We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Cameron Constituency Food Bank Faces Closure As Local Economy Stalls
Comments
-
The three parties that are the political voices in our country, with one of them hoping to win the next General Election, remind me of an old Irish joke whereby the condemned man is placed in the centre of a circle and all the executioners surround him, pointing their guns at the condemned man before they all pull the triggers of their guns at the same time. And destroy everyone.
The condemned man is of course the General Public, that is the feeling the average person in the street is feeling at the moment, we do not have any trust in politics and feel that we are heading in the same direction as this condemned was.0 -
DecentLivingWage wrote: »Labour left the economy at 4% growth! Link to the newspaper report on another thread - will see if I can find!
Which was exactly the same as someone borrowing an additional £1,000 on credit cards every year and deluding themselves that their income had actually gone up by that amount.
Why not stop and think before you post ?No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Yawn. Labour did leave the country in a particularly bad shape. To suggest otherwise is simply myopic.
I have this nagging doubt that things would have be only slightly better under the Conservatives, had they been in power when the GFC occurred.
They would have been riding the wave too. It was an easy game to paper over the real ills of the country. To believe another party wouldn't have feasted on it too is delusional.
All this belt tightening, for some, is so easy with hindsight."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
99% of the population have never visited a food bank. So what is your point?
Are you saying that only people who have had money problems should be allowed to stand for parliament?
Maybe not only but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if many of them they had had money problems. I also wouldn't be surprised if a number haven't got them still.
I do think they should understand what basket of goods costs in relation to income in the real world, especially a pint of milk or a loaf of bread, how to use a prepaid energy card, signing on (in disguise) etc. etc.."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
It is perhaps too harsh to make it a pure distinction. It's more a sliding scale than a dichotomy. But I do stand by the fact that some decisions are better than others, and it's by making better (or worse) decisions that your life become better (or worse).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.
I'm not talking about measuring solely by outcomes, either. Someone who loses their house because they bet it on Red on a game of roulette* and lost, won't get any sympathy from me. But likewise, if they'd bet it on Black and won, I still wouldn't say that it was a good decision or respect them for it - they were foolish to expose themselves to chance, and got away with it this time. The good decision would have been not to risk the house at all.
And since very few things about life are certain, some element of crystal balls does come into it. Who's to say that learning science and maths at school is useful, if you end up becoming a model? Why not just study Romantic Iconography at university instead of mechanical engineering, because both of them may or may not lead to jobs?
To me, life and personal responsibility is about making good decisions that stack the odds in your favour. And those that do make good decisions should legitimately get the rewards of good outcomes, while those who make bad decisions should legitimately get bad outcomes. This isn't just a purely philosophical viewpoint - this is what actually happens. (If you make a bad decision and put your hand in a fire, it will be burned, regardless of what people think ought to happen.)
To suggest anything else is completely abhorrent to me - it's tantamount to saying that all decisions are equally good, or that one's own choices don't matter, which undermines the principles of life itself. So I will always support people being exposed to the natural consequences of their actions, and will resist anything that tries to break that link.
*Consider this as a figurative example - I don't think this is a realistic history of how most people become homeless0 -
Fair enough - I'm assuming that in the long term we don't have organisations keeping things artificially far from their equilibrium point. This seems reasonable as throughout history society has tended to change along with the underlying forces, regardless of Luddite-style movements that try to resist this change (always unsuccessfully, or merely temporarily).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.
Perhaps it would be more precise to say that the equilibrium wages for both cleaners and doctors would be the same. The actual wages could be different if legislation gave rise to distortions for some reason or another, though I'm fairly confident/hopeful that this would not be the case.0 -
I do think the background is very important. If someone came to me personally and asked for help with a rent payment, for example, then it would make all the difference as to whether I helped them or not.RevolvingDoor wrote: »I don't think it makes any difference how the homeless people got to that point in regards to whether they get governmental support and help
Let's say they had the money ready (along with an extra few thousand in a different bank account), but had their accounts temporarily frozen due to a money laundering enquiry. In this case I would be more than happy to help them, as they'd been responsible and the situation was caused by an unlikely occurrence outside of their reasonable control.
But if they didn't have the money because they had poor budgeting abilities, and had spent it all on Playstation games throughout the month, it would be different. In this case, the inability to pay the rent was an obvious consequence of their behaviour - and I would go so far as to say it would be wrong to bail them out. They ought to face the music, to sleep in the bed that they've made.
Some might call this heartless, but I don't believe it could be any other way. You can't have your cake and eat it; you can't spend your rent money and still have the rent paid. If you do fritter the rent money away on other things, then it is only fair and right that you suffer the consequences of doing so.
And I would unsurprisingly want the government to take the exact same approach to charity/assistance. Help those that have been responsible and unfortunate, but don't allow others to spend money on themselves and have their rent covered by the taxpayer.
I would hope that this would be done regardless; it's a different issue in my book. Once you have decided to give help, then it would ideally be given in the most effective way for the individual's situation.it might make a difference to what type of help they receive, eg: some might need support to get onto a drink reduction service or some might need help with a CV and moving back into work.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »I have this nagging doubt that things would have be only slightly better under the Conservatives, had they been in power when the GFC occurred.
They would have been riding the wave too. It was an easy game to paper over the real ills of the country. To believe another party wouldn't have feasted on it too is delusional.
All this belt tightening, for some, is so easy with hindsight.
Completely illogical conclusion. Labour believes in tax and spend, and it also believes that what it sees as "compassion" and "fairness" is more important than sound public finances. This was not the first time that Labour has got the country into very serious financial trouble, and I'd wager that it won't be the last. It's in their DNA. Those who refute this are frankly in denial.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
And I would unsurprisingly want the government to take the exact same approach to charity/assistance. Help those that have been responsible and unfortunate, but don't allow others to spend money on themselves and have their rent covered by the taxpayer.
I don't want to see even more more rough sleepers and children in poverty in our society. Luckily the welfare state, in theory, prevents this type of situation in the majority of cases.0 -
RevolvingDoor wrote: »I don't want to see even more more rough sleepers and children in poverty in our society. Luckily the welfare state, in theory, prevents this type of situation in the majority of cases.
Please give us your definition of poverty ?No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards