What effect has Austerity had on your lives would you say.?
Printable View
What effect has Austerity had on your lives would you say.?
We have had 10 years of austerity by the Tories which has been ideologically driven. They pretend it was because of the Labour government mismanaging the economy, even though it was a world wide recession caused by banks, and they wanted to reduce the debt.
The impact it has on me is privatising the probation service where I work. Moving from a public sector worker to be in the private sector is horrible. They are only interested in profit and have no values. I have seen many experienced workers leave after many years of working in an organisation they loved. The government now have admitted their mistake to this experiment having wasted £500 million.
The criminal justice system under austerity has resulted in losing police officers, less people being charged, courts closing and people who should be in prison released because they are full.
I was also chair of children's charity for 15 years which supported the most vulnerable children in society. The poverty, social deprivation and health needs for these families increased over these last 10 years. We had to close the scheme this year because of lack of funding. These families have to rely on food banks, have debt, and become homeless because of austerity.
Tories are spending now because there is an election and will hope people forget about their past record.
God bless you Master, thank you for admitting that the government wastes money. Here I was thinking you only thought they withheld money, no, no they waste it, yes indeed all governments do it even Trump's government wastes money perhaps/perhaps not at the Executive level, but on the whole, yes they WASTE money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
I look at the Paris Climate Accords, I see America making headway in addressing emissions and I see China saying "We thought we were going to top out a few years ago, but nah, we need to emit more CO2 for the next decade or so" and then I wonder who audits where the funding for this deal goes? Who decides it's being spent right? And isn't it odd how Congressmen can be paid 6 digits but wind up being multimillionaires in a matter of a few years? Isn't it odd how THAT happens? Worth a gander? Worth a discussion? Naaaaaaaaah, just stick to type straight white european males are horrible and all need to die because of the sins of their ancestors.
Yes Master all spot on mate the blame rests with the Tories no doubt.
I work for local authority as you know it has been devastated by cuts.
Education social services to name but a few roads etc the list goes on.
Bloody Tories just renamed cuts as austerity every time they are in power they cut nothing new.
Seems like you lot are dependent on the government providing money to charities....why? Is there no sense of community? Why?
Central Government do not routinely give money to charities. Normally local governments will give grants to local charities. However our Charity never asked for funding from them, we applied to lottery, comic relief, children in need, Lloyds Bank and various Trusts. The voluntary sector, which you may call not for profit organisations, have had their funding cut year on year. They normally provide a service to the community at a more cost effective way than statutory services but they are the first to be cut as it is easier to do.
Well I can't say I understand why ya'll have done things that way, perhaps it's a hand-me-down from Kings and Queens providing crumbs for their subjects I honestly don't know. But I do know that one of the Founding Fathers of America, James Madison said "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government" and I agree with that fully and I participate in charitable giving and service whenever I can...I think it's good for the community and it's something the extremely wealthy could use to endear themselves to the community rather than draw the ire of.
Al Capone ran soup kitchens (when he wasn't running booze and prostitutes and murdering people)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCMEzxJpQTs
.....and people thought highly of the man (rightly or wrongly)
The voluntary sector is just that, people who give their time for free and share their skills and experience to their particular cause that they have an interest in.
The funding pays for staff to do the necessary work. Our particular charity trained volunteers to support families with children under 5 years of age who were on the verge of crisis. The befriending service aimed to support the child and parent who were referred by social workers/health visitors.
I hate that excuse. I was poor but worked while at secondary school and thus always had my music and books. School always had sports clubs and you and your friends could always rustle up a cricket bat, wickets and a ball. All you need is a football and parks are a plenty too. There is nothing stopping kids from studying hard or having fun even if poor.
If we mean by austerity low interest rates, few pay increases, and limited public spending, then it is something I have experienced, but do not consider it a huge issue as you live within your means and carry on with life. How much does one need to get by? Not much. If you don't smoke or drink a lot then life is hardly a burden. Austerity is a global issue in many developed countries. I could get 5% interest on a savings account a few years ago, now you are lucky to get 2%. They have screwed up the economy that way and rather than let the silly fools out of their depth sink, they continue to screw with interest rates on savers who have been responsible with their money and continue to go easy on people who should not have been given the debt they have.
It hasn't been helped in countries like the UK though with continued open borders. Currently mainly to those beyond the EU who generally cost money. That is money that shouldn't be going to them. It pushes up housing, means more benefits, and for those who do work, pushes down wages.
I continue to be shocked by the notion that young people need youth clubs to occupy them. Why can they not have conversations in homes, go to coffee shops, read books, play games, play football etc, and pick up constructive hobbies? We make too many excuses when really the problem makers are typically the result of terrible family planning and a lack of self responsibility. A teenager can be productive and busy without reams of money or government programs.
Plus with the modern Internet it is not like they are paying 12 pounds a CD anymore which I was way back when music was still good. They nick everything off the Internet so the decent bands die off. In many ways the young are quite spoiled with everything available for free. You can download the entire works of Orwell for a couple of pennies. You couldn't do that when I was young. You had to spend and nowadays you can find so many rare things that you simply couldn't find then and the information is much more plentiful. Spoiled in that sense, but obviously many are deprived emotionally because of the decisions of terrible parents.
I asked the question a while back why do the poor stay poor and I think it is often a result of bookies, booze, drugs and general bad decisions. But then you add in a Labour caused bank bail out and you have some problems and it hasn't been the same again. Those bonuses came back and the ordinary people were so into their phones they barely flinched.
It is not an excuse.
Austerity has led to cuts in public services. In my city we had local youth clubs, mines was at a local church and we would play football, table tennis, pool and hang out there. Now they decided to close all the clubs and have one in the city centre which is too far for them to go and you are more liable to meet people that are up to no good.
There has always been knife crime but the increase in it and at such a pace means that austerity must have something to do with it. Typically the government have increased the number of police but other services need funding which can divert children away from crime and into more productive lives.
There is a vast disparity between the working class money is the issue.!
Everybody needs to eat and keep warm but when theses basic needs are to some a luxury there is something wrong.
The Country is a fuck up Zero contract jobs people scratching a living with 5 or 6 jobs.!
Miles not everyone is academic all this bollocks of motivation you can't be what you want weather it be education or etc.
There are limits for instance mate academic people have a tendency to be thick doing practical job Clueless some.
Were practical people would struggle with academic tasks.!
The way of the World some people are gifted some not so but everyone contributing to society .
I am sorry, but I disagree about the need for 'youth clubs'. I never had youth clubs and I was one of those wild eyed terrors without a father, except I was bookish and disciplined with my morning money making. I had friends to play sports with, books to read, games to play, a bike to ride. It certainly did not result in any stabbing and the government wasn't buying our cricket bats or telling us what to do. GOOD PARENTS are the best way to divert children into healthy productive lives, not the government. If you want to play pool, then go to a pool hall. If you want to play football, then go to a park. It isn't complicated.
Are you telling me without government support you could not play football, cricket, or any of these things? I don't think it is on the government to provide entertainment for kids. I think kids make their own fun and if they cannot have fun without stabbing one another, then they belong in prison or if on a second passport, a good old deportation.
7 pounds 80 an hour, Dia. It is not exactly a small amount for the lowest skilled work going. It is still 15 grand a year if you work full time. If you live within your means and rent somewhere for 400-500 a month, I am not sure what anyone is complaining about and if you are a couple, then that is more than enough to be comfortable. Many live at home with parents, so they can be banking away.
At the end of the day, if you want money you need a skill set or innovation and an ability to work hard. Not everybody is going to be Richard Branson and I accept a degree of social inequality as some people make better decisions than others.
Others of course are born into it and that is less fair, but that is why I think the rich pay a bit more tax (and they do) and the poor pay less (though I argue that VAT is a horrible stealth tax on them too).
You don't even pay income tax until a fairly high amount so really the low income workers aren't getting that bad a deal considering it is packing potatoes into a bag or what have you.
I am not making excuses for children getting in trouble. Some of it is just exploring and learning in life which include close calls with the police. Ultimately I never did cross the line because I was too afraid of my dad who would be working the night shift and the last thing he would want is a call from the police to pick his son up from station. Youth clubs were an important part of being able to socialise with friends and learn new skills. If it diverts people away from crime then it pays for itself in the long run.
You somewhat proved my point there. You had a strong father figure who I assume was a diligent and decent person. That is what I think young people need in their lives rather than government. Anybody can go and play games in an Internet cafe or a friend's house or kick a football around. I think a lot of the problems stem not so much from austerity but from broken families. A single mother has no way of controlling a volatile young man who needs that steadying male influence. Now some families with father figures also go horribly wrong, but the statistics tell us that single parent households have the worst outcomes.
Austerity hurts the poorest and most vulnerable in society whether you are a single parent, have a father figure or not. You can prevent “Broken” families by early intervention and support to stop them falling into a crisis. That was what our scheme did, it used trained volunteers who were/had been parents themselves and they provided a couple of hours per week support for the children and parents. This prevented children being put on the child protection register and ultimately going into care.
That is not my point. My point is that no amount of government funding is going to fix the problem of poverty which overwhelmingly comes in the form of single parent households. To break that cycle we have be stronger on it and in my opinion go back to policies of times past in order to make people more self responsible. You don't get rewarded for making bad decisions.
The UK has a minimum wage among the highest in the world. Anyone has it in them to get a full time job and there are no limitations on you choosing to study something very useful that will lead to a good income. If you choose a partner carefully, save your money, and then have children for the right reasons, then that sounds like a recipe for helping children.
Families end up broken because the parents are not suitable and we have encouraged an environment of poorly matched people having children and then leaving them without fathers. It has been normalized and in fact seems to be encouraged now in schools. There are men who want to get laid and there are women that want the man, or want the benefits, and what seems to come last is the child and that needs to be spoken about rather than brushed under the carpet. Not always of course, but far often than we want to admit.
Youth clubs? I wouldn't even know what one was. My happiest memories of being a teenager were on that cricket field being able to forget about home and laugh with my friends. We did not need the government to enjoy that and we did not turn to violence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSmAYUnZyxE
This video concludes it well arguing basically that: Well educated men are more likely to marry well educated women. The children are generally more intelligent and stable and in turn more likely to raise stable and high achieving families. The less educated and poorer are more likely to produce more unstable and poorer children. The result is a gulf.
All I argue is that one should aspire to study something useful, find someone on your intellectual level, and in turn that is more likely to produce decent well adjusted children. A smart person will research and study and be involved with their child. Others will not and most likely find themselves raising a child alone.
Thus I don't think austerity or the lack of pool is hurting kids, but the choices of their own parents certainly is. All the pool in the world might be great, but it won't lead to attainment or change anything at home.
Poverty can be caused for a variety of reason not just single parents. Low income, unemployment, mental/physical health, debt, substance misuse, lack of opportunity, which can put you in this cycle of deprivation. Most people do not choose to live in poverty and it is not always there fault.
The government should help the most vulnerable in society.
Low income? One of the highest minimum wages in the world where you can buy fresh salad for a quid and rent pretty reasonably provided you don't have half a dozen children.
Unemployment? Not exactly soaring and many won't work and that is on them.
Mental health? Most can overcome with discipline, but much of it is caused by bad childhoods.
Physical health? You exercise and eat properly, but sure we help the disabled.
Substance misuse? You have to taper and quit, work on your demons. Most likely to be from a single parent household statistically.
Lack of opportunity? Nobody is stopping you and that is where it is all about nurture and guidance and if it is missing then it causes problems. The solution is to choose a good partner and only be a parent if and when you are ready to be a good one. A good parent will always nurture and guide. A poor parent won't and we just don't seem willing to have that conversation.
Plus the government DOES help people who struggle already. What do you think the NHS is? Or schooling? Or welfare? You even have government covering rents for many. There has been too much support and not enough truth telling to those who really are causing many of those issues you mention.
That is the whole point of this thread that austerity has resulted in the government not supporting people who struggle.
NHS has been short staffed and underfunded, school classes are too big, lack of investment in teachers, police officer, transport, prisons and welfare benefits have been dramatically cut. The people who want to get out of their situation have a very difficult time.
I have no qualms with welfare being cut, but not for the disabled. I don't agree with that.
According to data I have looked at the NHS is not underfunded, it is just overused. You are talking about a population possibly 10 million bigger in a couple of decades and a population that has got pretty chunky bringing with it its own problems. It is creaking at the seams because of Labour and Tory and it is because nobody wants to control the borders. Ask Fenster about the emergency room. I was reading that massive numbers of students are now foreign as the migrants have children too. What do you expect exactly? Shut the borders and you can regain control, but until then it is a lost cause.
Yes, it is very difficult to get out of a situation where some groups have 70% of kids with no father figure. It shouldn't happen. In moderation it is fine, but at those numbers and taught in school that it is normal. Well, that is no enabler of prosperity.
The NHS is a victim of its own success and has kept people healthy and living longer. Therefore it will have more people using it. The biggest addition is social care particularly for the elderly which requires adequate funding.
It is less about open borders, obesity and single parents which is your ‘go to’ response on every one of these types of threads. People can prosper in spite of these circumstances but it is not easy and takes time.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publi...comms/R150.pdf
otal spending on schools in England represented just under £42 billion in 2017–18 (in 2018–19 prices). This represents £4,700 per pupil at primary school and £6,200 per pupil at secondary school.
So just pour more money on the problem then? How much is "enough"? Is it a hard number or one of those "We'll know when we get there" situations?
And I only bring that up to say....
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres...nsus%20Bureau.
The amount spent per pupil for public elementary and secondary education (prekindergarten through 12th grade) for all 50 states and the District of Columbia increased by 3.7% to $12,201 per pupil during the 2017 fiscal year, compared to $11,763 per pupil in 2016, according to new tables released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.
We've got the exact same problem and JUST money ain't solving jack shit.....it would be lovely if it did, but it doesn't because if it did we'd see improvement due to increased spending, we haven't we've seen the opposite.
The report you cited said 'Education spending has since fallen in real terms as spending cuts began to take effect from 2010 onwards' which is because of austerity.
All parties including the instigators of under funding have said they will invest more to recruit more teachers, improve buildings and increase pay.
Although spending by schools themselves has risen by 5% or £220 per pupil between
2009–10 and 2017–18, they have taken responsibility for many services previously provided
by local authorities, where spending has fallen by more than 50% or £650 per pupil.
Incorporating cuts to local authority spending and sixth-form funding, total school
spending per pupil has fallen by 8% in real terms over the same period and was only
about 14% higher in 2017–18 than in 2003–04.
Looks like the spending is on the rise, but spending on solely EDUCATION has fallen due to the schools being expected to provide more than just schooling (cradle to grave government socialism). Also the number of students is expected to rise quite a bit as well.
Families should be responsible for raising their children, they should house and feed and clothe and bathe and all the things PROVIDE for their children....I'd feel worthless if I couldn't do that for my family, but some people love that sweet life treating the social safety net like a hammock, I find it disgraceful.
So local authorities have been spending less because they have been given less by the government. Which is what austerity has caused. "Malnourished pupils with grey skin are "filling their pockets" with food from school canteens in poor areas due to poverty" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43611527
No one said families should not provide the basics for children but there are more families facing poverty and inequality has increased with austerity.
If it is so successful then why are so many people using it and looking how they do? It looks to be failing IMO.
Yes, people can prosper and again that is my entire point too. But it is far more difficult when you are disadvantaged. My issue with single parenthood and open borders is that it makes it harder on those who are not exceptional. There are millions of people in any society who do not have an IQ of even 90. For them to stand any chance I would be protectionist and also encourage good behaviour rather than poor behavior. Like the video I posted argued, those without an education are far more likely to become single parents. They tend not to be as smart or able as the educated parents and are statistically more likely passing on bad habits.
If you really want to help then you have to be honest to people about how harmful it is rather than sugar coating all the time and many do it with the saint single Mum line which is often utterly phony. They chose poorly, did not plan or consider the child, raised scantily and it is taboo to call it out. I defend Johnson with his own comments which were true, but considered taboo in a warped culture. Many would agree with him though.
Sugar coating will ultimately cause more harm in the long run as the double speak wears off, the truth comes out and then it is twice as bad.
Teachers are leaving the UK to teach overseas in greater numbers where the conditions are much better. They have no desire to work in that environment and many drop out of public school teaching within a few years. It is a rough job, as is working in a hospital. These are not success stories, Master.
Where will you get the teachers from? You had them and they are leaving. Why would you want to have your life made hell in an inner city school when you could be in a more chilled international school where children are motivated? A teacher wants to help and make a difference, but not at the cost of their own sanity.
https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...-refuge-abroad
And why do those teachers overseas seem so much happier? Because they are being teachers rather than substutute parents or social workers. Some of the stories in that article are horrific and it comes from parents having not raised their children well. It is so bad that the teachers won't do it anymore. I have a friend here who was going to go back home into public school teaching, he has totally backtracked on that having dome his research. A good teacher and for that matter an excellent father too. He would like to keep it that way.
Cannot spell on a phone either. Use just my thumb and it gets weird.