[Politics] Surprising Allardyce press conference

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

In defence of Sam, who knows what money he gives way in private to this or that good cause. As he was a working class lad I would imagine he works the system for his own and his family's gain like we all would, but what else he does for others is his business. All we have to go on to measure him by is what he has recently said. Its a **** of a lot better than 'there is no such thing as society, just individual men and women and their families'.

 

[Dick Head]

Some of the principal reasons that people have to go to foodbanks:
- They have more kids than they can afford to feed
- Women have babies with unsuitable men, then split up, then (guess what?) fall on hard times. They need to be a lot more certain about their husbands before they start having kids.
- They spend their food money on feeding their dogs. All the poorest families seem to have mutts.
- They have the latest smartphones, tablets, an enormous TV in their living room, Sky ... and then wonder why there's no money left to feed the family.
- They throw their money away on gambling.

And then there's the small percentage who genuinely have fallen on hard times.

 

[larus]

The very wealthy already pay a record share of the total tax burden. The top 1% already pay nearly 30% of all tax and that's treble what it was in the 70s. There's also a long-standing relationship between tax rates set and taxes collected. If you tax too high, the rich just leave the country. That's what has happened in France. Rather than tax individuals, I'd like to see corporations take a slightly bigger hit.

That’s the biggest problem. The corporation tax rate and some governments (e.g. Luxembourg under Juncker) setting up dubious arrangements to allow multi-nationals to pay ultra-low tax rates and then funnel the profits via these ‘head-office’ companies.

Then the lefties want to tax medium rate earners at 50-60%, rather than the real problem which is the elite. I think 40% top-rate tax is more than enough, but the problem is that the super-rich don’t pay the 40%, as it’s all in offshore tax vehicles.

 

[portlock seagull]

That is mostly a load of pants, sorry

Actually it’s not. There are a lot of people who cannot afford children and yet have 3,4,5 with different partners who are irresponsible and effectively disappear. A good friend of mine is one such example and admits as much, relies on benefits, elderly parents and siblings. Needless to say all the kids have a myriad of problems made worse by not having a strong and stable family environment so social services (more cost!) are continually supporting. It’s quite exhausting listening to her life let alone living and we’ve helped out too on many occassions just to ensure they eat and the kids can have what many of us take for granted as normal. So sorry, you’re the one talking pants. There are plenty of people essentially choosing poverty by poor life choices and that was the point the poster making. At least we now live in a society where no one dies of starvation or slum related epidemics. In the old days poverty really did kill the poor, especially infants.

 

[Blue3]

This Tory Government is driving those who need help the most into poverty what a nasty bunch they are only interested in their own kind

 

[Eeyore]

In defence of Sam, who knows what money he gives way in private to this or that good cause. As he was a working class lad I would imagine he works the system for his own and his family's gain like we all would, but what else he does for others is his business. All we have to go on to measure him by is what he has recently said. Its a **** of a lot better than 'there is no such thing as society, just individual men and women and their families'.

I often wonder what she was really trying to say. We'll never know now.

I wouldn't launch an assault on Big Sam on account of him wanting for nothing. I guess there was a sincerity in his words. My only issue is the automatic elevation of someone with profile over others when they make this sort of statement. That said, if it achieves a wave of conscious thought and makes a difference then good for him.

 

[maffew]

Actually it’s not. There are a lot of people who cannot afford children and yet have 3,4,5 with different partners who are irresponsible and effectively disappear. A good friend of mine is one such example and admits as much, relies on benefits, elderly parents and siblings. Needless to say all the kids have a myriad of problems made worse by not having a strong and stable family environment so social services (more cost!) are continually supporting. It’s quite exhausting listening to her life let alone living and we’ve helped out too on many occassions just to ensure they eat and the kids can have what many of us take for granted as normal. So sorry, you’re the one talking pants. There are plenty of people essentially choosing poverty by poor life choices and that was the point the poster making. At least we now live in a society where no one dies of starvation or slum related epidemics. In the old days poverty really did kill the poor, especially infants.

Would you say that its only a small minority of people who need/depend on these services and the vast majority of people are like your good friend?

 

[portlock seagull]

About time you got back to your day job - that daily mail won't edit itself

Ah, the socialist workers default slur. It’s a bit cliche. Come on, you’re better than that!

 

[goldstone]

This Tory Government is driving those who need help the most into poverty what a nasty bunch they are only interested in their own kind

So there's never any poverty under Labour governments then? Amazing.

 

[Eeyore]

Some of the principal reasons that people have to go to foodbanks:
- They have more kids than they can afford to feed
- Women have babies with unsuitable men, then split up, then (guess what?) fall on hard times. They need to be a lot more certain about their husbands before they start having kids.
- They spend their food money on feeding their dogs. All the poorest families seem to have mutts.
- They have the latest smartphones, tablets, an enormous TV in their living room, Sky ... and then wonder why there's no money left to feed the family.
- They throw their money away on gambling.

And then there's the small percentage who genuinely have fallen on hard times.

Sounds like a prelude to that famous sentence in Keith Joseph's Edgbaston speech. Downgrading of human stock and all that.

However, before I (perhaps unfairly) accuse you of being a reincarnation of Alfred Sherman, it would only be fair to ask for your solution to the problem.

 

[portlock seagull]

Would you say that its only a small minority of people who need/depend on these services and the vast majority of people are like your good friend?

I guess it depends on a huge amount of definitions, criteria and perspectives. I’m a bit old fashioned, cautious perhaps, dull even! But I really do think if you clearly can’t afford the first two kids, you’ve got baliffs outside, court summons on the doormat and trying to make ends meet with £20...that having another child in your forties ain’t the most sensible decision in the circumstances. Still, you do what you can to help. Can’t turn clock back!

 

[GT49er]

Would you say that its only a small minority of people who need/depend on these services and the vast majority of people are like your good friend?

I would say it's a minority that chooses benefit scrounging lifestyles, more kids than they've ever thought about how to bring them up, etc. - but that, I admit, is anecdotal - I have no actual figures about how many of the poor are deserving poor and how many are undeserving. Unfortunately it is patently true that there are people like #Portlock Seagull's friend, and this tends to colour the view of many towards all the poor.
It's the same dilemma when trying to distinguish between genuine homeless and professional beggars {who do exist, and make a decent living out of it, and go home after a hard days begging to quite reasonable accommodation} - yes, there are some of those too - I don't know what the percentages are though. But it's the same thing though - a minority give the rest a bad name.
And no, I don't know the answers. Wish somebody did!

 

[1066familyman]

Ah, the socialist workers default slur. It’s a bit cliche. Come on, you’re better than that!

And the old... feckless poor... argument isn't a cliché?

Come on, you're better than that!

 

[GT49er]

A splendid advert for the abolition of the thumbs down option!

 

[beorhthelm]

In defence of Sam, who knows what money he gives way in private to this or that good cause. As he was a working class lad I would imagine he works the system for his own and his family's gain like we all would, but what else he does for others is his business. All we have to go on to measure him by is what he has recently said. Its a **** of a lot better than 'there is no such thing as society, just individual men and women and their families'.

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

that quote in full context... would you disagree if someone else said it?

 

[brightn'ove]

The very wealthy already pay a record share of the total tax burden. The top 1% already pay nearly 30% of all tax and that's treble what it was in the 70s. There's also a long-standing relationship between tax rates set and taxes collected. If you tax too high, the rich just leave the country. That's what has happened in France. Rather than tax individuals, I'd like to see corporations take a slightly bigger hit.

The top 1% earn more money than ever before so paying record amount of tax isn’t really a surprise.

 

[BadFish]

Some of the principal reasons that people have to go to foodbanks:
- They have more kids than they can afford to feed
- Women have babies with unsuitable men, then split up, then (guess what?) fall on hard times. They need to be a lot more certain about their husbands before they start having kids.
- They spend their food money on feeding their dogs. All the poorest families seem to have mutts.
- They have the latest smartphones, tablets, an enormous TV in their living room, Sky ... and then wonder why there's no money left to feed the family.
- They throw their money away on gambling.

And then there's the small percentage who genuinely have fallen on hard times.

Would you like to buy a bridge?

 

[BadFish]

trickle down economics clearly doesn't work.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

There's always been food banks but it must be humiliating for the poor sods that rely on them.

Always being how long? This confuses me a bit.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

thats a thing, they've always been there. the name and organisations running them have changed, the uptake has changed in recent years because economics. people run out of money because of circumstance, the state system doesn't fit immediate needs because inertia and bureacracy, so something fills the need. if it wasnt food banks it would be a state run alternative "emergency food parcel" or some such.

So basically you are saying this has gone on forever and only now makes news space?