Warm Banks

[Paladin]

Whilst it is deplorable that they are needed, I will just add that if anyone needs to use them, contact your local church. The diocese of Manchester has given churches funding to open up and heat their churches/halls each week.

If you are struggling to find where they are open near you, drop me a PM and Ill try and find out for you.

In some, not all Tory minds food banks and warm banks are a positive, they are not statist and everyone knows statism leads to Socialism. In those Tory minds that see them as positive they hark back to the days of altruism and benevolence. They allow those on the right to look charitable which for those on the Christian right affirms their faith and makes them look good in the eyes of God. They can assuage their guilt by donating a few tins of Lidl beans to a food bank and they truly believe they are helping the poor and keeping them away from the dread hand of the "nanny state"

Warm banks operate under a similar principle.

I personally think that the need for both in the 6th richest country on the planet is abhorrent. People are scared to put the heating on, I have health problems and I need to keep warm, but rarely put my heating on, I went shopping yesterday and found myself buying the cheapest brands, rummaging through the going out of date section yet still managed to spend £70 on my weekly shop that used to be about £50.

When you a Cabinet stacked with Millionaires and the richest PM to ever take office, how can they possibly understand what it is like to count pennies for a bottle of milk, they never have to decide whether to eat of heat. To them we are the undeserving poor and they would rather deflect the current crisis by blaming immigrants on dinghies, Unions and anybody else apart from themselves.

I note you alluded to "some Tories" and "those on the Christian right", and it is important to understand that some Tories don't hold these opinions and there are plenty of Christians who aren't on the right, politically.

I attend a Christian church in South Manchester. We aren't CofE, so we won't be listed by the Diocese of Manchester, but we provide a warm space for people to use in order to save from heating their own homes. We also provide free Wifi, a free meal to anyone who wants one (once a week), free or subsidised food working alongside our local food bank, and refreshments including soup and bread for visitors to our midweek cafe (on a no obligation, voluntary donation basis).

Some of this is funded and provided for by local charities and supermarkets, but the running and heating and lighting is provided by church members, many of whom live on the council estate where the church is, and most of whom are by no means wealthy.

This isn't done to assuage a feeling of guilt, or to affirm our faith per se. There are many verses in the Bible that encourage Christians to carry out charitable works, but all this stems from a heart of genuine concern for the vulnerable and those less fortunate in society.

It's important that we support everyone who gives of their own means, whether financially or in actions, to help those in need.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

It depends what that means in practice. Do we need to reduce the national structural debt? Yes. Do we need to do it through spending less? Not exclusively and I think it will be hard to spend less, we will spend it differently though and I fully expect my taxes to go up. Some hard compromises are going to need to be made, such as reducing our overseas aid budget to increase defence spending for example - these things are never easy to reconcile but we are going to need to at least in the short term.

If the Tories said we were going to up defence spending and not increase taxes but pay less in benefits to fund it (even if they implied it by their policies as no one is going to come out and say that) then I’d vote against it.

Okay, so most likely a no then. Unless you accept austerity 1.0 was a mistake, you aren't being honest with yourself.

 

[Rascal]

I note you alluded to "some Tories" and "those on the Christian right", and it is important to understand that some Tories don't hold these opinions and there are plenty of Christians who aren't on the right, politically.

I attend a Christian church in South Manchester. We aren't CofE, so we won't be listed by the Diocese of Manchester, but we provide a warm space for people to use in order to save from heating their own homes. We also provide free Wifi, a free meal to anyone who wants one (once a week), free or subsidised food working alongside our local food bank, and refreshments including soup and bread for visitors to our midweek cafe (on a no obligation, voluntary donation basis).

Some of this is funded and provided for by local charities and supermarkets, but the running and heating and lighting is provided by church members, many of whom live on the council estate where the church is, and most of whom are by no means wealthy.

This isn't done to assuage a feeling of guilt, or to affirm our faith per se. There are many verses in the Bible that encourage Christians to carry out charitable works, but all this stems from a heart of genuine concern for the vulnerable and those less fortunate in society.

It's important that we support everyone who gives of their own means, whether financially or in actions, to help those in need.

You noted correctly.

 

[metalblue]

Okay, so most likely a no then. Unless you accept austerity 1.0 was a mistake, you aren't being honest with yourself.

Austerity 1.0* wasn’t a mistake, how the burden was shared almost certainly was - and it went on longer than necessary. Austerity is reducing budget deficits, that is done either by reducing spending, raises taxes, or some of both - austerity in itself is not a bad thing. It’s entirely unfair to place the greatest burden on those least able to cope with it. It’s equally entirely unfair to expect the so called wealthy to pay for everything.

*Being pedantic Austerity 1.0 was right after WW2.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Austerity 1.0* wasn’t a mistake, how the burden was shared almost certainly was - and it went on longer than necessary. Austerity is reducing budget deficits, that is done either by reducing spending, raises taxes, or some of both - austerity in itself is not a bad thing. It’s entirely unfair to place the greatest burden on those least able to cope with it. It’s equally entirely unfair to expect the so called wealthy to pay for everything.

Why was there a need for austerity in the first place? Out of control government spending or the government bailing out banks that had made bad bets?

*Being pedantic Austerity 1.0 was right after WW2.

Yes I'm aware. It wasn't the first time. Actually you're wrong. It was after the wall street crash, or before.

It has never worked, it never will. It's a great evil. And amounts to using the poorest and most vulnerable as involuntary guinea-pigs.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I note you alluded to "some Tories" and "those on the Christian right", and it is important to understand that some Tories don't hold these opinions and there are plenty of Christians who aren't on the right, politically.

I attend a Christian church in South Manchester. We aren't CofE, so we won't be listed by the Diocese of Manchester, but we provide a warm space for people to use in order to save from heating their own homes. We also provide free Wifi, a free meal to anyone who wants one (once a week), free or subsidised food working alongside our local food bank, and refreshments including soup and bread for visitors to our midweek cafe (on a no obligation, voluntary donation basis).

Some of this is funded and provided for by local charities and supermarkets, but the running and heating and lighting is provided by church members, many of whom live on the council estate where the church is, and most of whom are by no means wealthy.

This isn't done to assuage a feeling of guilt, or to affirm our faith per se. There are many verses in the Bible that encourage Christians to carry out charitable works, but all this stems from a heart of genuine concern for the vulnerable and those less fortunate in society.

It's important that we support everyone who gives of their own means, whether financially or in actions, to help those in need.

Great that you are helping. I’m not going to moan about any person or denomination that help the people that need it.

 

[metalblue]

Why was there a need for austerity in the first place? Out of control government spending or the government bailing out banks that had made bad bets?

Neither and both. It was due to government spending surpassing tax receipts. But now did that happen? Let’s deal with the common misconception, the bank bailout. Part of that spend is down to the bailout (£122bn in cash) but it’s not a structural debt so doesn’t itself require austerity to resolve. Debt isn’t bad but it creates interest obligations, interest payments are dead money it doesn’t create growth it just disappears but so long as your interest payments and obligations are below tax receipts - it’s all fine (especially when you have growth)

However financial crisis have, as history teaches us, caused deeper and longer recessions than “regular” recessions. This results in significantly lower tax receipts than during a regular “recession”. The Labour government had successfully achieved an optical illusion of no inflation growth during the 2000’s as Gordon Brown cast aside his own golden rule and became a prolific spender - but once that ran into much lower tax receipts this created a structural debt. Now you have financial markets in turmoil, borrowing is harder(especially when hit with the sovereign debt crisis), significantly lower tax receipts, and the government needing to increase its welfare spend. The perfect storm.

Had Gordon Brown not gone on his spending spree in 2000’s we might have weathered the storm - might. Had the banks not gone to shit we would have certainly been just fine with his spending, maybe a little tightening for the usual recessions but nothing like austerity.

Was austerity necessary? Absolutely. Did we need the austerity we got? I don’t think so, it’s given us a lost decade.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Neither and both. It was due to government spending surpassing tax receipts. But now did that happen? Let’s deal with the common misconception, the bank bailout. Part of that spend is down to the bailout (£122bn in cash) but it’s not a structural debt so doesn’t itself require austerity to resolve. Debt isn’t bad but it creates interest obligations, interest payments are dead money it doesn’t create growth it just disappears but so long as your interest payments and obligations are below tax receipts - it’s all fine (especially when you have growth)

However financial crisis have, as history teaches us, caused deeper and longer recessions than “regular” recessions. This results in significantly lower tax receipts than during a regular “recession”. The Labour government had successfully achieved an optical illusion of no inflation growth during the 2000’s as Gordon Brown cast aside his own golden rule and became a prolific spender - but once that ran into much lower tax receipts this created a structural debt. Now you have financial markets in turmoil, borrowing is harder(especially when hit with the sovereign debt crisis), significantly lower tax receipts, and the government needing to increase its welfare spend. The perfect storm.

Had Gordon Brown not gone on his spending spree in 2000’s we might have weathered the storm - might. Had the banks not gone to shit we would have certainly been just fine with his spending, maybe a little tightening for the usual recessions but nothing like austerity.

Was austerity necessary? Absolutely. Did we need the austerity we got? I don’t think so, it’s given us a lost decade.

You sound like a communist commisar.

 

[metalblue]

You sound like a communist commisar.

Did you actually have anything you wanted to disagree with from what I’ve said?

 

[Vic]

It depends what that means in practice. Do we need to reduce the national structural debt? Yes. Do we need to do it through spending less? Not exclusively and I think it will be hard to spend less, we will spend it differently though and I fully expect my taxes to go up. Some hard compromises are going to need to be made, such as reducing our overseas aid budget to increase defence spending for example - these things are never easy to reconcile but we are going to need to at least in the short term.

If the Tories said we were going to up defence spending and not increase taxes but pay less in benefits to fund it (even if they implied it by their policies as no one is going to come out and say that) then I’d vote against it.

If you want to reduce the national debt, then historically you should be voting Labour.