God Save The Queen

[Duries Air Freshener]

13 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Seems pretty compelling evidence that people make much worse life choices when the Tories are in charge. Funny that.

When much of the population are used to living unfairly on other peoples money, then that money is cut, then there’ll undoubtedly be a correlation.

[Moomintroll]

11 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Seems pretty compelling evidence that people make much worse life choices when the Tories are in charge. Funny that.

They might want to try & vote us in every now and then, I know Sir Keir is a bit of a damp rag but bloody hell, we will at least try and help people if we can shake off the anti-Semitic North London mob.

[Duries Air Freshener]

21 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

The Trussell Trust (who know about foodbanks) provide stats.

https://www.trusselltrust.org/news-and-blog/latest-stats/end-year-stats/

If you prefer pictures, heres a graph going back to 2010 and beyond 

 https://www.statista.com/statistics/382695/uk-foodbank-users/

 

So, aye it is the tories to blame. 

That doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said.

[williemillersmoustache]

25 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

The Trussell Trust (who know about foodbanks) provide stats.

https://www.trusselltrust.org/news-and-blog/latest-stats/end-year-stats/

If you prefer pictures, heres a graph going back to 2010 and beyond 

 https://www.statista.com/statistics/382695/uk-foodbank-users/

 

So, aye it is the tories to blame. 

So the premise is that people have become dramatically more stupid and lazy since the Tories took power in 2010.

The number of people replying to this weapon isn't really helping the cause lads.  

[Suspect Device]

5 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

When much of the population are used to living unfairly on other peoples money, then that money is cut, then there’ll undoubtedly be a correlation.

You're right that some of the population are living unfairly on other people's money but I think you might have it the wrong way round. 

Society in general is set up to funnel the money made by the poorer in society into the hands of the wealthier.

[Left Back]

2 minutes ago, williemillersmoustache said:

So the premise is that people have become dramatically more stupid and lazy since the Tories took power in 2010.

The number of people replying to this weapon isn't really helping the cause lads.  

Voted them in didn’t they?

[Bully Wee Villa]

10 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

When much of the population are used to living unfairly on other peoples money, then that money is cut, then there’ll undoubtedly be a correlation.

The irony of posting this in the "God Save the Queen" thread 

[williemillersmoustache]

2 minutes ago, Left Back said:

Voted them in didn’t they?

Skirting around the various different definitions of "They" the number of people who knew what they were voting for and yet are surprised by their faces being eaten by leopards is certainly at an all time high. 

[Duries Air Freshener]

46 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

The irony of posting this in the "God Save the Queen" thread 

I'd argue that she doesn't live unfairly on other people's money at all.

[Duries Air Freshener]

50 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

You're right that some of the population are living unfairly on other people's money but I think you might have it the wrong way round. 

Society in general is set up to funnel the money made by the poorer in society into the hands of the wealthier.

Not how I see it SD, but I can see how one would draw that conclusion.

Although I'm tempted to just back down and accept your view, given all the philosophy you're read lately

[Bully Wee Villa]

3 minutes ago, Duries Air Freshener said:

I'd argue that she doesn't live unfairly on other people's money at all.

Your argument would be nonsense then. Her money is taken from taxpayers, and from land that her ancestors have stolen from the general populace.

[Duries Air Freshener]

5 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Your argument would be nonsense then. Her money is taken from taxpayers, and from land that her ancestors have stolen from the general populace.

It is far more complicated than that.

[Suspect Device]

Just now, Duries Air Freshener said:

Not how I see it SD, but I can see how one would draw that conclusion.

Although I'm tempted to just back down and accept your view, given all the philosophy you're read lately

I'll tell you how I got on with my end of year assessment topic on Equality. I reckon I made a good case for less inequality leading to a more cohesive society.

In my Utopian vision, the people at the top recognise that they did not get there simply by hard work alone. The whole of society helped them achieve their wealth and therefore there is a moral duty on them to pay some back.

Also, the people at the bottom would see a way to better themselves. At the moment the opportunity for social mobility that I experienced is gradually eroding due to successive government's failures. IMO.

I'm not a massive fan of Marxism but from each/to each coupled with REAL equality of opportunity was what I argued for.

[Clockwork]

When you take into consideration the catch-all nature of choices/decisions, as well as my use of the term ‘largely’, then it isn’t lazy and incorrect at all.
Feel free to give a counter argument though (no sniggering at the back)

There are so many contributory factors that individuals and families have little or no control over. People don’t ‘choose’ low wages, job instability, high inflation, ill-health, bereavement, extortionate rents, delays in an increasingly complex benefit system, punishing rises in the cost of heating a home, the pressure of unpaid carer responsibilities, damaging relationship breakdown (domestic violence for example).... the list is endless. People don’t ‘decide’ that this is their lot in life.

[Lurkst]

Headline news on the BBC that 10,000 people are attending a huge pageant in London. There was a bigger crowd at Killie v Arbroath!

 

[Dawson Park Boy]

10 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

I'll tell you how I got on with my end of year assessment topic on Equality. I reckon I made a good case for less inequality leading to a more cohesive society.

In my Utopian vision, the people at the top recognise that they did not get there simply by hard work alone. The whole of society helped them achieve their wealth and therefore there is a moral duty on them to pay some back.

Also, the people at the bottom would see a way to better themselves. At the moment the opportunity for social mobility that I experienced is gradually eroding due to successive government's failures. IMO.

I'm not a massive fan of Marxism but from each/to each coupled with REAL equality of opportunity was what I argued for.

I would say that there’s far less inequality now than in my day which was a good long time ago.

I was raised in a council scheme, as were most people then, with only a few going  to university and it was tough to get on. Even when progressing mortgages were severely rationed with sky high rates - I recall 15% at one point.

Nowadays, around 50% go to university with a huge variety of courses to chose from. Interest rates are low but property is expensive, I do acknowledge.

Regarding paying back to society, tax rates are progressive with the better off paying considerably more than the lesser off.

I just don’t see your point.

Opportunity is there for those want to take it.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Just now, Lurkst said:

Headline news on the BBC that 10,000 people are attending a huge pageant in London. There was a bigger crowd at Killie v Arbroath!

 

Derek McInnes and Dick Campbell at both events waving their wee flegs.

[Duries Air Freshener]

28 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

I'll tell you how I got on with my end of year assessment topic on Equality. I reckon I made a good case for less inequality leading to a more cohesive society.

In my Utopian vision, the people at the top recognise that they did not get there simply by hard work alone. The whole of society helped them achieve their wealth and therefore there is a moral duty on them to pay some back.

Also, the people at the bottom would see a way to better themselves. At the moment the opportunity for social mobility that I experienced is gradually eroding due to successive government's failures. IMO.

I'm not a massive fan of Marxism but from each/to each coupled with REAL equality of opportunity was what I argued for.

That's a healthy, wholesome, utopian vision, especially in those at the top feeling they should pay some back.

For the wealthy to do that, we'd either to have to force them, incentivise them, make them feel obligated or shame them.  All complicated things to do.

If only we had an existing moral code that'd make people want to help their fellow man and not think accumulating wealth leads to happiness **cough** Christianity **cough**

I agree about successive government failures with regards to social mobility.  The Tory obsession with unchecked, free-market capitalism has a lot to answer for.  People should be able to buy a house at a young age rather than spend years saving for a deposit for an overpriced house, all the while paying overpriced rent to a landlord.  The Tories could easily change all of this, although I don't blame it all on them.. there are many other factors at play.

Edited June 5, 2022 by Duries Air Freshener

[Duries Air Freshener]

15 minutes ago, Clockwork said:

There are so many contributory factors that individuals and families have little or no control over. People don’t ‘choose’ low wages, job instability, high inflation, ill-health, bereavement, extortionate rents, delays in an increasingly complex benefit system, punishing rises in the cost of heating a home, the pressure of unpaid carer responsibilities, damaging relationship breakdown (domestic violence for example).... the list is endless. People don’t ‘decide’ that this is their lot in life.

I agree with your take on some of that list but not all.

I also feel there are decisions people can take to mitigate these risks.

[Suspect Device]

22 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

I would say that there’s far less inequality now than in my day which was a good long time ago.

I was raised in a council scheme, as were most people then, with only a few going  to university and it was tough to get on. Even when progressing mortgages were severely rationed with sky high rates - I recall 15% at one point.

Nowadays, around 50% go to university with a huge variety of courses to chose from. Interest rates are low but property is expensive, I do acknowledge.

Regarding paying back to society, tax rates are progressive with the better off paying considerably more than the lesser off.

I just don’t see your point.

Opportunity is there for those want to take it.

You might not see the inequality but if you look outside your small world and into the statistics, inequality has been growing and is increasingly exponential. For instance in the 50s theratio between the average wage was about 1/20 the average CEO. These days that has increased to a ridiculous 1/100 and sometimes more.

Have CEOs really been so much better? 

 

50% of the population  going yo uni means nothing if the wages do not reflect the education at the end of 4 years and a mountain of debt.

 

The mortgage rate is lower now but the house prices are higher so no net benefit.

Edited June 5, 2022 by Suspect Device