UK General Election thread

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why, what's wrong with Labour-Liberal Democrats?

Look at the projections. Labour-Liberal Dems only gets you to 301.

[kentonio]

Look at the projections. Labour-Liberal Dems only gets you to 301.

Oohh good point, I hadn't noticed they'd fallen that badly. I suspect it will not turn out quite as low as that however. It's going to be horrible for them regardless, but I think people will be a little kinder at the polls than they're currently predicting.

[C0ckney]

So? So working people sit in an office on the phone all day instead of standing at a production line all day. I'm willing to give you good odds that there's a lot less workplace injuries now.

you can see my response to HC about that, but you ought to know better frankly.

No it isn't unquestionable worse. The 70's was a time when food was a genuine worry for a lot of people, and it wasn't in the slightest bit uncommon for couples to meet up and share food to reduce living costs. Please explain how the poorest peoples lives have supposedly become worse, because I'm not seeing it.

really? i'm going to have to ask for some evidence that want of food was more of an issue then than it is now.

food is certainly a real issue today as 100,000s of people in the UK are dependent on charity in the form of food banks. no doubt some idiot will mention mobile phones, big TVs or some other consumerist baubles, but i think it would be better for people to have enough money to eat and heat their homes.

unemployment benefits in the 1970s were worth around 20% of average earnings, whereas in in 2010 there were worth 11%. considering recent freezes and cuts they are likely to be worth even less now. very clear evidence of things getting worse for the poor.



society was more equal then than it is today. more equal societies have fewer problems in areas as diverse as healthy, social participation, trust and economic stability. you can read more about this here

homelessness has increased considerably. 6(!) people were found sleeping rough in london in 1949. today on average 248 do so every day.

i can go on...

[Hauldren Collider]

homelessness has increased considerably. 6(!) people were found sleeping rough in london in 1949. today on average 248 do so every day.

And it's not like London is a large city. It's only got 13 million people. Clearly, capitalism has failed.

I personally find it astonishing that a modern, self-described first world country could let a fraction as astronomical as 1.9E-5 of its population sleep outside.

[kentonio]

you can see my response to HC about that, but you ought to know better frankly.

I do know better, I worked in warehouses and factories at points in my youth, and I've worked in all sorts of office situations, including a brief spell in a call centre back before I decided to actually find a career. Perhaps the factory life you're idealising existed in some places, but for a lot of people it was pretty crappy, and the masses of people working in warehouses and other manual jobs are working in conditions that are definitely worse than a call centre, while being paid as little or less.

I'm not saying 'yay we don't manufacture any more!' because like most things I think we'd be better off with some balance. I do think that glamorizing factory work is a bit much though.

really? i'm going to have to ask for some evidence that want of food was more of an issue then than it is now.

My pleasure.

food is certainly a real issue today as 100,000s of people in the UK are dependent on charity in the form of food banks. no doubt some idiot will mention mobile phones, big TVs or some other consumerist baubles, but i think it would be better for people to have enough money to eat and heat their homes.

Where are you getting that figure from please?

unemployment benefits in the 1970s were worth around 20% of average earnings, whereas in in 2010 there were worth 11%. considering recent freezes and cuts they are likely to be worth even less now. very clear evidence of things getting worse for the poor.

That's a terrible way to evaluate conditions for the poor. I also don't know why you'd choose it, when you can look directly at things like food, housing etc.

society was more equal then than it is today. more equal societies have fewer problems in areas as diverse as healthy, social participation, trust and economic stability. you can read more about this here

I completely disagree with your basic premise. Yes we've had terrible income equality increases thanks to the super rich which I utterly oppose, but we've also had greatly increased economic and social mobility.

homelessness has increased considerably. 6(!) people were found sleeping rough in london in 1949. today on average 248 do so every day.

I'm a huge supporter of more help for the homeless but that statistic is bollocks. You really think that in post-war London there was a) a thorough and accurate study done into homeless numbers, and b) only 6 people living rough in the entire city? That's utterly and completely preposterous.

[C0ckney]

And it's not like London is a large city. It's only got 13 million people. Clearly, capitalism has failed.

I personally find it astonishing that a modern, self-described first world country could let a fraction as astronomical as 1.9E-5 of its population sleep outside.

i made a comparison between a historical situation and that of today. perhaps it was too advanced a concept for you to grasp.

[C0ckney]

I do know better, I worked in warehouses and factories at points in my youth, and I've worked in all sorts of office situations, including a brief spell in a call centre back before I decided to actually find a career. Perhaps the factory life you're idealising existed in some places, but for a lot of people it was pretty crappy, and the masses of people working in warehouses and other manual jobs are working in conditions that are definitely worse than a call centre, while being paid as little or less.

I'm not saying 'yay we don't manufacture any more!' because like most things I think we'd be better off with some balance. I do think that glamorizing factory work is a bit much though.

i'm not glamorising factory work as such, i'm simply saying that it's better than call centre work. i've worked in both customer service and telesales call centre jobs and i hated both with a passion, though the former was at least decently paid (the best salary i'd had until i got into the ice cream business as a matter of fact). having looked up the UK average wages it seems that factory workers only earn slightly more on average, so perhaps the difference is greater in south wales than elsewhere. i stand by what i said about the work itself though.

Where are you getting that figure from please?

the trussell trust. wiki has a good summary of the information.

In 2004, Trussell only ran two food banks. Before the financial crisis, food banks were "almost unheard of" in the UK. In 2007–2008, there were 22 food banks in the Trussell Trust Foodbank Network; by early 2011, The Trussell Trust supported 100. As of May 2012, they had 201. By August, 252. The rate of increase had been rising rapidly. In 2011, about one new food bank was being opened per week. In early 2012, about two were being opened each week. By July, The Trussell Trust had reported that the rate of new openings had increased to three per week. In August, the rate of new openings spiked at four per week, with three new food banks being opened in that month for Nottingham alone. By October 2012, the rate of increase had fallen back to about two or three per week. According to a May 2013 report by Oxfam and Church Action on Poverty, about half a million Britons had used food banks. The Trussel Trust reports that their food banks alone helped feed 346,992 people in 2012-13.

Close to half of those needing to use food banks have had issues with their benefits, though many have low-income jobs, but struggle to buy food after making debt repayments and other expenses. As had been predicted, demand for food banks further increased after cuts to welfare came into effect in April 2013, which included the abolishment of Crisis loans. In April 2014 Trussell reported that they'd handed out 913,000 food parcels in the last year, up from 347,000 the year before. Several councils have begun looking at funding food banks to increase their capability, as cuts to their budgets mean they'll be less able to help vulnerable people directly. According to an all-party parliamentary report released in December 2014, key reasons for the increased demand for UK foodbanks are delays in paying benefits, welfare sanctions, and the recent reversal of the post WWII trend for poor people's incomes to rise above or in line with increased costs for housing, utility bills and food.

it's worth remembering that the trussell trust is only the largest provider and that others are operating too.

That's a terrible way to evaluate conditions for the poor. I also don't know why you'd choose it, when you can look directly at things like food, housing etc.

My pleasure.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]177324[/ATTACH]

yes food has become somewhat cheaper, but people still need money to buy it. as i have shown, the poorest have less money than they did before and many do not even have enough money to buy food.

I completely disagree with your basic premise. Yes we've had terrible income equality increases thanks to the super rich which I utterly oppose, but we've also had greatly increased economic and social mobility.

what exactly do you disagree with. that inequality causes problems? that britain is less equal today than it was in the 1970s?

economic and social mobility, better since the 1870s, perhaps; better since the 1970s, let's see some evidence. not that these things are important in my view.

I'm a huge supporter of more help for the homeless but that statistic is bollocks. You really think that in post-war London there was a) a thorough and accurate study done into homeless numbers, and b) only 6 people living rough in the entire city? That's utterly and completely preposterous.

your cheap dismissal isn't worth much. i suggest doing a little research on the subject first. there was provision for the homeless then in 'spikes' (the successors to workhouses - george orwell wrote about them), which weren't great, but did at least provide a roof over people's heads.

and i suppose it is hard to believe that things have gone backwards like that, but it is true nevertheless.

[regexcellent]

So how many seats will UKIP be getting?

Being wealthy enough to not be manufacturing stuff isn't a bad thing. Viva la cheap chinese goods.

[Dauphin]

So how many seats will UKIP be getting?

Two, maybe three.

[regexcellent]

No, it's not. Not even close. At least in terms of wealth. I don't know about pretty. But I would guess that places where you get riots over bus fares aren't that pretty.

Edit: Greece's median household income, according to the internet, is $13,366. Mississippi's is $36,338. Congratulations. You're twice as poor as our poorest state.

But at least they have ****ty healthcare where you have to bribe doctors to get an appointment in the next millenium! SOCIAL SAFETY NET SOCIAL SAFETY NET

[kentonio]

your cheap dismissal isn't worth much. i suggest doing a little research on the subject first. there was provision for the homeless then in 'spikes' (the successors to workhouses - george orwell wrote about them), which weren't great, but did at least provide a roof over people's heads.

and i suppose it is hard to believe that things have gone backwards like that, but it is true nevertheless.

My 'cheap dismissal' is exactly what it deserved. Do you honestly, and I mean truly honestly believe there were only 6 homeless people in the entirity of post-war London at a time when large areas of the city were still bombed out ruins? I mean really seriously, because if you do I'm going to have to start wondering about your sanity.

[Dauphin]

Re food banks. What is the problem? If they can replace benefits (most likely spent on drugs, gambling and fags anyway) with fresh nutritional food and clean water, then it's a win-win for taxpayers and the social welfare of the poor.

[Bereta_Eder]

It's around 25.000 euros and that's after a 25% drop in GDP per capita.

And no, you get the appointment, or the surgery or whatever you need still, despite the neoliberal american like barbarity they're trying to impose.

And WTF is that about bus fares?

[C0ckney]

My 'cheap dismissal' is exactly what it deserved. Do you honestly, and I mean truly honestly believe there were only 6 homeless people in the entirity of post-war London at a time when large areas of the city were still bombed out ruins? I mean really seriously, because if you do I'm going to have to start wondering about your sanity.

it's quite well known. it's certainly widely quoted in pieces about the issue and by organisations who work with the homeless such as st. mungo's and thames reach.

[C0ckney]

the numbers i've quoted by the way are for rough sleepers. homeless people are a much larger group of course.