this is now the norm across all sectors. The state didn't look after you but your employer did with the help of unionisation. Employment has changed, not imo for the better for unskilled and semi-skilled workers. Is this taken into account when judging what are described as 'scroungers' in the media?

[Kizzy]

Call it the “Benefits Street effect” – the popularity of widely held preconceptions about unemployed people. And one of the most prevalent is that jobless people are more likely to be overweight than those in work.

While television documentaries and newspapers can help perpetuate this belief, academic studies also reinforce it. A series of studies have suggested that employers are biased against larger candidates when hiring staff. As a result, slimmer people tend to be employed first, leaving the overweight in the pool of the unemployed for longer.

But a study in the journal Preventive Medicine produces evidence that unemployed people are far more likely to be significantly underweight than the average person. The study’s authors, Dr Amanda Hughes and Professor Meena Kumari from the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex, believe their findings provide a corrective to popular misconceptions about unemployed people and should alert health professionals to the heightened mortality risks that come from being underweight.


Now people can effectively be seen starving to death, is it right to say our perceptions have changed?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/29/unemployed-more-likely-to-be-underweight-than-obese

[Brillopad]

Have attitudes to people in poverty changed over a lifetime? Bob Holman put this to Guardian readers a year ago. He referred to a report on urban poverty written in 1943 by eight members of the hygiene committee of the Women’s Group on Public Welfare. Our Towns: A Close-Up was commissioned to investigate complaints from people in rural England about families evacuated from inner cities. Children were reported as dirty, inadequately clothed and badly behaved, and their parents were blamed as lazy and incompetent. Politicians and media reports supported this analysis.

The authors visited poor neighbourhoods and put a spotlight on the conditions that made life tough for the people who lived there. Instead of fuelling the growing hostility, they challenged public attitudes. They showed how resilient and resourceful families had to be to survive circumstances that most people would find overwhelming. The report was debated in parliament and influenced the Beveridge reforms that shaped the postwar welfare state.


Today the infrastructure of welfare support is under attack. Social security is deemed too costly; the principles of mutual support and solidarity are being replaced by selfish individualism. People in poverty are labelled shirkers and feel ashamed to claim the welfare support they need. Negative attitudes are reinforced by sensationalist media and opportunistic politicians, and the nasty and divisive public rhetoric that has emerged demonises those living in poverty in ways that are reminiscent of the early 1940s. It was this comparison that led Holman to call for a modern-day Our Towns.


Is this true? Have we lost empathy for individualism, has the media and 'poverty porn' skewed the view of the poor?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/27/poverty-study-uk-bad-1940s

Here is a recent document 'Our Lives: Challenging attitudes to poverty in 2015.' It gives a really enlightening overview of how poverty and reforms are are affecting lives in the UK.

http://www.ryantunnardbrown.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/FINAL-Our-Lives-18-March-2015-JT-TZ-with-foreword-20-march1.pdf

Too many people using these services who shouldn't be as they have only taken out and not put in. Overwhelmed the system.

[Brillopad]

In the 1940's many people were poor. My family was one of them. We were often hungry, but never starved. One thing that is a major difference between then and now is that poor people had pride in working hard instead of accepting handouts. My mother had to accept charity on a few occasions, but hated it.
Now so many seem to feel entitled to sit back and be 'looked after' by the state. I'm not bashing those who are genuinely looking for work or who are vulnerable in other ways, but the personal pride and work ethic that I grew up with is sadly lacking in today's society.

I agree with that. Too many people today expect an easy life - they sneer at the thought of working for not much more than they can get from the state as they have no dignity and self respect.

Taking pride in paying your way doesn't seem to count for much in today's society.

[arista]

Is there such a thing as social deprivation? Yes there is and that's what creates poverty.
We are not in India, we are a rich fully developed nation with a long history of democracy.

Yes but back in the 1940's Every Worked Hard

We never had Dossers
REFUSING TO WORK
like today

A Top TIBB Female Mod can fill us on
that

Even if it JUST sweeping leaves
its better than Doing FECK All
with the greatest respect.

[Kizzy]

Too many people using these services who shouldn't be as they have only taken out and not put in. Overwhelmed the system.

So, if you are physically incapable of work what then, just die?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Yes but back in the 1940's Every Worked Hard

We never had Dossers
REFUSING TO WORK
like today

A Top TIBB Female Mod can fill us on
that

Even if it JUST sweeping leaves
its better than Doing FECK All
with the greatest respect.


Neem is in her forties not born in the forties

:nono:

[Brillopad]

So, if you are physically incapable of work what then, just die?

How many coming into are country are physically incapable or working. They should be forced to do menial work to earn their benefits and pay towards any medical care out of their benefits - that amount should be taken out of their benefits before they receive it.

[DemolitionRed]

I agree with that. Too many people today expect an easy life - they sneer at the thought of working for not much more than they can get from the state as they have no dignity and self respect.

Taking pride in paying your way doesn't seem to count for much in today's society.

I recommend you read a book called 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist' by Robert Tressell You would laugh at how similar your words sound to the struggling working class characters in his book.

It was published in 1911

[Kizzy]

I agree with that. Too many people today expect an easy life - they sneer at the thought of working for not much more than they can get from the state as they have no dignity and self respect.

Taking pride in paying your way doesn't seem to count for much in today's society.

That isn't the case though, working has always brought in much more than being on benefits.
I live on an estate in a large city, and can say that those on benefits I know have dignity and self respect, could I ask is your view from those you know or via the media?

[Denver]

Yet people still want us to put refugees before our own

[Kizzy]

How many coming into are country are physically incapable or working. They should be forced to do menial work to earn their benefits and pay towards any medical care out of their benefits - that amount should be taken out of their benefits before they receive it.

I see you are steering the conversation toward immigration again, that is not the topic of the thread. If you could try not to deviate too far it would be appreciated.

[Kizzy]

Yet people still want us to put refugees before our own

We invited Jewish refugees in the 40s, do you feel that was wrong?

[Kizzy]

I recommend you read a book called 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist' by Robert Tressell You would laugh at how similar your words sound to the struggling working class characters in his book.

It was published in 1911

Haha! I bought my daughter her own copy of that this Christmas.

[Denver]

We invited Jewish refugees in the 40s, do you feel that was wrong?

Yes at when it puts our own in danger we should not be having people live in poverty in our country in 2017

[Brillopad]

I recommend you read a book called 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist' by Robert Tressell You would laugh at how similar your words sound to the struggling working class characters in his book.

It was published in 1911

Well they are worse today. Why would someone not want to work for the same money they get on benefits until they can get something better. People in work who can provide recent references are more like to get another, better Job than the long-term unemployed.

It's about thinking long-term and increasing your chances of getting the right job as well as pride - but too many don't think like that, they just Moan that they are not going to go to the effort of actually working for a living for the same money as they can get in hand-outs.

Pretty sad indictment of our Work-shy society today - because they have been spoilt with hand-outs.

[Brillopad]

I see you are steering the conversation toward immigration again, that is not the topic of the thread. If you could try not to deviate too far it would be appreciated.

If it relates, it relates.

[DemolitionRed]

And lets remember, not all of us are lucky enough to have a family who will help us out of sticky situations.

[DemolitionRed]

Haha! I bought my daughter her own copy of that this Christmas.

Its a good book and one that makes you realize that the struggling mans attitude back then is no different than the struggling mans attitude today.

[user104658]

Poverty doesn't exist. In my day. Something about wars. Workshy. Scrounger. Seen them with iPhones. Other generic comment.

[DemolitionRed]

Well they are worse today. Why would someone not want to work for the same money they get on benefits until they can get something better. People in work who can provide recent references are more like to get another, better Job than the long-term unemployed.

It's about thinking long-term and increasing your chances of getting the right job as well as pride - but too many don't think like that, they just Moan that they are not going to go to the effort of actually working for a living for the same money as they can get in hand-outs.

Pretty sad indictment of our Work-shy society today - because they have been spoilt with hand-outs.

And how do we drum up all those jobs... simply by wishing for them?. Are you aware that recruitment is still at an all time low? Me thinks you've been watching/reading too much 'poverty porn' which was invented for people like you.

I bet you love Jeremy Kyle :facepalm:

[Brillopad]

And how do we drum up all those jobs... simply by wishing for them?. Are you aware that recruitment is still at an all time low? Me thinks you've been watching/reading too much 'poverty porn' which was invented for people like you.

I bet you love Jeremy Kyle :facepalm:

Jeremy Kyle are you kidding! :joker:

There seem to be plenty of jobs for all the Polish coming here. If there are no jobs - why are we letting them all in - to dip into our already seriously depleted benefits system. Which is it then?

Your comments are ridiculous and your insults quite frankly pathetic.

[DemolitionRed]

Jeremy Kyle are you kidding! :joker:

There seem to be plenty of jobs for all the Polish coming here. If there are no jobs - why are we letting them all in - to dip into our already seriously depleted benefits system. Which is it then?

Your comments are ridiculous and your insults quite frankly pathetic.

The same reason they are letting Brits go and work in other EU countries. Are you aware that over 30,000 Brits are claiming benefits in other EU countries?

[arista]

Neem is in her forties not born in the forties

:nono:

ITS NOT NEEM
she is young northern mod

[Crimson Dynamo]

Poverty doesn't exist. In my day. Something about wars. Workshy. Scrounger. Seen them with iPhones. Other generic comment.

Scumbag Tories, scumbag Trump, NHS would collapse if it wasnt for immigration, poor refugees, unions protect workers from fatcat bosses, we need to open our borders and our hearts, build more mosques and go veggie

etc

[Jack_]

Poverty doesn't exist. In my day. Something about wars. Workshy. Scrounger. Seen them with iPhones. Other generic comment.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2yx2rJUUAAlrZp.jpg:large

[Kizzy]

Yes at when it puts our own in danger we should not be having people live in poverty in our country in 2017

It hasn't put our own in danger, again this isn't the topic of the thread is it?

[Kizzy]

If it relates, it relates.

How does it relate, where is the connection?

[Kizzy]

Jeremy Kyle are you kidding! :joker:

There seem to be plenty of jobs for all the Polish coming here. If there are no jobs - why are we letting them all in - to dip into our already seriously depleted benefits system. Which is it then?

Your comments are ridiculous and your insults quite frankly pathetic.

Ask yourself why employers are recruiting from eastern Europe via agencies for warehouse, hospitality and construction work... is it to avoid paying wages here maybe?...is that right?
They are not coming here to claim benefits but to work.

After brexit there have been assurances that this steady stream of cheap labour will continue, therefore nothing will change for the low skilled of this country will it?

I agree with DR your view is quite blinkered, and your comments could very well be soundbites from poverty porn. It's not pathetic to voice that.
It isn't the faultof eastern Europeans that jobs are being advertised in their countries and not here.
If they are not working within 3 months of arrival they must return, therefore is isn't for benefits either.

[Cherie]

We invited Jewish refugees in the 40s, do you feel that was wrong?

They had to pay a fee to come, we didn't welcome with open arms


Although British immigration policy was liberalised after Kristallnacht - the pogrom launched by Goebbels in November 1939, in which dozens of Jews were killed and more than 1,000 synagogues burned down - London challenges the idea that prewar Britain was a haven for those fleeing Nazi brutality. "The myth was born that Britain did all it could for the Jews between 1933 and 1945. This comfortable view has proved remarkably durable, and is still adduced to support claims that Britain has always admitted genuine refugees, and that the latest harsh measures against asylum seekers are merely designed to exclude bogus applicants. . .We remember the touching photographs and newsreel footage of unaccompanied Jewish children arriving on the Kindertransports [ by July 1939, 7,700 had arrived, compared with 1,850 admitted into Holland, 800 into France, 700 into Belgium, and 250 into Sweden]. There are no such photographs of the Jewish parents left behind in Nazi Europe. . .The Jews excluded from entry to the United Kingdom are not part of the British experience, because Britain never saw them. . .Memories of the unsuccessful public campaign to persuade the government to rescue Jews from mass murder faded quickly."

What's more, those that were granted entry were admitted only because the Jewish community guaranteed that it would bear all the expenses of accommodation and maintenance, with no burden placed on the public purse. Elsewhere, Canada accommodated only 5,000 European Jews between 1933 and 1945, Australia 10,000, South Africa some 6,000. And the US's unyielding quota system meant that, between 1933 and 1937, only 33,000 German Jews were admitted (and only 124,000 between 1938 and 1941).

[Cherie]

Ask yourself why employers are recruiting from eastern Europe via agencies for warehouse, hospitality and construction work... is it to avoid paying wages here maybe?...is that right?
They are not coming here to claim benefits but to work.

After brexit there have been assurances that this steady stream of cheap labour will continue, therefore nothing will change for the low skilled of this country will it?

I agree with DR your view is quite blinkered, and your comments could very well be soundbites from poverty porn. It's not pathetic to voice that.
It isn't the faultof eastern Europeans that jobs are being advertised in their countries and not here.
If they are not working within 3 months of arrival they must return, therefore is isn't for benefits either.

Immigrants can't win they are either coming for bennies or they are taking the jobs. (That no one wants to do here), although what I will say is they are more likely to work for less than minimum wage and this attitude doesn't help as there are so many companies who exploit this

[Denver]

It hasn't put our own in danger, again this isn't the topic of the thread is it?

We send billions to help other countries rather then give to our own love

[Kizzy]

Immigrants can't win they are either coming for bennies or they are taking the jobs. (That no one wants to do here), although what I will say is they are more likely to work for less than minimum wage and this attitude doesn't help as there are so many companies who exploit this

Oh yes this is how it was initially sold, the jobs nobody wants... Nobody can legally work for less than minimum wage in this country unless you are employed by an agency in another country.
It is exploitation pure and simple, of them and us.

[Kizzy]

We send billions to help other countries rather then give to our own love

If you want discuss international aid start a thread, please don't patronise me on mine.

[DemolitionRed]

Back to modern day poverty...

People have got a short memory if they don't remember the brutal £12bn welfare cuts by a treasurer who's logic was, if the Tories make life for poor people insufferable, they will simply choose to be well-off.

[Kizzy]

Speaking of poverty...

British workers face “cut-rate, bottom-of-the-league protections” after Brexit, with more zero-hours contracts and fewer guarantees over holiday and equal pay, the TUC has warned, as it publishes a damning report highlighting the soaring number of insecure jobs in the UK.

The number of workers without guaranteed hours or basic employment rights has risen by more than 660,000 in the past five years, the study found.

Labour said an "explosion" of insecure jobs was likely unless fundamental workers’ rights were protected.

And the dire situation many employees now face is predicted to intensify once the Government drags the UK out of the EU.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-workers-zero-hours-contracts-rights-warning-a7565761.html