Current Affairs 2025

[Onelife]

Many of these families are totally dysfunctional and it is the children who suffer from their neglect. The extra money will not go on the children but will indeed be spent on alcohol, cigarettes, bingo, tattoos, Netflix, anything but child welfare. These people should be discouraged from their chosen lifestyle of a life on benefits.

You make a good point

You should stick to the gee gees

[Stephen]

590077158_122211805088314548_7132755679003679580_n.jpg

[Onelife]

Someone should push the stuipd sod over the bridge

The fact still remains that the majority of children living in poverty live in the deprived areas of the country, Burnley, Blackpool, Wolverhampton, Middlesbrough to name a few, These areas have lost their industrial bases and have through lack of investment find themselves with few job opportunities, with the few that do find employment having to do part time or seasonal low paid jobs. I agree that parenting comes with responsibility and popping them out expecting the state to feed and clothe them needs addressing.

Oop's sorry Stephen, I didn't realise the Gentleman was talking about the Royal family.

[david63]

the majority of children living in poverty live in the deprived areas

What is the definition of poverty in this context?

[Onelife]

Hi David, I can think of several definitions that describe subsistence living/poverty but I’m presuming you are looking for one where you can make an argument against?

If I had to give one that best describes poverty it would be one where parent/s with children are subsidised with bennifits in order that they can put food on the table, while knowing the food they can afford and are feeding their children will have health implications, not only through their childrens childhood but also into adulthood.

[oldbluefox]

I believe I am thinking of children in different circumstances to those living in those towns which have lost their industry. Many of those who have lost their jobs have found alternative work. However there are some who have decided they can live just as well on benefit even when there are jobs available. Why pay for food at the supermarket when you can get it at the food bank? There are plenty of job vacancies where I live but businesses are finding it difficult to recruit irrespective of whether it is skilled or unskilled work. Benefit in such circumstances should not be an alternative.

Having worked in Blackpool for 20 years I came across many very dysfunctional families. Many of these families arrive from outside Blackpool attracted by the drug scene, bright lights and abundant cheap accommodation in HMOs (houses of multiple occupation ie old boarding houses). Invariably they were on the run from the police and authorities and stayed just for a few months until police etc caught up with them then they were off again. One family arrived and we had to call in social services to sort out who was the father to which child!!! These 'apartments' had facilities shared with paedophiles, drug and alcohol addicts. Many of the doors were kicked in. The children slept on bare mattresses in their school clothes (which we had provided), black bin bags at the windows in place of curtains. All their worldly possessions were contained in black bin bags. Children rolled up to school at all hours having got their siblings up and dressed and a cup of water for breakfast. We provided them with breakfast before the government thought of it. Any money these families received went on drink, drugs, tattoos, gambling etc but certainly not on the children. These were truly deprived children and money is not the answer. Perhaps you will understand why I get annoyed when I see MPs cheering and lauding the abolition of the two child benefit cap when I know nothing will be done about truly deprived children or their depraved parents.
Starmer and Reeves have no idea.
Rant over

[towny44]

Hi David, I can think of several definitions that describe subsistence living/poverty but I’m presuming you are looking for one where you can make an argument against?

If I had to give one that best describes poverty it would be one where parent/s with children are subsidised with bennifits in order that they can put food on the table, while knowing the food they can afford and are feeding their children will have health implications, not only through their childrens childhood but also into adulthood.

That has been proven untrue many times, the healthiest food is always the cheapest, fresh meat and veg is healthier and cheaper per kg than processed foods. Unfortunately the poorest families generally do not know how to cook fresh food and think it takes too much time, although that's not necessarily true.
My mother was a war widow who brought up myself and my two older sisters on a war widows pension, supplemented by a part time office cleaners job. But she managed to keep us well fed and dressed and we received no extra benefits.

[oldbluefox]

If you're not at work you have plenty of time to prepare good healthy meals at a fraction of the price of ready made meals or takeaways. Unfortunately if you do that you will be missing daytime Netflix television.

I was born just after the war. We didn't have much and rationing was in force. However we were always well fed with plain simple food but warming and nourishing. Dad used to make toys for us at Christmas and the house was so cold one winter the hot water bottle froze up. In the garden we grew vegetables and our clothes were patched and mended but always clean.
I still don't consider we were deprived, a term which is misused nowadays. However I was fortunate in having parents who worked hard to ensure we were properly looked after. Children first, that was the difference.

[Onelife]

Statistically the majority of benefit claimants are in work…albeit low paid work… I blame school teachers who have failed to teach 4/5-year-old how to prepare a meal for their hard-working parents…they might have lost a few fingers using the can opener but needs be. Reminiscing about the olden days brings back many happy memories for me, even though we were poor, we like most of the kids on my council estate had their mothers at home keeping house when returning home from school….how times have changed.

[Portsmouth]

I blame school teachers who have failed to teach 4/5-year-old how to prepare a meal for their hard-working parents…they might have lost a few fingers using the can opener but needs be.

That's so funny... Of course it's the school teachers fault

[Stephen]

If you work you get nothing.

If you don’t you get everything.

[david63]

I’m presuming you are looking for one where you can make an argument against?

I am not looking for any argument but opening a discussion.

Even the government admits that there is no universally accepted definition of poverty in the UK (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... s/sn07096/) but defines one of the more commonly used measures as being based on household disposable income, but there is no definition of "household".

There two basics that man needs, and always has needed, to survive - food and shelter (with clothing being added later) and I think that we can all agree that those needs are constrained by income, therefore the government's starting point is valid. However the issue that comes from this is not necessarily the level of income but how that income is used.

If I had to give one that best describes poverty it would be one where parent/s with children are subsidised with bennifits in order that they can put food on the table, while knowing the food they can afford and are feeding their children will have health implications, not only through their childrens childhood but also into adulthood.

Your definition above could apply to any household irrespective of level of income due to the manner in which the household spend their money and what their priorities and needs are. It can be a reasonable argument that travel costs to get to work are of a higher priority than, say, clothing - but that argument could be made for any number of other costs.

The basic problem is that we treat the condition rather than the cause which is easier said than done as, in many cases, the cause has been in existence for decades for a multiple of reasons. There was an attempt, which was partly successful, to address this problem some 75 years ago with the introduction of the Welfare State but that tried to encompass all things for all man.

What is wrong with our benefits system is that basically it has a "one size fits all" approach - give them the money and let them sort it themselves whereas a more targeted approach would be better all round - if transport costs are a major factor then give them free, or at least discounted, transport.

There is nothing new about poverty, which is a somewhat relative term anyway, as it has always been around and probably always will be unless we adopt a communist approach where the state provides everything, and even that has never eliminated poverty.

[towny44]

Keith, the current percentage of workers claiming universal credit is 33%, so the majority are actually unemployed.

[Onelife]

Hi David, I align myself with much of what you say, in particular that of reducing/scraping public transport costs for those seeking employment in more retentive areas… and then keeping it for those who find employment but are on low wages.

I’m perhaps a little more sympathetic to those claiming benefit as I myself was drawing benefits for several years while being unable to work.

I think we have covered many of the reasons why our welfare system is costing the country billions and I fully understand the animosity it causes to those of us who feel it is being handed out too freely.

I of course don’t agree giving benefits to those who don’t try to find work but in reality, most won’t qualify for benefits unless they are actively seeking work.

Now I’m probably not going to explain what I’m trying to say very clearly but here goes…. I think the biggest problem that requires people to seek benefits apart from the obvious ones, sickness, lack of work etc is how we evaluate work and the value we place on it. I consider myself a reasonably intelligent chap but lack certain skill sets that would I suppose have given me better opportunities in life, hence the reason I have always done manual work. But this is where I believe the whole system breaks down to one where we have created a working environment where wage packets are disproportionate to the value we place on different types of work…. the working environment is one where each job contributes to the wellbeing of society, indeed some of the poorly paid jobs turn the wheels that keep the country moving. I personally would like to live in a society where you work hard for a fair day pay, and not one where some work equally hard but get extortionate wage packets despite them having sacrificed much to get into that position…. I’m not suggesting that there shouldn’t be varying wage structures but they shouldn’t in my opinion be overly disproportionate to the value that should be placed on those jobs of different skill sets, whether that be through better life opportunities, education or intelligence.

Anyway, I’m out of here…I’ve had a winner.

[Onelife]

Watching Laura Kuenssberg this morning I thought Racheal Reaves gave a very competent explanation as to the decisions she made in her budget. In complete contrast one has to ask how long Kemi Badenoch has left as the leader of the opposition?

[david63]

Racheal Reaves gave a very competent explanation as to the decisions she made in her budget

But you would not expect anything else - she is hardly going to say that she cocked it up

one has to ask how long Kemi Badenoch has left as the leader of the opposition?

As long as it takes to find a suitable alternative as she has always been seen to be an interim leader - the big problem is that currently there are no others. My guess is that the Conservatives are waiting for a by-election that they hope to win where they can put forward somebody to take over the leadership.

[oldbluefox]

On Trevor Phillips show this morning it was mentioned that in her book “The Women who Made Modern Economics “ there were 12 examples of plagiarism, that she had lied on her CV that she was an economist where as she didn’t work in accounts she was in Customer Services and now this little charade. She seems very good at telling bare faced lies with a straight face and covering her tracks. I’m surprised with that track record anybody believes anything she says.

[Onelife]

On Trevor Phillips show this morning it was mentioned that in her book “The Women who Made Modern Economics “ there were 12 examples of plagiarism, that she had lied on her CV that she was an economist where as she didn’t work in accounts she was in Customer Services and now this little charade. She seems very good at telling bare faced lies with a straight face and covering her tracks. I’m surprised with that track record anybody believes anything she says.

Hi Foxy, my research would suggest that she was an economist but not for the bank she had stated or the period she had stated.

If she can improve her memory a little, then I think she has the making of a good Chancellor, but accept that you and many others think differently.

[towny44]

There's no such thing as a good Labour Chancellor, or indeed a good Labour govt. An old work colleague of mine, who was a socialist, said his father's view of politics was that under a Laour govt wealth distribution was more even, but under a Conservative govt, everyone was better off, and I have yet to see that disproved.

[Onelife]

There's no such thing as a good Labour Chancellor, or indeed a good Labour govt. An old work colleague of mine, who was a socialist, said his father's view of politics was that under a Laour govt wealth distribution was more even, but under a Conservative govt, everyone was better off, and I have yet to see that disproved.

Well, for the sake of our country let’s both hope that Labour have learnt from their mistakes while the Conservatives now have time to reflect on their mistakes.

[oldbluefox]

You’ve got to give it to our Rachael. In her first interview she said she had taken 450,000 children out of poverty. An hour later it was half a million. How long until it’s a million?

[david63]

You’ve got to give it to our Rachael. In her first interview she said she had taken 450,000 children out of poverty. An hour later it was half a million. How long until it’s a million?

That's inflation for you

[Onelife]

You’ve got to give it to our Rachael. In her first interview she said she had taken 450,000 children out of poverty. An hour later it was half a million. How long until it’s a million?

Perhaps she’s none too good with her maths…Oh! sh*t what am I saying

[towny44]

I know my view will be unpopular, but how can the latest Hillsborough report say that the fans had absolutely nothing to do with it, when their rowdy pushing and shoving outside the ground was the main reason the gates were opened, allowing the overcrowding to happen.

[david63]

I know my view will be unpopular, but how can the latest Hillsborough report say that the fans had absolutely nothing to do with it, when their rowdy pushing and shoving outside the ground was the main reason the gates were opened, allowing the overcrowding to happen.

I haven't read the report so I have no idea what is in it other than what is being reported.

My understanding is that this latest report is about how the police (South Yorkshire Police mainly) handled the incident on that day, leading up to the the day and subsequently and it is a pretty damming report from what I have read.