Poverty in Oldham

[Moonhawk]

Halb said:

'Twas only a joke

I know - dont be so sensitive

[sidicks]

Efbe said:

Isn't it great, all these posters that have never been to Oldham let alone these crap areas or any other northern industrial dump, never experienced life there or even seen it, and yet feel that they know absolutely everything about the place, how the people are, what they are like and why they are too bone-idle lazy to bother getting a proper job, and quite how easy it must be for them.

Wow, truly enlightening.

Who are ‘all these people’ that have made these claims? I can’t recall anyone suggetsing anything remotely approaching what you claim above. Can you share some examples?

Most of the discussion seems to have been trying to explain why the definition of ‘relative poverty’ is nonsense.

[crankedup]

Murph7355 said:

crankedup said:

Murph7355 said:

crankedup said:

You want me to define ‘fair’ AGAIN!! How many times do I need to do this before it finally sinks in to your grey matter. I cannot be bothered (as you would say) to go through that again. To jog your grey matter think football.

Once might be a start

Go on sidicks is the master of mindless, you will never compete with him, but I congratulate you for trying. B+.

You ALWAYS dodge the question as far as I recall.

You come across as someone who thinks they should feel appalled by these media stories, but has no real answer to it crankie. Partly because, I am sure, you know where you will end up on any meaningful and still arbitrary line drawn to "improve" matters. You are absolutely suckered in by the terminology used in the headlines. No shame in that - that is precisely what they are designed to do. You are being played.

It's no good asking people like sidicks what his view is. My suspicion is that his view is very much that "fair" is very subjective and actually that the world, wrt this country, is likely to be as fair as it's possible to get. I certainly feel that way, and definitely feel that it cannot be legislated against more than it already has been unless we are prepared for worse unintended consequences.

What "relative poverty" is actually getting at is your favourite topic of the "wealth gap". But "wealth gap" doesn't plug at the heart strings as much as "poverty" does.

Shareholders can easily address the "wealth gap" without any new legislation by refusing to invest in companies that seem to encourage it. But guess what? That will never happen. Because everyone wants to make money and will be frightened to death of losing out by withdrawing their funds - you included. Your pension will be heavily invested in these same firms.

Moreover, you'll then find that seemingly "ethical" firms also have their dark sides - just as you did with your beloved CoOp example - which will mean you will have to resort to sticking your wedge under your mattress.

The solutions to these things are ALWAYS anything that impacts other people and not one's self. Unless we can change that mindset (and that especially includes those in "poverty") we will never resolve anything.

Interesting to read your pov, although your thoughts that I am being ‘suckered’ is simply way off. Nothing is perfect but those that choose to do so can always have a go at altering policies through the ballot box and voting papers, I do this.
Discussing our generally opposing pov is a natural thing, used to be in pubs back in the day.
Yes I have financial investments and rely upon these to sustain my lifestyle, just like most people. This does not mean because I’m relatively (that word again) financially OK I should disregard Social standards within the U.K.
Unfortunately whichever way it’s cut others will have an opposing pov, that’s fine by me.

As for the wealth gap,this is a term which stirs other emotions and facts that exist between the top 1% and those underneath. The middle ground is the bar used for use in the relative poverty problem. Yes the terminology has to be strong and emotional, if it were not the case publicity would not be garnered.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Interesting to read your pov, although your thoughts that I am being ‘suckered’ is simply way off. Nothing is perfect but those that choose to do so can always have a go at altering policies through the ballot box and voting papers, I do this.
Discussing our generally opposing pov is a natural thing, used to be in pubs back in the day.
Yes I have financial investments and rely upon these to sustain my lifestyle, just like most people. This does not mean because I’m relatively (that word again) financially OK I should disregard Social standards within the U.K.
Unfortunately whichever way it’s cut others will have an opposing pov, that’s fine by me.

As for the wealth gap,this is a term which stirs other emotions and facts that exist between the top 1% and those underneath. The middle ground is the bar used for use in the relative poverty problem. Yes the terminology has to be strong and emotional, if it were not the case publicity would not be garnered.

Your big problem is the implication (implicit) that those who don’t share your opinion on this do not care and have no sympathy for those at the bottom of the scale, which is fundamentally wrong.

[Murph7355]

Efbe said:

Isn't it great, all these posters that have never been to Oldham let alone these crap areas or any other northern industrial dump, never experienced life there or even seen it, and yet feel that they know absolutely everything about the place, how the people are, what they are like and why they are too bone-idle lazy to bother getting a proper job, and quite how easy it must be for them.

Wow, truly enlightening.

Just as great are those assuming others have no idea what it's like in the poorer parts of the North (For info I'm from the North. Not Oldham, though I've been there a number of times. But not a rich area either).

[Murph7355]

crankedup said:

... Yes the terminology has to be strong and emotional, if it were not the case publicity would not be garnered.

This is the equivalent of the person who shouts loudest being the only one who gets his say.

Measured terminology is what is required. If the only way an issue can get an airing is in resorting to emotive terminology that bastardises the true meaning of a word, then frankly the issue is not worthy enough.

Tabloidising everything leads to nothing materially changing. We just lurch from one bit of nonsense to the next. As another example - gender pay gaps.

Edited by Murph7355 on Monday 26th March 13:25

[crankedup]

Moonhawk said:

crankedup said:

I have never said that the World is fair, therefore I do not need to ‘deal with it’. Agreed, everyone has a different definition of fair, The one that matters is that of our Government....

But the article in the OP doesn't state what the government's definition of fairness is.

There is a government definition for 'relative poverty', but as far as I can tell - they don't have a definition for 'fairness'.

Fairness is, imo, as I expressed earlier in the thread, expressed as a set of rules understood by all participants and accepted as such by reasonable group acceptance.Fairness is then arbitrated by referees. Within a Society situation the referee is ultimately the Government, those that disagree with the Governments interpretation of fairness have the democratic right at the ballot box.

[crankedup]

Murph7355 said:

crankedup said:

... Yes the terminology has to be strong and emotional, if it were not the case publicity would not be garnered.

This is the equivalent of the person who shouts loudest being the only one who gets his say.

Measured terminology is what is required. If the only way an issue can get an airing is in resorting to emotive terminology that bastarardises the true meaning of a word, then frankly the issue is not worthy enough.

Tabloidising everything leads to nothing materially changing. We just lurch from one bit of nonsense to the next. As another example - gender pay gaps.

It is not the case that he who shouts loudest at all, if it were not for publicity we would not have a voice, unless you happen to be somebody in the top 1% who can pay for publicity by other means.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Interesting to read your pov, although your thoughts that I am being ‘suckered’ is simply way off. Nothing is perfect but those that choose to do so can always have a go at altering policies through the ballot box and voting papers, I do this.
Discussing our generally opposing pov is a natural thing, used to be in pubs back in the day.
Yes I have financial investments and rely upon these to sustain my lifestyle, just like most people. This does not mean because I’m relatively (that word again) financially OK I should disregard Social standards within the U.K.
Unfortunately whichever way it’s cut others will have an opposing pov, that’s fine by me.

As for the wealth gap,this is a term which stirs other emotions and facts that exist between the top 1% and those underneath. The middle ground is the bar used for use in the relative poverty problem. Yes the terminology has to be strong and emotional, if it were not the case publicity would not be garnered.

Your big problem is the implication (implicit) that those who don’t share your opinion on this do not care and have no sympathy for those at the bottom of the scale, which is fundamentally wrong.

Your simply voicing voicing your opinions of me, which are way off the mark as always. You always seem to want to play the player and not the ball!!

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Your simply voicing voicing your opinions of me, which are way off the mark as always. You always seem to want to play the player and not the ball!!

And yet, in the last few pages alone, we have:

crankedup said:

Yet another empty vacaus statement from the ‘expert’.

crankedup said:

Your failure to understand is not something new. Flailing arms, legs and verbal garbage is your signature to which I am accustomed to but unmoved by.

crankedup said:

Go on sidicks is the master of mindless, you will never compete with him, but I congratulate you for trying. B+.

crankedup said:

Has your favourite teddy bear gone missing. Take your silly mindless grudge elsewhere, just a suggestion.

[Murph7355]

crankedup said:

It is not the case that he who shouts loudest at all, if it were not for publicity we would not have a voice, unless you happen to be somebody in the top 1% who can pay for publicity by other means.

That is no excuse for tabloidising everything.

Do you actually feel that the people of Oldham have a voice through this stuff? Or is it that some of the "1%" are simply popping that on the front pages for now (for good reasons or bad)?

The people of Oldham can be talking to their elected councillors and politicians. They can be insisting that they come up with plans. And they can be telling them that they won't vote for them if they don't sort them out.

The councillors and politicians can be explaining back the other priorities that might be prevalent, and seeking understanding from their electorates.

They will hopefully both be able to do this without the need for emotive language to over-emphasis the issue at hand.

Unless everyone can engage this way, we are screwed. Knee jerk reactions to the latest cause celebre is what is getting us deeper into the mess we are currently in, and it's avoiding any sense of personal accountability. We've a growing list of special cases since 2010, all of whom feel the need for exemption from change. It's bks.

[Rovinghawk]

Murph7355 said:

terminology that bastarardises the true meaning of a word.

This typo amused me.

[anonymous-user]

Efbe said:

Isn't it great, all these posters that have never been to Oldham let alone these crap areas or any other northern industrial dump, never experienced life there or even seen it, and yet feel that they know absolutely everything about the place, how the people are, what they are like and why they are too bone-idle lazy to bother getting a proper job, and quite how easy it must be for them.

Wow, truly enlightening.

My whole family is from Oldham. Am I allowed an opinion? It's a absolute st hole. Next.

[Murph7355]

Rovinghawk said:

Murph7355 said:

terminology that bastarardises the true meaning of a word.

This typo amused me.

Oi, stop mocking my stuttering keyboard. I will get offended

[crankedup]

Murph7355 said:

crankedup said:

It is not the case that he who shouts loudest at all, if it were not for publicity we would not have a voice, unless you happen to be somebody in the top 1% who can pay for publicity by other means.

That is no excuse for tabloidising everything.

Do you actually feel that the people of Oldham have a voice through this stuff? Or is it that some of the "1%" are simply popping that on the front pages for now (for good reasons or bad)?

The people of Oldham can be talking to their elected councillors and politicians. They can be insisting that they come up with plans. And they can be telling them that they won't vote for them if they don't sort them out.

The councillors and politicians can be explaining back the other priorities that might be prevalent, and seeking understanding from their electorates.

They will hopefully both be able to do this without the need for emotive language to over-emphasis the issue at hand.

Unless everyone can engage this way, we are screwed. Knee jerk reactions to the latest cause celebre is what is getting us deeper into the mess we are currently in, and it's avoiding any sense of personal accountability. We've a growing list of special cases since 2010, all of whom feel the need for exemption from change. It's bks.

Let’s turn it on it’s head, if it were not for the publicity most of us would know nothing of it.
Yes those affected directly could well be talking to thier MP and/or local reps.
ecause Oldham has managed to be the area highlighted does not mean that the issue is only of a local nature, it’s not. Therefore the publicity serves well for other regions.
I don’t believe that anybody is knee jerking.
I agree, personal responsibility is paramount, however some individuals may not be able to administrate thier own lives. To be clear,I am not in favour of lazy people who cannot be bothered, these are the last people that should be assisted once they have been identified as such.
TBH I believe this Government has carried a number of policies through which have the desired effect of identifying scroungers and getting them back to work.
For me it’s a matter of need not nice if I can get away with it.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Your simply voicing voicing your opinions of me, which are way off the mark as always. You always seem to want to play the player and not the ball!!

And yet, in the last few pages alone, we have:

crankedup said:

Yet another empty vacaus statement from the ‘expert’.

crankedup said:

Your failure to understand is not something new. Flailing arms, legs and verbal garbage is your signature to which I am accustomed to but unmoved by.

crankedup said:

Go on sidicks is the master of mindless, you will never compete with him, but I congratulate you for trying. B+.

crankedup said:

Has your favourite teddy bear gone missing. Take your silly mindless grudge elsewhere, just a suggestion.

sniped our of context.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Let’s turn it on it’s head, if it were not for the publicity most of us would know nothing of it.

None of us really ‘need to know’ about it, as it is a fairly meaningless statistic. We should focus on meaningful metrics.

[Murph7355]

crankedup said:

Let’s turn it on it’s head, if it were not for the publicity most of us would know nothing of it.
Yes those affected directly could well be talking to thier MP and/or local reps.
ecause Oldham has managed to be the area highlighted does not mean that the issue is only of a local nature, it’s not. Therefore the publicity serves well for other regions.
I don’t believe that anybody is knee jerking....

Caterwauling about poverty is knee jerking, and designed to try and make the government do the same.

I don't believe the problems are localised to Oldham. There are areas of this country far more poor than others. It has been and will always be thus. Should we try and do something about it? Possibly. We should do what we can to improve the lot of everyone.

But things are being done about this sort of situation - regeneration of various towns and cities that have hit on hard times happens all the time. Can everywhere be done at once? Not even close. So where are the priority areas?

If there was far more measured journalism on the topic it would stand a better chance of sinking in IF it's the worst problem we currently have to deal with. I'm not sure it is personally, hence the caterwauling from self-interest groups and those who feel they need someone to help the poor people of <insert town/city/minority group here, rinse and repeat>.

[Dr Jekyll]

crankedup said:

Let’s turn it on it’s head, if it were not for the publicity most of us would know nothing of it.
Yes those affected directly could well be talking to thier MP and/or local reps.

But nobody is 'affected' by relative poverty. If some of those deemed to be in relative poverty were lifted out of it by some other people becoming destitute and therefore lowering the average, would it make the slightest difference to them?

[Rovinghawk]

Dr Jekyll said:

But nobody is 'affected' by relative poverty. If some of those deemed to be in relative poverty were lifted out of it by some other people becoming destitute and therefore lowering the average, would it make the slightest difference to them?

If some others becoming destitute made things more equal it would be 'fair'; some people becoming destitute is therefore a good thing. if those same people were to become wealthier this would obviously be unfair & a bad thing.

Funny how a 'fair' system works, isn't it?