Cameron Constituency Food Bank Faces Closure As Local Economy Stalls

ILW

ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »

Well I can think of a few:

Scientific research particularly pharma is probably one - they need to go
abroad.

Made redundant senior executives is another - over qualified and over skilled which is why they get mega payoff's as the probability of them finding work again at their level is often quite remote.

Nuclear engineers might be another group since this sector has been run down over the years to next to nothing or sold off to the French.

A senior exec that cannot make a go of a small business of their own cannot be that hot.

BobQ

Fella wrote: »

They sold themselves to the only bidder. By all accounts Brown couldn't even bring himself to be civil to Clegg when he rung him up.

Unfortunately for the Tories the Libs have demonstrated just how treacherous they are. They went into partnership with the Tories purely to get a taste of power even though in pretty much every respect they are far more closely alligned with Labour. Most of the time you'd be forgiven for thinking that the Libs are in opposition, not in coalition, the way they criticise every attempt to reign in spending.
.

I think I agree with most of that, except they had an alternative to selling to the only bidder. They could have held to their principles (ie the ones their voters had endorsed) and dealt with the Tories as an independent party. Instead they sold their principles in return for sniping from within and (as you say) the taste of power.

I suspect that after the next election they will get a fair number of votes but about 10 seats.

BobQ

ILW wrote: »

Tell me any group with talent, gumption and work ethic that are excluded from making a good living in the UK.
Most just prefer to make excuses.

Nurses and Teachers, do not make a good living in the UK however dedicated they are to their profession. Indeed these days they get berrated for being public sector workers too.

Engineers are recognised in many countries for the contribution they make to the economy and are well rewarded. In the UK engineering is not regarded by many as being a worthy profession.

dtsazza

RevolvingDoor wrote: »

I worry about the people on this forum sometimes as they seem to live in a bubble and have no clue what the less fortunate people are going through.

This, to me, is the major distinction between the two points of view in this argument (or in fact, anything to do with welfare).

Have the people in question actually been unfortunate, in that their position has been brought about by factors completely outside of their control, which they could not possibly mitigate?

Or is their position due to their own decisions and actions, in that if they had made better choices in the past, then they'd be better off now?

If it's the former, then I agree that this is unfair and we need to address the mechanics behind it. But if it's the latter, then arguably this is fair; facing the consequences of your actions is an important part of life, even if those consequences aren't great. And in fact, I'd go say far as to say that to try and change this situation through outside means would be wrong.

dtsazza

BertieUK wrote: »

Would be nice a member of Government would spend a few days with these people, then they may might just put their brains into gear before opening their mouths.

I think we could all do with that, to be honest. As above, the important thing is what steps lead to someone being homeless, and to what extent it's a reasonable outcome.

Since I generally see our society as one where good actions lead to good outcomes (and one with a fantastically generous safety net), I tend to assume that anyone who does become homeless does so as a result of their own serious mistakes. People with the opposite viewpoint as me seem to have an equal and opposite view, that no matter what these people did they would have ended up homeless due to some unfair societal mechanics.

It's doubtless as simple as that, so I agree; having some actual concrete stories to mull over would be great in order to distinguish between the two cases.

dtsazza

kabayiri wrote: »

Anyone, perhaps.

Everyone, impossible.

The structure of our society needs people at all layers. The people behind Wonga and all the other PDL companies need people who are poor/poorly informed/desperate to make them their money.

There has always been a poor chunk in our society and there always will.

I don't think that's a fundamental rule, though - to my mind, you're mixing up cause and effect.

As I've said before in different contexts, if everyone "succeeded" this would result in society changing quite dramatically as a result of the different balance of forces.

For example, if there were as many potential doctors as there were potential cleaners, then the pay gap would disappear (as it's governed by relative supply to demand). And along with that, any stigmas related to the lower pay would also disappear. Anyone choosing to be a cleaner rather than a doctor would equally be doing so in order to perform a valued service to society.

It is, definitely, a very different situation to what we have now. But you're talking about a massive change as well, to bring this about. While we will always need cleaners for example, it is wrong to say that the people who do this would always be poor or from a "lower layer".

(And of course, assuming that this situation involves everyone being sensible, PDL companies as at present would not be able to exist as no-one would use them. Besides, even if people did have occasional unforeseen cashflow issues without savings to cover them - the high standards of this society would mean extremely low default rates and hence low interest rates. It's extremely different.)

pqrdef

dtsazza wrote: »

Have the people in question actually been unfortunate, in that their position has been brought about by factors completely outside of their control, which they could not possibly mitigate?

Or is their position due to their own decisions and actions, in that if they had made better choices in the past, then they'd be better off now?

What a strange distinction. What if their own decisions were unfortunate?

Most of us find with hindsight that we could have made better choices in the past. But our crystal balls weren't working at the time, so we just had to make our best guess.

And if A makes what turns out to be the right choice and B makes what turns out to be the wrong choice, it doesn't mean that A is smarter than B. Maybe they both tossed a coin.

Moreover, people can only operate within their own limitations. We could all do more if we had what it takes.

But this kind of analysis is far too simplistic to account for how people get where they are. Maybe I should have retrained for a new career, but then, maybe I'd have got knocked down by a bus on the way to a better job.

pqrdef

dtsazza wrote: »

For example, if there were as many potential doctors as there were potential cleaners

There are lots of potential doctors, but the profession restricts the number of training places, so that we don't train more doctors than we can afford to employ at current rates of pay.

chewmylegoff

BobQ wrote: »

Nurses and Teachers, do not make a good living in the UK however dedicated they are to their profession. Indeed these days they get berrated for being public sector workers too.

Engineers are recognised in many countries for the contribution they make to the economy and are well rewarded. In the UK engineering is not regarded by many as being a worthy profession.

Bog-standard nurses and teachers can both achieve a reasonable standard of living in the UK (including security in retirement with decent pension). People who make it to the top of those professions do quite nicely - head teachers, for instance, aren't exactly poorly paid.

DecentLivingWage

Seems Cameron is starting to get very twitchy about being photographed enjoying the high life while children live off Xmas handouts - papers saying he was nowhere to be seen at Chipping Norton hunt!