Who will suffer the most under the present parliament?

[mossdog]

I have asked you for YOUR definition since YOU claim that there are no poor people n this country.

Can you not back up your claims ?

I don't think that you can,

True poverty in Britain ceased many years ago,so successive governments are pleased to tell us.Anyone in Britain can get food in their stomach and shelter for the night/s,what more could keep you alive,millions in the world still cannot.That in a nutshell is my definition of poverty,not some toytown statistical make belief version of poverty that lots have succumbed to believe through soft living and easy credit.

[artisan]

True poverty in Britain ceased many years ago,so successive governments are pleased to tell us.Anyone in Britain can get food in their stomach and shelter for the night/s,what more could keep you alive,millions in the world still cannot.That in a nutshell is my definition of poverty,not some toytown statistical make belief version of poverty that lots have succumbed to believe through soft living and easy credit.

 

Poverty, in a country like Britain, is not having the resources to live a comfortable life.

I would describe it as not having a motor car, not having labour saving devices in the house, not being able to take at least one holiday abroad a year, no computer or television, things such as that.

 

Dont forget we are one of the most successful countries in the world.

 

People who use 3rd world definitions of poverty are throwing down red herrings.

No contributing member of this country should have to without those things unless they want to.

[I1L2T3]

Last parliament deficit for dummies:

 

1) End of 2007. Deficit at 45bn. Higher than expected because of lower than expected tax receipts. Labour accept forecasting wasn't as good as it could have been - start planning to reduce deficit.

2) 2008 - banking crisis. Bailout by taxpayer. Government borrow money. Deficit increases

3) Recession triggered. Unemployment up. Tax receipts down further. More borrowing. More deficit.

4) 2008- Fiscal stimulus. More borrowing. Bigger deficit.

 

The facts are that in 2007 while the UK did have a worrying deficit it was manageable and plans were in place to address it. It also was low compared to many other countries. The huge deficit we have now is almost entirely due to the banking crisis rather than due to profligate spending on services by Labour.

[mossdog]

Poverty, in a country like Britain, is not having the resources to live a comfortable life.

I would describe it as not having a motor car, not having labour saving devices in the house, not being able to take at least one holiday abroad a year, no computer or television, things such as that.

 

Dont forget we are one of the most successful countries in the world.

 

People who use 3rd world definitions of poverty are throwing down red herrings.

No contributing member of this country should have to without those things unless they want to.

So "POVERTY" is not being able to have a "car","foreign holidays","computers" ,"televisions"etc etc and lets not forget access to easy credit!........................certainly an interesting definition! Edited June 24, 2010 by mossdog

[artisan]

So "POVERTY" is not being able to have a "car","foreign holidays","computers" ,"televisions"etc etc and lets not forget access to easy credit!......................................certainly an interesting definition!

 

We are living in the year 2010, in one of the most dynamic countries in the World.

If I did not have all those things, I would say that I was impoverished, yes.

 

I dont see where easy credit enters into it, that surely is the way to ensure that you will end up with non of the things I mentioned, and is the fast track to poverty.

 

Getting up in the morning and doing some work is the way to ensure that you have them, not 'easy credit'.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Poverty, in a country like Britain, is not having the resources to live a comfortable life.

I would describe it as not having a motor car, not having labour saving devices in the house, not being able to take at least one holiday abroad a year, no computer or television, things such as that...

 

Absolutely astonishing!

 

No one common definition of poverty is accepted by all countries. Poverty is generally categorized as material deprivation. Generally, poverty is defined as the state of being poor or deficient in money or means of subsistence (Barker 1995).

 

Increasingly, the concept of basic subsistence is measured by the availability of infrastructure services, such as safe water, sanitation, solid-waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, public transportation, access roads and footpaths, street lighting, and public telephones.

 

Nothing to do with whether or not you own a car, whether you go on a foreign holiday every year or any of the other things you've mentioned.

 

I don't have a motor car (I don't particularly want one either. - My wife's got one and if I need it, I'll use hers. My brother doesn't have a car and he's never bothered to have one. My mother got her first car when she was about 50.

 

Labour saving devices? - Get real! My parents did have a vacuum cleaner (but not until the 1960's) they had a washing machine (same timeframe; before that mum used the Copper) They never had a dishwasher.

 

Foreign holidays? Really? I can't remember the last time I went 'On holiday' (probably during the late 70s. - Admittedly, I do seem to manage to be able to live in places other people want to go to for their holidays, which may be one reason I'm not too bothered. Foreign Holidays doesn't appear anywhere near my list of 'necessities', however.

 

As for computers and TV, my parents got TV in the mid 60s. Black and white. Personal computers didn't exist until the 80's, but it's difficult to see how they could be classed as a 'necessity'. Were we poor? - Certainly not.

 

I live in what I (and many others) consider to be a developed first-world country which makes adequate (remember that word) provision for those people who need help. The welfare scheme is called 'Harz lV'. It is reviewed frequently (to ensure that the payments do allow beneficiaries to buy the hings they need (and do not use the payments to buy things they are expected to provide for themselves.) Harz lV will provide adequate (size) accomodation - If you are single, you may well get a bedsit. If you are a family of 2 adults and 2 kids, you will probably get a 3-bedroomed apartment. If you have visitors and you need extra accommodation, they are encouraged to stay in an hotel/guest-house. Harz lV will pay to heat your house - but if you're thinking of growing tropical plants, think again. - You will probably get enough money to pay to heat the house to about 15 or 16'C. - If you're too cold, put a sweater on.

 

You will need a coat. A good one. (We see temperatures of -25'C in winter; you'll need a coat that works.) That doesn't mean you'll get £5-600 to buy a designer coat, you'll get enough money to buy a serviceable second-hand coat from a second-hand clothes shop.

 

The there's food. You will need food, so you will be given money to buy food. The food will include meat, fish, bread, vegetables, fruit, dairy products and all the necessities. It won't include meals in restaurants, take-aways, instant or packaged meals, beer, cigarettes, tea or coffee. - Those are luxuries, not necessities.

 

Some people simply can't work, so they get extra assistance - and that assistance will indeed include luxury items.

 

For those who are capable of work, but have been unable (or are unwilling) to find a job, if you want luxuries, you are encouraged to go and get a job and earn the money to pay for them. - The rest of the population has no wish to go out and work so that you can sit at home with your feet up. The State will not let you starve, not will it see you trying to exist in inadequate housing with inadequate clothing. It will provide safe warm (well, fairly warm) accommodation, clothing, and medical care. If you want more than the minimum you can have it. All you have to do is earn the money to pay for it.

[mossdog]

We are living in the year 2010, in one of the most dynamic countries in the World.

If I did not have all those things, I would say that I was impoverished, yes.

 

I dont see where easy credit enters into it, that surely is the way to ensure that you will end up with non of the things I mentioned, and is the fast track to poverty.

 

Getting up in the morning and doing some work is the way to ensure that you have them, not 'easy credit'.

"Where easy credit enters into it!"is that all the things that you have mentioned that would make you poverty stricken to do without,have been largely accessed over the past decade with easy credit I thought most people understood that!

[swarfendor437]

I haven't done the homework on the budget - basically, anyone who has done Management Studies will have come across Herzberg's hygiene factors - if you take a reward or perk away that is currently given then worker's will feel hard done by.

 

Compare this to a peasant living in South America with no running water - they go to the well to fetch some water - when they return to their hut they find the pig has broken from it's pen and chewed the young one's arm off. Add to that £200 is more than they would ever see in their lifetime we need to get perspective. Poverty is the wrong word to use.

 

The poorest may be worse off financially, but which would you prefer to be? A peasant in Peru or a plebusite in the UK?

 

swarfendor43

[Wildcat]

I haven't done the homework on the budget - basically, anyone who has done Management Studies will have come across Herzberg's hygiene factors - if you take a reward or perk away that is currently given then worker's will feel hard done by.

 

Compare this to a peasant living in South America with no running water - they go to the well to fetch some water - when they return to their hut they find the pig has broken from it's pen and chewed the young one's arm off. Add to that £200 is more than they would ever see in their lifetime we need to get perspective. Poverty is the wrong word to use.

 

The poorest may be worse off financially, but which would you prefer to be? A peasant in Peru or a plebusite in the UK?

 

swarfendor43

 

Anyone would rather be poor in a developed country than a developing country.

 

But that is not the point, more equal societies are more successful on a whole range of indicators like health, education, social mobility, crime all the indicators that make up a healthy society.

 

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why

[TeaFan]

The State will not let you starve, nor will it see you trying to exist in inadequate housing with inadequate clothing. It will provide safe warm (well, fairly warm) accommodation, clothing, and medical care. If you want more than the minimum you can have it. All you have to do is earn the money to pay for it.

 

This last bit is where the welfare system where you live probably differs most from the welfare system here. In this country the state does provide inadequate housing to the less well-off, often very inadequate. And I was struck by a comment recently on another board which was about living on JSA. The unemployed person said "It's shoes that get you. You need a new pair of shoes and you're,<removed>". That's living right on the breadline.

Edited June 24, 2010 by sibon
Masked swearing