The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Clint Planet]

One that labour certainly seem to benefit a lot from

Could you explain?

 

[Seanjd]

One that labour certainly seem to benefit a lot from

How so?

 

[The Esk]

One that labour certainly seem to benefit a lot from

As a member of the Labour Party I can tell you that no-one benefits from poverty either in financial terms or political terms. I can't really believe that anyone seriously thinks the Labour Party make political capital out of poverty, that's quite some claim and completely erroneous.

 

[Clint Planet]

Let me tell you why I support Labour and believe the welfare of society is more important to the wealth of the nation than the promotion of the individual.

I'm lucky, I'm privileged and so are my kids and family. So should I care about what happens to others less fortunate? Dam right I should care. You can't value people on what they own, what job they have, where they live, what car they drive, how much they earn.

However increasingly, life opportunities in the UK are linked to these values. Your ability to provide a decent education for your children for example is intrinsically linked to your finances. Is this right? Of course not. The same of course, is true of health provision. So financial poverty brings along other forms of poverty too - education poverty and health service provision poverty for example.

It brings along a greater poverty too - the poverty of opportunity and expectation which must be most soul destroying. Not only are you subjected to poverty but your ability to escape from it is less than those who are better off.

Is any of this right? Is this really the way we want our kids to grow up in the 21st Century in one of the richest nations on earth? Surely there must be a better way?

Now Labour certainly does not have all the answers, I'm certain of that. In fact increasingly it seems to provide less answers than in previous years. Yet having said that it provides more of a solution and support than any other credible political party. Ideally I'd prefer them to focus on reducing the effect of relative wealth (or in many cases poverty) on life chances rather than this nonsense over balancing the budget in line with Conservative economic policy.

Putting resources into the poorest areas of Britain is an investment in our country's future. If by doing so we can improve health provision, improve education provision, improve social services provision then the investment will bear fruit in a better educated, healthier population more able to cope with the demands of modern society and globalisation.

To paraphrase someone who once spoke of the cost of education, "If you think investment in the poor is expensive, please examine the cost of not investing". Without providing support we can not have a functioning society, and the cost of that in human terms as well as financial is horrific.

(I'll get off my soap box now)

Superb. Well said, Esk.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

You don't know that it hasn't worked since you have no "control" to judge it against. It's very easy to glibly assert that since past efforts to fight poverty don't seem to have succeeded, there is little point in continuing to battle it. Who knows how much inequality and poverty there might now be had we not "thrown money at it" in the past? Certainly, the last five years seem to suggest that if we don't "throw money" at scroungers then the bastards get even poorer.

Who knew, eh? Pesky poor people.

I'm going by social mobility, which doesn't appear to have budged for the best part of 50 years. Of course, as you say, things could have been even worse had the current way of doing things not been done, but it does make me wonder if there isn't a better way.

That's a long way from saying poverty isn't something that should be tackled by the way.

 

[roydo]

Anyone asked Nicola Sturgeon a question today?

 

[Clint Planet]

I'm going by social mobility, which doesn't appear to have budged for the best part of 50 years. Of course, as you say, things could have been even worse had the current way of doing things not been done, but it does make me wonder if there isn't a better way.

That's a long way from saying poverty isn't something that should be tackled by the way.

Social mobility is much more important to you than poverty, isn't it?

 

[The Esk]

I'm going by social mobility, which doesn't appear to have budged for the best part of 50 years.

It can't budge when life chances are inextricably linked to the financial fortunes of your parents. The lengthy post I made earlier today is all about that. Society has to find a way of breaking this link. We have to find a way of educating the poorest children in society to the point where they can compete with others more fortunate. It will take several generations to complete, but it can be done.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Social mobility is much more important to you than poverty, isn't it?

Of course. Poverty is a snapshot at a moment in time. Social mobility reflects your ability to get out of poverty.

 

[Clint Planet]

Why is acceptable to cut at the bottom but not the top?

I appreciate it's a semantic issue but the super rich probably haven't got much to cut. If they use private schools and hospitals and so on, then they aren't going to be effected by 'cutting' any public service from them as they don't really depend on them.

Ultimately, though, daylightrobber is asking "Why should the poor foot the bill?" (not that I even accept that private healthcare and education somehow benefit the poor)

And, really, why should they?

 

[Clint Planet]

Of course. Poverty is a snapshot at a moment in time. Social mobility reflects your ability to get out of poverty.

Wow. I'm actually speechless.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It can't budge when life chances are inextricably linked to the financial fortunes of your parents. The lengthy post I made earlier today is all about that. Society has to find a way of breaking this link. We have to find a way of educating the poorest children in society to the point where they can compete with others more fortunate. It will take several generations to complete, but it can be done.

And I still don't understand that link. Every parent in the country gets health visiting services, where everything from breastfeeding to reading to your child should be promoted. Every child in the country gets a place in a nursery school. Every child in the country gets around about 2,000 hours of schooling by highly qualified professionals, with more available should they stay on into sixth form.

And that's before you get into universities, of which we have some of the finest in the world (at which poor students would receive at least £7,300 in funding in addition to their student loan), or the fact that British kids automatically speak the main commercial language of the world, or the fact that we have some of the finest museums in the world, many of which are free, or that the vast quantity of information available online just so happens to be in your mother tongue.

I dare say that amount of opportunity is the envy of many children around the world. What more is it that's needed to break the link?

 

[roydo]

but it can be done

But not only by the state/government.

I know we have a few teachers on here, and I would hazard a guess that kids from poorer backgrounds that have thrived, cos loads have, will all look back to an inspirational teacher that saw their talent, fired an interest, went the extra with them, that made a massive contribution to their progress.

Point I am badly making is that it is pointless lobbing stats and targets about, adding a few bob to child care or some other reasonably unimportant benefit when the fire has to come from somewhere. The parents. A teacher. The kid themselves.

Whilst I am in no way poor, I did not come from a monied background, nor did my Dad, nor did my lad, but we all seem to have done ok without any particular financial advantage.

Vote Roydo.lol

 

[The Esk]

Poverty is a snapshot at a moment in time.

Who with a little cannot be content
Endures an everlasting punishment

Robert Herrick (Hesperides 1648)

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Ultimately, though, daylightrobber is asking "Why should the poor foot the bill?" (not that I even accept that private healthcare and education somehow benefit the poor)

And, really, why should they?

I thought I explained that at the time, but in case I didn't. The state has a huge deficit, which is a tax on the young and is currently to the tune of about what we spend on schools each and every year (and getting larger).

We could try soaking the rich, the bankers and all of that. They tried that in France and they're in a much worse place than we are. As tempting as it no doubt sounds, it would appear that it isn't really all that effective. Maybe we'd be different? Who knows. We may get to find out in a few months time.

We could try spreading the pain evenly across government departments, but that didn't happen because certain areas were ring fenced. You can argue the rights or wrongs of that, but it is what it is.

That leaves the remaining departments having to bare a disproportionate brunt of getting the states finances back into order.