At what point does right wing just mean racist/d1ck/heartless baxtard?

steddyeddy

Ireland's really not a great example of a class divide IMHO. It's relatively easy to bridge it. England on the other hand is another story.

Your Face

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ireland's really not a great example of a class divide IMHO. It's relatively easy to bridge it. England on the other hand is another story.

Really? Do you really believe that?

steddyeddy

Your Face wrote: »

Really? Do you really believe that?

Well yea I think there's a far greater class divide in the UK.

Your Face

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well yea I think there's a far greater class divide in the UK.

I think its more categorized in the UK but I think, while the divide is more subtle in Ireland, its similar in scope.

Olishi4

Wibbs wrote: »

Bingo, right there.

And many of them are stupid definitions of poverty. Yes the heating, warm clothes, decent shoes. I see the psychological value in the present once per year too. I'm not suggesting sackcloth and ashes here. I'm not some daft puritan, nor am I some ivory tower libertarian or D4 righwinger. However, can't afford a meal out once a month? Can't afford a night out over the last two weeks? Roast once a week? This means I'm poverty stricken? GrightTFO pal.

• Without heating at some stage in the last year
• Unable to afford a morning, afternoon or evening out in the last fortnight
• Unable to afford two pairs of strong shoes
• Unable to afford a roast once a week
• Unable to afford a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day
• Unable to afford new (not second-hand) clothes
• Unable to afford a warm waterproof coat
• Unable to afford to keep the home adequately warm
• Unable to afford to replace any worn out furniture
• Unable to afford to have family or friends for a drink or meal once a month
• Unable to afford to buy presents for family or friends at least once a year

There's two there that I would question the definition of.

It says "unable to have family or friends for a drink or meal once a month". It does not say to go out. To have them in the person's home.

"Unable to afford a morning, afternoon, evening out in the last forthright" That could be a tenner to go get a coffee or in the evening two pints.

We do not know how the questions were presented in the study that fits a person in those categories.

A roast costs about 10-15 euro.

This enforced deprivation alone does not place someone in consistant poverty and I imagine the experts have done other studies to support their definitions. They didn't just make them up.

I didn't create the study. I have read the findings by the CSO.

There is an enormous difference between the UK and Ireland, I think it is the fact that we both speak English tends to mask the difference a lot. I have family in the Uk. Its very hard to conceptualise.. there is huge take for granted wealth in the Uk they have inherited privilege in the form of the aristocracy, a civic society they goes back over a thousand years. The Magna Carta was produced in 1215 for example. It is completely different here.

ancapailldorcha

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ireland's really not a great example of a class divide IMHO. It's relatively easy to bridge it. England on the other hand is another story.

The Gini coefficient is one measure and the 2 countries have fairly similar values (source).

FA Hayek

Brian? wrote: »

As for violence, there are mass murders on both extremes. But when it gets closer to moderate the Right wing loves a good invasion: Reagan, Thatcher, Bush.
.

I am curious, who did Thatcher invade?

Geuze

Olishi4 wrote: »

Does anyone have actual figures of the wealth distribution in Ireland? Are they available?

Income distribution = yes.

Wealth = yes

Wealth distribution = no.

Geuze

Olishi4 wrote: »

If the support and opportunities are there then why did the figures dramatically increase from 2008 to 2013?

2008 SILC data

How many people at-risk-of-poverty AROP = 14.4%

How many people deprived of 2 or more items from list = 13.7%

Consistent poverty: low incomes + deprived = 4.2%


2013 SILC data

How many people at-risk-of-poverty AROP = 15.2%

How many people deprived of 2 or more items from list = 30.5%

Consistent poverty: low incomes + deprived = 8.2%

Geuze

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

One solution here is to move away from cash welfare payments and towards debits cards, coded that they can't be used in bookies, etc.

conorhal

I suspect this infographic will answer the OP's question:

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/721991/387613.png

Geuze

20Cent wrote: »

Wasn't there an unemployment rate of something like 3.6% during the Celtic tiger. If you take out disabled people, those between jobs that's pretty much 100% of those able to work were. The multiple generation families never working thing is a myth or such a small proportion of the population to be negligible.

Yes, the UNR did fall to 4% during the economic boom.


But hundreds of thousands of working-age adults were not employed.

They weren't unemployed, but they were not employed either.

They were inactive in the labour market.

Ireland has high rates of inactivity, even though unemployment rates might be low.

FA Hayek

Olishi4 wrote: »

You genuinely believe those are first world problems?


Can't afford to get your child a birthday present. Cant afford more than one pair of shoes. Can't afford to have a roast dinner, standard meal, not expensive. And instead of old couch, we'l change that to a broken bed for a child. First world problems eh!

The first couch we had for our place was an old second hand one we got off the street. Those metric's measuring poverty in Ireland are a joke to be fair. #firstworldproblems #100%correct

They set the bar deliberately high so that there is always about 20-25% of the population in poverty or living in deprivation. Sorry but 1/4 of the Irish population are not poor by any means especially if you use international standards of poverty. Where are the mass of slums where people are slopping out, no electrically in their homes, open sewers, mass starvation where children have to go and work to earn money to feed the family. That is poverty.

I would be much more interested in seeing international standards being applied rather then standards made up on the hoof by the Irish poverty industry.

Around 33c in every taxed euro goes to pay towards social services. How much higher should this be? 40cent, 50cent, 60cent?

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, the UNR did fall to 4% during the economic boom.


But hundreds of thousands of working-age adults were not employed.

They weren't unemployed, but they were not employed either.

They were inactive in the labour market.

Ireland has high rates of inactivity, even though unemployment rates might be low.

You will expire all together when they bring in a universal income for eveyone:)

beach_walker

At what point does right wing just mean racist/d1ck/heartless baxtard?

I wouldn't agree with this assertion at all. Imo it's born out of the sheer arrogance of the left in general. You've attributed all those traits to the "right" which is complete nonsense imo.

I know that the left has recently revised the status of Chazez/Venezuela (it was *never* the socialist dreamland/great hope now FYI) but how much misery and pain has that system wrought on the people? Do you think I should now conflate someone having left wing politics with those characteristics (and that's without getting into some of the other "glories" brought to you by left wing organisations/governments)? Or would you think it a bit childish?

Just because someone thinks the state shouldn't be giving rent allowance (for example) it doesn't mean they don't care about those who are in receipt, rather some see it as an economic problem which actually increases rents for everyone, especially hitting the non-welfare receiving working class. *I'm not getting drawn into a debate on this, just picking it out of my arse.

Indeed most of the "right wing" people I know are far more involved with charities and volunteering than my "leftie" friends (unless you count protesting water charges :P ).



I'm probably going to get accused of all sorts now so I'll just nail my colours to the mast. I want to live in a society where the people don't die because they can't afford healthcare, the hungry don't starve to death and everyone gets an equal chance at happiness in life. I don't particularly care which system brings that about*, both "wings" seem to have a pretty checkered history on that front but what we have now seems a whole lot better than most of what has been tried.


*I think the coming automation revolution is gonna put paid to what we understand of both schools of thought currently anyway.

20Cent

Geuze wrote: »

Yes, the UNR did fall to 4% during the economic boom.


But hundreds of thousands of working-age adults were not employed.

They weren't unemployed, but they were not employed either.

They were inactive in the labour market.

Ireland has high rates of inactivity, even though unemployment rates might be low.

What does inactive in the labour market mean?
How can you not be unemployed and not be employed?

Grayson

20Cent wrote: »

What does inactive in the labour market mean?
How can you not be unemployed and not be employed?

Unemployed means available for work, looking for work but not working. So a stay at home mother and a student are not unemployed.

Geuze

20Cent wrote: »

What does inactive in the labour market mean?
How can you not be unemployed and not be employed?

Many, many thousands of adults are not employed, nor are they unemployed.

They are stay at home parents, students, long-term disability, etc., etc.


Here is the most recent data:

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/qnhs/quarterlynationalhouseholdsurveyquarter12016/


Quarterly National Household Survey, Quarter 1 2016


Indicator Quarter 1 2016 Annual change
Employed 1,976,500 +46,900
Unemployed 179,500 -33,300
In labour force 2,156,000 +13,600
Not in labour force 1,470,200 -5,300


1,470,200 working-age adults are not in the labour market.

So of the 3.626m working-age adults, 40% of them are inactive in the labour market.

Jayop

20Cent wrote: »

What does inactive in the labour market mean?
How can you not be unemployed and not be employed?

My wife is not employed but she's not listed as unemployed. She doesn't get any walfare and isn't looking fur a job outside the home right now.

Grayson

beach_walker wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with this assertion at all. Imo it's born out of the sheer arrogance of the left in general. You've attributed all those traits to the "right" which is complete nonsense imo.

I know that the left has recently revised the status of Chazez/Venezuela (it was *never* the socialist dreamland/great hope now FYI) but how much misery and pain has that system wrought on the people? Do you think I should now conflate someone having left wing politics with those characteristics (and that's without getting into some of the other "glories" brought to you by left wing organisations/governments)? Or would you think it a bit childish?

Just because someone thinks the state shouldn't be giving rent allowance (for example) it doesn't mean they don't care about those who are in receipt, rather some see it as an economic problem which actually increases rents for everyone, especially hitting the non-welfare receiving working class. *I'm not getting drawn into a debate on this, just picking it out of my arse.

Indeed most of the "right wing" people I know are far more involved with charities and volunteering than my "leftie" friends (unless you count protesting water charges :P ).



I'm probably going to get accused of all sorts now so I'll just nail my colours to the mast. I want to live in a society where the people don't die because they can't afford healthcare, the hungry don't starve to death and everyone gets an equal chance at happiness in life. I don't particularly care which system brings that about*, both "wings" seem to have a pretty checkered history on that front but what we have now seems a whole lot better than most of what has been tried.


*I think the coming automation revolution is gonna put paid to what we understand of both schools of thought currently anyway.

You say "the left" like it's some kind of homogeneous group. Most people who were left leaning never supported Chavez. They might have liked some of his principles, but the implementation of them was horrific and he was a dictator. The same way most people generally agree with free market principles but that doesn't mean they think that Chile in the 80's was great or that Pinochet was a great leader.

The fact is that you are probably more left wing than right wing. You think that the state should help the poor, you think that as a people we have a responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. Even though you mention that you disagree with rent allowance I'm pretty certain you wouldn't want to remove it from everyone unless you could be certain that families wouldn't be kicked on the street.



I'm a tree hugging lefty but I love capitalism. I just think it's imperfect and needs to be tempered with socialism.

Lefties have a bad name in the way feminist has a bad name. Most feminists are not feminazi's. They just don't want to see someone be disadvantaged because of their gender. However a few nasty, shouty people get all the press and therefore the whole group gets labeled feminazi

But as to the OP's original question, I think the right wing in general has taken a nasty turn. Right wing groups around the world are split. In the US republicans are now either RHINO's or tea baggers. In the UK the conservative party has a large group that dislike the outside world and more traditional tories. These parties used to be controlled by the moderates. They were groups that could find common ground with their opponents. However they're turning nasty. And it's bad news for everyone else. They're the same type of nasty shouty people that give left wing groups bad names.

beach_walker

Grayson wrote: »

You say "the left" like it's some kind of homogeneous group.

True, it's slightly disingenuous of me but this thread forces you to talk in these terms.

The fact is that you are probably more left wing than right wing. You think that the state should help the poor, you think that as a people we have a responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. Even though you mention that you disagree with rent allowance..

I didn't (and I don't). Just wanted to use a relatively non-triggering example. And I would never describe myself as right (or left) wing. I'm with Deng Xiaoping when he said "It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice."

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Geuze

I agree with much that you say.

I wish to abolish JSA and OPF.

But I want to move the people on JSA and OPF into paid employment.

They would be earning more than when the receive JSA and OPF.

They would be better off, and their children would be better off.

Am I heartless??

Geuze

By the way, hasn't OPF been reformed so that it ends when the child is 7?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Wibbs wrote: »

Bingo, right there.

And many of them are stupid definitions of poverty. Yes the heating, warm clothes, decent shoes. I see the psychological value in the present once per year too. I'm not suggesting sackcloth and ashes here. I'm not some daft puritan, nor am I some ivory tower libertarian or D4 righwinger. However, can't afford a meal out once a month? Can't afford a night out over the last two weeks? Roast once a week? This means I'm poverty stricken? GrightTFO pal.

It says morning, afternoon or evening out so could be a coffee.

And meeting 2 of the requirements meets the criteria.

Not affording a warm, waterproof coat is pretty basic, €40/50 would get you one of those.

Not affording heat at times during the year.

Those are hardly first world problems.

Wibbs

K-9 wrote: »

It says morning, afternoon or evening out so could be a coffee.

And meeting 2 of the requirements meets the criteria.

Not affording a warm, waterproof coat is pretty basic, €40/50 would get you one of those.

Not affording heat at times during the year.

Those are hardly first world problems.

They're not, but a goodly chunk of the rest?

Jayop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

20 billion is an easy number to throw around. Sounds dramatic doesn't it.

Fact is though that 30.2% of that was pensions. 16.1% for illness and disability support and 3% for administration. That's pretty much 50% gone from the 20 billion figure right away and none of it on people who should be out earning their own money.

https://www.welfare.ie/en/pressoffice/Pages/pr110713.aspx


(2012 figures)

Geuze

Jayop wrote: »

20 billion is an easy number to throw around. Sounds dramatic doesn't it.

Fact is though that 30.2% of that was pensions. 16.1% for illness and disability support and 3% for administration. That's pretty much 50% gone from the 20 billion figure right away and none of it on people who should be out earning their own money.

https://www.welfare.ie/en/pressoffice/Pages/pr110713.aspx


(2012 figures)

Its true that a large chuck of the 20bn goes on State Pensions and Child Benefit.

But we still spend too much passively paying transfers to working-age adults who are well able to work.

Note that the number of people on "disability" has increased year on year, though the population is not getting sicker.

Why are non-EU immigrants working here while nearly 1.5m adults are not active in the lab mkt?