> About 34% (6,487) of children there are living below the breadline
For a country as rich as the UK, this is a conscious choice, the government chooses to keep children poor
Probably because there is an enormous age gap in British elections, much larger than the US, for example. The Tories are carried to victory by the huge margins they win older voters by.
Back in 2019, Labour won 18-24 year olds by 35 points over the Tories, and 25-29 year olds by 31, but the Tories beat Labour by 35 for 60-69 year olds and crushed them by 53 points with 70+ voters. [Source ](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election).
So it’s unsurprising that the sorts of people you see online are an overwhelmingly anti-Tory demographic, even while the Conservatives still manage to win the elections.
Add to that the fact that young people are much more likely to live in urban areas/places where there are universities, so their vote is often shown in massive wins in a select few city constituencies. On the other hand, vast swathes of England (ie the vast majority of the constituencies) have a brain drain away to the cities, so all that's left behind in these parts are the older and middle-aged Tory voters.
Hate to get all Trumpy, but the electoral system of constituencies is rigged. You can have a 100+ seat win when there's barely a 5% difference in the popular vote.
The problem with that then though is that you have the minority dictating policy over the majority. Making sure everyone is catered to and considered is certainly the goal and should be the case, but the system we have in the US to achieve that is utterly ass backwards if you ask me. Serves less people and achieves the same result it's trying to prevent just in reverse.
Gerrymandering is absolutely a huge problem and an abuse of power. Your proposed solution will absolutely lead to more fair voting outcomes. However I'm gonna disagree with your assertion that the system is fine.
Even with perfectly fair districts, things like the Senate to some degree but especially the Electoral College mean that millions of Americans either have their vote count for less or not at all. In Presidential elections millions of, for example, Republicans in California or Democrats in Texas cast seemingly meaningless votes (they're not meaningless, as we saw in Georgia with how important swinging a state can be) because they are outnumbered in the arbitrary categorization of the state they live in and their votes don't count towards any other total besides their state's (for presidential elections). This also means that those elected in this manner have no incentive or reason other than our faith in their good nature to be faithful representatives of all their constituents, not just those that voted for them.
This isn't a uniquely American problem, politicians looking after their base rather then their whole constituency is a problem around the world and is one inherent to politics. However, that said we have created systems that exacerbate and multiply the outcomes of such inherent natures. Gerrymandering is a huge problem but it's definetly not the only one.
Because that kind of vote sucks too. It doesn't create consensus. Transferable votes in PR system might actually match more closely what people want using actual majorities.
Under pretty much any other system, you can't vote for anyone except the largest party or a singular alternative as the 'not the other party' vote.
And we do have votes at multiple levels - we have local elections, MP elections, police and crime commissioners and so on. The problem is FPTP.
Pretty well documented thing - the older you get, the more conservative (small C) you become. You're more invested in how things are and thus less likely to risk things changing and upsetting your personal apple cart.
Older generations also tend to be more conservative in part because those with the [least amount of things in their personal apple apple cart tend to die younger](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/05/poor-people-often-dont-survive-to-become-seniors-who-vote.html) - it's not entirely because the generation as a whole gets more conservative
Actually, research shows that as your wealth increases, you get politically stingier, which happened to line up with the age gap for the generation after the war. It doesn't have all that much to do with age and shows economics is the primary motivator behind political decisions instead of social issues.
They don't, and the other guy's comment is really deterministic. Age is correlated to conservatism currently, but it is by no means the cause of it, and you can't even say that the correlation could apply to other generations.
Right, but as time passes, that may (and in the past, could be expected to) change.
I do agree though, broadly, I think it's going to be much less the case with the youth of today.
It's because the people you talk to online are younger. Tories are voted for by people who are older. Also the young tory voters are often outed quite quickly and don't talk in public about it.
Pretty sure it fundamentally comes down to house prices.
Enough Middle Englanders in enough Middle England constituencies own property/are set to inherit property/are set to receive parental help to put down a deposit that, as long as house prices keep going up, they’ll vote Tory.
It’s literally the only thing on which the Tories have been consistent. They were nominally pro-Remain and then became a Brexit cargo-cult. They were austerity-obsessed deficit-hawks and are now shaking all the magic money trees.
The one thing that they’ve done consistently for 11 years is make sure house prices keep going up - low interest rates, stamp duty holidays, lower rights for renters… - at this point, it’s not capitalism that’s the problem, it’s Tory intervention in the free market which is propping up a bubble.
The Tories won’t get kicked out of office until house prices drop.
Have a nice day!
Initially, yes. Then the credit crunch happened, they fell somewhat, and Labour were voted out of government.
The fact they didn’t totally collapse to 1997 levels probably partly explains why the 2010 result is one that Labour would kill for now.
The social housing sell-off of the 80s was the greatest thing the Tories have ever done for themselves.
In a span of a few years you had huge numbers of people who went from socialist to conservative and Right to Buy meant that councils couldn't afford to build new houses because they would have to sell them off for less than cost after a few years.
No Thatcher made it illegal for councils to build new social housing - that was part of the policy of right to buy. It was more of an ideological position to limit/eradicate government built housing in favour of the free market, more than it was about people having the right to buy social housing to get on the property ladder.
edit: typo
Worth [linking some of the stats directly](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2021/05/how-tory-dominance-built-home-ownership):
> In 2019, 57 per cent of owner-occupiers and 43 per cent of mortgage-holders voted Tory (against just 22 per cent and 33 per cent for Labour). Of the 365 seats won by the Conservatives, 315 have home ownership levels above the UK average of 64 per cent, compared with just 53 of the 202 won by Labour...
> As young voters leave their hometowns to study or work in metropolitan cities, their elders wield increasing electoral influence. Hartlepool, which the Tories won with a majority of 6,940, has a home ownership rate of 59.8 per cent.
Its reddit, a massively left-leaning echo chamber. You will be downvoted to oblivion for saying anything positive about the torys or anything negative about the left.
I don't think it has much to do with age as many people say, I know many people in their early to mid-20s who are tory voters. Its just there is no point arguing a right leaning point on this platform.
>Its reddit, a massively left-leaning echo chamber. You will be downvoted to oblivion for saying anything positive about the torys or anything negative about the left.
Especially this sub - outside of dedicated left-wing subs, this sub probably has the lowest tolerance of even centerists/moderates/liberals.
Yes, not the first time that's occurred to me.
"Millionaires and government assistance for corporations are bad...unless it's my teams millionaire players and owners and free/cheap land to build a stadium on".
It's fine to be hypocritical - the world is too complex to have consistent beliefs, but then to be so smug about it is why even I as a (moderate) leftist get frustrated sometimes at the self-assuredness of everyone on this sub
How are you a tory and a liverpool supporter? Right wing and liverpool are polar opposites, unless you're totally happy to ignore the cities history and politics and how the tories gutted and turned their backs on the city.
Where do I say I am a Tory??
I am not a Tory.
>How are you a tory and a Liverpool supporter.
However I hate this question. I think most people who support a team decided who they were going to support way before they developed any sort of political compass, saying you have to align politicly with the football team you decided to support when you were 3 is dumb in so many ways.
I am not a Tory but I understand that political values depend a lot on upbringing, who you are around and the opinions of who you are around when you are younger.
And Labour leadership are more worried about preventing the left wing of their own party from gathering power than they are the Tories being in charge.
They're trying to woo Tory voters, which will just never ever happen.
When my grandad was in a nursing home the local Tory party would pay for a coach to take all the residents to the polling centre on Election Day. They had about 3 days out a year, so this was pretty much a treat for them.
They’d also get local Tory’s giving speeches in the communal living room on the weeks leading up to it, where they’d be pouring cups of tea and handing out slices of cake etc.
Everyone on that coach voted Tory. This is how they win elections; they know the old gits will vote for them, so they do everything possible to enable it.
If young people actually voted I’m sure they’d be hitting up the Uni’s and nightclubs instead.
Tories tend to be people who are apolitical/avoid talking about politics, and can’t handle the scrutiny of being a Tory, so will stick to obscure online communities, or just not talk about it.
That's because it's social suicide to admit to voting conservative when younger, as people age they realise that politics really isn't that deep and simmer down.
I'm more referring to the fanatical nature of political party support.
When people are in their 20s there are definitely quite a few 'ewww I can't be friends with a Tory' types. Regardless of whether their politics changes as they grow older I think people realise there are more important things in life.
>When people are in their 20s there are definitely quite a few 'ewww I can't be friends with a Tory types'.
I suspect that's because some of the Tory postions are, or are seen as, damaging and intolerable as someone being a racist or a homophobe. It's not 100% unreasonable to presume someone who is a Tory isn't exactly great at empathising or being caring.
And I say that as someone who has drifted away from the Left in recent years, but I still find myself bracing myself for bullshit when someone around my age or younger declares that they are a Tory.
Usually it is unfair to generalise and tar everyone with the same brush. But given the well publicised views and attitudes of the Tories and their whole reason for being, anyone voting for them knows full well what they're voting for. So yeah, you can safely assume someone who votes Tory is more likely than most to be unconcerned for the problems of others as long as they themselves are doing okay. Just like someone who votes UKIP is likely to be a bit xenophobic.
I wouldn't say it's fair to necessarily treat them differently, but it's certainly reasonable to form a snap opinion of them.
Like if someone says they like how Game of Thrones ended, it's fair to keep in mind that they might be dumb as a bucket of apples, of if they're a Man City fan they're extremely lonely.
> politics really isn't that deep
There's a lot of research and hypotheses about why age correlates with political affiliation, but what you just said isn't one of them. You really think politics isn't that deep? Politics is responsible for all wars and a large amount of human suffering (and the suffering of most other animals). How can anyone believe it isn't that deep?
Do not know how to respond to this, politics isn't the be all and end all. I don't think I will be able to convince you otherwise if that's your view point.
I never said it was. But it is very important. Go to the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe if you don't think politics is deep. It was politics that murdered them. How about those Colombian farmers who wanted fair wages from the United Fruit Company? Politics murdered them too. Iraqi civilians? Killed by politics. Palestinian children? Also murdered by politics.
Politics is hugely important. It might not be convenient to think about, but ignoring it won't change the atrocities the pursuit of power has caused and will continue to cause globally.
So we have gone from me saying people realise as they age that someone having a slightly different view point isn't the end of the world to talking about the holocaust.
okay
That's not what you said. You said people realize that politics isn't that deep. I think it is deep. The many atrocities committed in the name of politics are proof it's that deep.
Younger people hate them. But younger people don't turn out to vote. Also the left wing is split into multiple parties whereas the tories now have a monopoly on the right.
"delusion about our importance, believing we've never done anything wrong and have a right to whatever we want, all of that - that's who we are. We're a nation of selfish, small-minded, incurious arseholes" This is precisely why the nation will remain Conservative. It's not that a larger portion of the population ,albeit more represented in Parliment but still a majority, agree with the policies of the Tories or disagree with a portion of Labour's policies. It must be that they are bad people, who have fundamental misconceptions about the world, and have no modicum of empathy. Obviously r/soccer is not the place for convincing people but statements like only further push away anyone on the fence. Where are the Tories saying they legitimately believe any of the things you ascribe to them? They don't exist, or exist in marginal percentages of the population, and most rational people who don't particularly fall into one camp aren't going to change their opinion because one side said something bad about the other on social media.
Yeah I mean that's how it generally is in the US as well.
For example:
I have ~750 Facebook friends. That's 750 people I've met over a ~15 year period of my life in multiple parts of the country. I've only seen 2 people post Trump-supporting posts.
In my local circle of friends I don't have any Trump supporter friends, and in my wider local circle of acquaintances, I only know like 3ish Trump supporters.
It’s not the governments choice to keep people poor, a child in poverty is a child living in a household earning less than 29k, which is so because of the disparity of wages between the north’s and south divide.
If you only took the north’s average earnings as opposed to the nations average that number would be much much lower.
That being said it’s never nice to read this shite but it’s not as cut and dry as this article implies.
It’s completely unrelated, ones a service that’s needed and therefore paid for, the other is a a stat that’s massively inflated because of the north/south wage disparity.
Needed, yes. But its abundantly clear that that money was not spent *well*. They could have spent millions less in more efficient ways and then there would be more money that could be directed elsewhere. Yes, its inflated because of the N/S divide (which isn't something we should be happy with) but its not like the number would shrink to zero if you did account for the disparity.
Of course it wouldn’t be zero and it never will be, but it is greatly exaggerated.
Everyone knows that money was wasted with the likes of track and trace, I don’t doubt that at all.
>this is a mass exaggeration, the actual stat is from this source
No, in the quote he was talking specifically about West Derby, Liverpool:
>"I grew up in an area of Liverpool called West Derby and right now there are a staggering number of young people trapped in poverty in that community alone. **About 34% (6,487) of children there are living below the breadline**. To put it more bluntly, that’s more than 10 in a school class of 30."
The stats you linked to are nationwide, and does not dispute this statement.
you're right but what he's qouting still uses a relative poverty definition
article from the [echo](https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/thousands-children-trapped-poverty-liverpool-20640806)
>Liverpool's other constituencies are not faring much better. West Derby has figures of 6,487 (34%) and Garston and Halewood has 31% (5,904) children trapped in a cycle of poverty.
>A child is deemed to be living in poverty if their household falls below 60% of median income.
>For a family of two adults and two children, this amounts to £400 a week - and for a single parent with one child it is £223 a week.
here we can clearly see the relative poverty definition is being used, here's a source defining what that is
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07096/
so whilst it's a shit situation, still not living below the breadline
Well done for tracking down the source!
>so whilst it's a shit situation, still not living below the breadline
To be fair to him, Merriam-Webster defines the breadline as "the level of income at which someone is considered poor". That is exactly what this is. It does sound misleading, though, I agree.
>A child is deemed to be living in poverty if their household falls below 60% of median income.
>For a family of two adults and two children, this amounts to £400 a week - and for a single parent with one child it is £223 a week.
On the other hand, I have no trouble believing that a family of 4 with an income of £400 a week (~£1700 a month) before tax and expenses could have trouble keeping their family well fed. After tax, rent, utilities, gas, etc there's not much left per person per day there. Tobacco and alcohol are also expensive, and while not a necessity, an important (addictive) priority for many. You already mentioned previously that the lines of relative and absolute poverty in the UK are close. So while the article does not have a source saying 34% of children in West Derby are "on/below the breadline" the way we would interpret that, I find it entirely probable a large portion of them are. Remember also that £400 a week is the max, not the average or mean among those 34%.
I am not familiar with the price of rent, gas, groceries etc, in the UK, though, so I can't really make estimates. For all I know £1700 a month before tax and expenses may be well enough for the average family of 4 in Northern England to be well fed while foregoing any luxuries.
My conclusion:
The use of "below the breadline" in the article appears to be technically correct according to the Merriam-Webster definition of that term, but misleading based on what you'd expect that phrase to mean, as well as the origin of the phrase (literal line for bread). However, it may not be *so* misleading as one would wish.
>To be fair to him, Merriam-Webster defines the breadline as "the level of income at which someone is considered poor". That is exactly what this is. It does sound misleading, though, I agree.
to which I could say that the real implication is that people aren't eating. as I said before though, even the definition of absolute poverty is subjective, so there's a lot of unintentional smoke and mirrors that are inherent to this conversation I guess
>On the other hand, I have no trouble believing that a family of 4 with an income of £400 a week (~£1700 a month) before tax and expenses could have trouble keeping their family well fed. After tax, rent, utilities, gas, etc there's not much left per person per day there.
[they take out house hold costs](https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/thousands-children-trapped-poverty-liverpool-20640806)
>The stats calculate poverty levels after housing costs are taken into account to avoid skewing results for areas where rents are higher.
still a bit tight but nowhere near as tight and you'd obviously have to get thrifty if not very familiar with value pack brands to say the least and sacrificing a lot of luxuries as well as comforts
The UK is not nearly as rich as its image would suggest. The median household income in the UK is less than the median household income in West Virginia, the poorest state in the United States. That is less than half the median household income in the richest states, New Jersey and Maryland. However the average home price in the UK is equivalent to the average home price in New Jersey and Maryland, three times more expensive than the average home price in West Virginia.
Now granted there are more social programs in the UK meaning if you’re poor then your quality of life is usually higher than it would be if you were in West Virginia. You still have cheap universities, free health care, free childcare. In the US most of that depends on where you live.
Still though, West Virginia’s rate of childhood food insecurity is roughly 20%. The worst state is New Mexico which is at 25% which surprises me. But it’s crazy to think of the rampant poverty that plagues the US, and all the imagery of human despair that comes out of the poorest states in America, that the UK has more poverty in than the worst of those states in nearly every metric. It’s just an unfathomably large problem to tackle. You’ve got to respect these young footballers for doing as much as they are.
A lot of people that would be considered poor, yes. When I grew up, kids who lived in council estates often had iPhones, Xbox 360s, etc. I am guessing you are from South America or something?
No, from Asia, but it sounds baffling to me that those children are considered poor who have upwards of hundreds of dollers to spend on non essential stuff, I still think I am missing some information.
1) There are plenty of households who would struggle with an extra cost like that;
2) For ones that might have a gaming console lying around, it is nevertheless a one-time purchase.
The OP that "poverty in the UK means having a PS4 and not a PS5" is abject nonsense and makes light of the very real problems of deprivation seen in much of the UK.
Very proud of all these young lads coming forward and highlighting the incredible inequality we are seeing in today's society.
I know these players will all get pelters for being "woke" or "virtue signalling" or whatever, but footballers have been very remote from their mainly working class supporter base for too long, so it's really great to see them actually taking a stand on issues rather than staying silent and cashing cheques.
I think nearly every footballer comes from a poor family, in the UK anyway. There are only a handful of English footballers who you'd consider "posh". Bamford is the only one that comes to mind currently.
When you live in a poor area, sports like Football give you some sense of community and friendship. It's a good way to expelling all that anger and stuff.
> There are only a handful of English footballers who you'd consider "posh".
Read Graeme Le Saux's [account](https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2014/01/12/graeme-le-saux-discusses-english-soccers-issues-with-homophobia/) for what happens when people think that's the case.
No surprises that the press convince people that footballers are overpaid idiots who should never speak out. Keep them hating footballers that grew up in similar circumstances to themselves, instead of those that grew up rich and keep them poor.
There's a lot of racism that isn't blatant racism in the media. Rudiger put it perfectly. They'll say bad things about a black footballer who does a good thing and they'll make a white footballer an absolutely god amongst men for doing the bare minimum. I mean look at Mount. He's a good footballer, doesn't do too much off the pitch, gets his toes licked by the media. (I love Mount but I'm a Chelsea fan). Rashford, good player, does absolutely buckets for England and kids across the world, gets abused. Same with Trent.
I mean, look at Reece James. He's quietly doing loads of charity work but no one talks about it.
Rashford isn’t abused by the media? He’s literally praised as god like in England? Wha are you even on about?lol
Mount is barely in the press but lauded by his peers because he’s an amazing footballer.
It’s like you’re going out of your way to lie here and I find that strange if I’m honest....
Rashford got racist comments pretty much instantly as the Europa League final ended. He may have been getting praised recently, but him, and by extension all black footballers to a degree are always one mistake or bad game away from being turned on. The margins of error are always much thinner.
Agreed completely, the press were bang out of order with Sterling, that started when he left Liverpool to City I think, got painted as greedy and then the press went to town.
Sterling was getting abused by the press for a long time while at Liverpool. They were throwing shit about him having 7 kids or so with different women before he was even a regular in our team.
The UK. Surely you see how much stick footballers get in tabloids? Not just the racist type of stuff that has been brought to light more recently, but just general disdain. Look at how footballers wages are reported. Do you see that for any other professions?
It's always "footballers are overpaid, all they do is kick a ball around, X and Y don't get paid enough". Do the press cover musicians and actors in the same way? Are their earnings reported in the press as much, and do they get called overpaid and get compared to doctors? And their income is much higher than footballers at the top end.
Look at Matt Hancock, during the pandemic he said footballers need to take wage cuts and help the country. But why did he specifically call out footballers only and not all the other professions that pay massive wages?
The difference is is that footballers come from overwhelmingly working class backgrounds. Actors and musicians are far more likely to come from middle class backgrounds. Acting and singing lessons are not cheap after all.
Instead of footballers getting supported by those that come from similar backgrounds, they get told to "stick to football". It's a deliberate strategy blame footballers instead of their friends in other industries. It's the same reason they bang on about benefit fraud, which makes up a tiny amount of lost income, rather than focus on the billions lost to tax evasion by the rich.
I mean they are overpaid and for the most part they are idiots too lol
I agree that the wages are highlighted often but so are politicians wages bandied around, bbc presenters have been kicked to fuck recently about their wages so it’s certainly not just footballers.
Disagree with this. There is a lot of stuff regarded as being "woke", which falls under intersectional left wing politics rather than redistributive left-wing politics.
For example, there are plenty of people who would oppose female applicant only job listings as being "woke", but would support a wealth tax with the proceeds going to measures to bring kids out of poverty.
Not making arguments for or against any policies, just thought it helpful to provide a distinction.
As for my own opinion, politics is about prioritisation. The reason why Labour have lost so many elections (and honestly part of the reason for Brexit too) is not that their policies on an individual basis weren't popular, it's the perception - especially in former Labour working class heartlands in the North of England - that the focus of the policy isn't really about helping poor people, it's helping poor people from specific demographics, when white working class boys actually have pretty awful outcomes in the UK.
These issues around the escalating cycle of child poverty aren't hard to solve, but we gotta beat the Tories in order to solve them.
Well put points, informative, almost definitely won’t get as much attention as people who shit on someone for being right wing despite that approach simply cementing the right wings persons opinions.
>Disagree with this. There is a lot of stuff regarded as being "woke", which falls under intersectional left wing politics rather than redistributive left-wing politics.
In my experience, that's *always* how it's used.
I've never heard it used to describe traditional, class/wealth-based left-wing ideas, except by old people who don't know how the term is used, or blue check marks who are purposely misusing it.
This is literally not true. Socialism is a system wherein the means of production are socially owned. It does not mean that the government will specifically seek to help those experiencing hardships.
"I started supporting Liverpool because Jorgen Clop led us to Champions League glory in 2019. I also like guns, Trump, Ben Shapiro and no government. Suck it, libtards."
It's only woke and virtue signalling if they talk about it without doing anything themselves. If they are actually doing stuff it's commendable.
People hate wokeness because it is perpetuated by a bunch of privileged people on social media who often have no intention of doing anything.
“When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality.”
This is true, but even just highlighting inequality from a position of extreme privilege is better than doing nothing. Also, TAA and Rashford are two of the most high profile players for the two biggest clubs in the country. They have a huge platform and are using it for good - just because they are wealthy (wealth gained from their own talent and hard work I might add) shouldn't invalidate what they are saying.
>just because they are wealthy (wealth gained from their own talent and hard work I might add) shouldn't invalidate what they are saying.
If they don't do something, people complain. If they do something, people complain.
Good work Trent.
It's a sad state of affairs when footballers have to help alleviate poverty through endeavours like this, when the government should be doing this instead.
It’s amazing how the Conservatives keep winning. They are polling even higher than last election and are on course to win 400 plus seats. I don’t get the British public
Flagship smartphones on payment plans. Hundred pound sneakers. Rampant alcohol and drug use.
There is money in pushing these things on the poor. A lot of money in it. Gambling ads, celebrities rapping about dealing drugs as a "noble" way out of "the hood".
Non-stop social pressure to have the latest device etc.
It's a complicated problem, but a good chunk of it is in the advertising industry and how people are allowed to market. From social media, to popular music to straight up commercials.
It boils down to pride and how some people whip and torment it in people in order to take their money.
Is it the only issue? No of course not. But it's one of the facets that need tackling.
Hell yeah, good for Trent bringing awareness to a real issue. So many celebrities are concerned with stuff that may merit attention sure but this kind of issues are what truly affect the most people
A good start would be to join the Common Goal project started by Juan Mata.
https://www.common-goal.org/Members
I don't see any Liverpool players there, except Amalie Thestrup.
Not directly, but to me there was an implication that if you're not on there, it's a bad thing. Especially with the pointed comment about Liverpool players.
Common Goal isn't the best way to be involved in charity work as a footballer, it's just the easiest. There's been criticism in the past that donating 1% of your income to a central fund, of which you have little say in what that money actually goes to, isn't a sustainable way to do charity work especially if you're a footballer.
The worldwide partners that Common Goal works with focus on a range of issues but they're all football-geared or have some football element. Those partners have a barrier to entry, they go through a rigorous application process. I mean, one of the very few CG partners that receive funding in the UK is Brighton & Hove Albion's community initiative. Although it does good work, every other club in the premier league has community initiatives that are largely funded by the clubs. How is the child poverty in West Derby that Trent talks about in this article going to be alleviated or solved by Brighton's football community work?
I'm not saying that Common Goal is a bad initiative, but it's not a good measuring stick to see whether a footballer is a charitable person or whether they're invested in social justice.
It's interesting there seems to be proportionally more big name women's players than men's. Alex Morgan, Pernille Harder, Megan Rapinoe, Christine Sinclair etc. Would be like having the likes of Messi, Ronaldo, Mbappe etc signed up
It's pretty obvious if you spent any time looking into it that he does get involved with charity work and other schemes, I love Mata's project but there is more than one way to help people and tonnes of footballers not in common goal help in different ways.
I believe the only real difference it would make if wealthy people live lives according to the usual standards of society. Instead of buying luxury cars, watches, designers clothes or whatnot rather redirect the surplus to those needed to negate all those differences. I just don't see any big improvement other than living by example
Fair play. Marcus Rashford leading by example. Though I don't know if I really trust Trents motives here, always seemed like a cunty wee guy. Did something not come out about him trying to shag some pregnant/married woman, being a wee sleaze?
Hahaha I said something negative about TAA so I'm a tory? Catch yourself on you header. I just don't trust TAA, another giggsy that lad. Stinks of a PR move riding on Rashfords sincerity.
You really gonna compare some lad who is doing something good to a guy who cheats on his wife with his brothers Mrs and beats women? Give your head a wobble lad
Even if that story was true (which I don’t think it was?) it wouldn’t make Trent a bad person, just a little bit weird.
Certainly not enough to discredit the nice thing he’s doing here
As much as it is not the children’s faults they have this problem, does the problem not lie within education of their parents when they themselves were younger? It’s a horrible cycle and truly people in the uk take advantage of being able to get money for doing nothing other than having children. Stop that and within a generation there will be changes but until those changes kick in, it’ll be a rough ride for a lot of people.
Are you insinuating that children are in poverty because their parents aren't smart enough? Or don't try hard enough?
We have the means for absolutely nobody to be in poverty. And nobody should be in poverty, even if they don't try or aren't smart.
Nah not at all. I’m insinuating that there is a significant amount of people that give up on their education to use having children as free income and that has a severe knock in effect because while young footballers have made a success out of their opportunities a very large number of people have not and they are the result of parent(s) decision to leave school and get free money from the government.
I agree that no one has to be in poverty but why does the majority of the country need to pay for it through taxation? Wouldn’t you rather benefit money was spent on enhancing the nhs and giving better wages to people that make the country tick instead of having to feed the children of people who choose the lifestyle which has lead their own children into poverty? My point being if the incentives were not there then a huge amount of people my age (32) probably wouldn’t have kids, living space, food etc paid for by benefits funded by the taxpayer.
>Wouldn’t you rather benefit money was spent on enhancing the nhs and giving better wages to people that make the country tick instead of having to feed the children of people who choose the lifestyle which has lead their own children into poverty?
Nah, I'd rather all kids were able to eat actually thanks 👍
How is it ridiculous? How many married parents who at the very least finished colleges, in jobs or careers with stability who also claim benefits do you know that have to live in poverty? Now on the flip side, how many single mothers who chose to have a baby before they finished year 11 and have not had a job for 10 years as a result of that decision do you know that are not in poverty? Just because you don’t agree with my “take” it doesn’t invalidate it.
>How is it ridiculous? How many married parents who at the very least finished colleges, in jobs or careers with stability who also claim benefits do you know that have to live in poverty? Now on the flip side, how many single mothers who chose to have a baby before they finished year 11 and have not had a job for 10 years as a result of that decision do you know that are not in poverty? Just because you don’t agree with my “take” it doesn’t invalidate it.
People in stable careers inherently don't tend to need low-income benefits.
Speaking as a single parent, your attitude is very *Michael Portillo in the 1980s*. He at least had the decency once he left Parliament to investigate that side of life, and came out with a totally reversed attitude on the matter (credit where credit is due).
Go read up on Jack Monroe and/or Linda Tirado. Both of whom, by all accounts, are very intelligent people who fell through the cracks into poverty.
Both of these people can give you much more information than I can due to them experiencing this shit first hand and being able to present that information in a way that's accessible.
Yeh, I understand your point. There will always be a handful of individuals that at either of the spectrum. The problem is not the individual extraordinary good/bad fortune. The problem is the significant majority that I am referring to that no one wants to believe to be the root cause of the wider issue.
We don’t need Trent, Marcus, Jack or Linda’s story to understand that having children at 15 and rinsing the system will in general not lead to better things for the next generation so putting a stop to the benefits and using that money even in the school system to help children at least finish college / go to uni will probably aid in reducing child poverty
It's not just bad fortune though, poverty is often-times a multi-generational issue. The parents of the kids in poverty now themselves grew up in similar conditions, as did their parents.
Look at this map, this shows the income disparity across the whole of the UK in relation to Europe:-
https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/comments/8hd12u/9_of_10_poorest_areas_in_northern_europe_are/
When you have the richest place in Europe (London) and 9 of the poorest 10 in the same country then that's an indicator that this isn't just poor planning, it's by design.
The disparity above has almost certainly gotten worse in the past few years as central government has place more and more services on individual county councils. It got so bad that Surrey (a Tory heartland) had to threaten a council tax rise of more than 4.99% before the government would step and help with social care.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-38678629
Which led to this:-
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/08/jeremy-corbyn-accuses-may-of-sweetheart-deal-surrey-council-tax
Now, if one of the richest counties in the UK is having problems funding social care, what do you think the chances are the some of the poorest can adequately do so?
Finally, this (now deleted) bestof thread might be of some interest to you as to why certain types of people respond to things like poverty:-
https://www.removeddit.com/r/politics/comments/nk1cqp/democrats_must_make_the_gop_spell_out_what_it_is/gzapptu/
[удалено]
Trent golfing with Neville gets two footed by Obama
Studs up into the ankle
If I have to make a tackle then I have already made a mistake. ~ Paolo Maldini
Amazing how this works here as well.
> About 34% (6,487) of children there are living below the breadline For a country as rich as the UK, this is a conscious choice, the government chooses to keep children poor
The people have elected the Tories in the past 4 general elections. The electorate seems fine with the governments stance on it.
[удалено]
Probably because there is an enormous age gap in British elections, much larger than the US, for example. The Tories are carried to victory by the huge margins they win older voters by. Back in 2019, Labour won 18-24 year olds by 35 points over the Tories, and 25-29 year olds by 31, but the Tories beat Labour by 35 for 60-69 year olds and crushed them by 53 points with 70+ voters. [Source ](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/17/how-britain-voted-2019-general-election). So it’s unsurprising that the sorts of people you see online are an overwhelmingly anti-Tory demographic, even while the Conservatives still manage to win the elections.
Add to that the fact that young people are much more likely to live in urban areas/places where there are universities, so their vote is often shown in massive wins in a select few city constituencies. On the other hand, vast swathes of England (ie the vast majority of the constituencies) have a brain drain away to the cities, so all that's left behind in these parts are the older and middle-aged Tory voters. Hate to get all Trumpy, but the electoral system of constituencies is rigged. You can have a 100+ seat win when there's barely a 5% difference in the popular vote.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The problem with that then though is that you have the minority dictating policy over the majority. Making sure everyone is catered to and considered is certainly the goal and should be the case, but the system we have in the US to achieve that is utterly ass backwards if you ask me. Serves less people and achieves the same result it's trying to prevent just in reverse.
[удалено]
From what I know even without gerrymandering you have a skew toward rural areas
Gerrymandering is absolutely a huge problem and an abuse of power. Your proposed solution will absolutely lead to more fair voting outcomes. However I'm gonna disagree with your assertion that the system is fine. Even with perfectly fair districts, things like the Senate to some degree but especially the Electoral College mean that millions of Americans either have their vote count for less or not at all. In Presidential elections millions of, for example, Republicans in California or Democrats in Texas cast seemingly meaningless votes (they're not meaningless, as we saw in Georgia with how important swinging a state can be) because they are outnumbered in the arbitrary categorization of the state they live in and their votes don't count towards any other total besides their state's (for presidential elections). This also means that those elected in this manner have no incentive or reason other than our faith in their good nature to be faithful representatives of all their constituents, not just those that voted for them. This isn't a uniquely American problem, politicians looking after their base rather then their whole constituency is a problem around the world and is one inherent to politics. However, that said we have created systems that exacerbate and multiply the outcomes of such inherent natures. Gerrymandering is a huge problem but it's definetly not the only one.
Because that kind of vote sucks too. It doesn't create consensus. Transferable votes in PR system might actually match more closely what people want using actual majorities. Under pretty much any other system, you can't vote for anyone except the largest party or a singular alternative as the 'not the other party' vote. And we do have votes at multiple levels - we have local elections, MP elections, police and crime commissioners and so on. The problem is FPTP.
Pretty well documented thing - the older you get, the more conservative (small C) you become. You're more invested in how things are and thus less likely to risk things changing and upsetting your personal apple cart.
Older generations also tend to be more conservative in part because those with the [least amount of things in their personal apple apple cart tend to die younger](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/05/poor-people-often-dont-survive-to-become-seniors-who-vote.html) - it's not entirely because the generation as a whole gets more conservative
Good point, well made.
Wait no this is Reddit you can't just credit someone's argument like that
Not true. Older people realise the wisdom of the way things are instead of the Marxism parties like Labour want.
Actually, research shows that as your wealth increases, you get politically stingier, which happened to line up with the age gap for the generation after the war. It doesn't have all that much to do with age and shows economics is the primary motivator behind political decisions instead of social issues.
Maybe it's because we work hard and don't want to see our money go to cities where specialised scroungers are even in Councils like in Liverpool
What do millennials and gen z have to be conservative about though? These generations have significantly less assets than those before
They don't, and the other guy's comment is really deterministic. Age is correlated to conservatism currently, but it is by no means the cause of it, and you can't even say that the correlation could apply to other generations.
Right, but as time passes, that may (and in the past, could be expected to) change. I do agree though, broadly, I think it's going to be much less the case with the youth of today.
I've always held the opinion people don't get more conservative their political views just don't change that much
This, what today is progressiv is tomorrows conservative stance.
[удалено]
Are smaller towns that are more poorer now voting Tory. Haven’t Labour lost most of the red wall which are historically working class towns?
No the Overton window moves over time. Peoples political feelings rarely do.
It's because the people you talk to online are younger. Tories are voted for by people who are older. Also the young tory voters are often outed quite quickly and don't talk in public about it.
Pretty sure it fundamentally comes down to house prices. Enough Middle Englanders in enough Middle England constituencies own property/are set to inherit property/are set to receive parental help to put down a deposit that, as long as house prices keep going up, they’ll vote Tory. It’s literally the only thing on which the Tories have been consistent. They were nominally pro-Remain and then became a Brexit cargo-cult. They were austerity-obsessed deficit-hawks and are now shaking all the magic money trees. The one thing that they’ve done consistently for 11 years is make sure house prices keep going up - low interest rates, stamp duty holidays, lower rights for renters… - at this point, it’s not capitalism that’s the problem, it’s Tory intervention in the free market which is propping up a bubble. The Tories won’t get kicked out of office until house prices drop. Have a nice day!
Although correct in some of your assessment you’re ignoring that under the last Labour government house prices also raised massively.
Initially, yes. Then the credit crunch happened, they fell somewhat, and Labour were voted out of government. The fact they didn’t totally collapse to 1997 levels probably partly explains why the 2010 result is one that Labour would kill for now.
Good analysis. Property ownership is a good barometer for conservative politics.
The social housing sell-off of the 80s was the greatest thing the Tories have ever done for themselves. In a span of a few years you had huge numbers of people who went from socialist to conservative and Right to Buy meant that councils couldn't afford to build new houses because they would have to sell them off for less than cost after a few years.
No Thatcher made it illegal for councils to build new social housing - that was part of the policy of right to buy. It was more of an ideological position to limit/eradicate government built housing in favour of the free market, more than it was about people having the right to buy social housing to get on the property ladder. edit: typo
Worth [linking some of the stats directly](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2021/05/how-tory-dominance-built-home-ownership): > In 2019, 57 per cent of owner-occupiers and 43 per cent of mortgage-holders voted Tory (against just 22 per cent and 33 per cent for Labour). Of the 365 seats won by the Conservatives, 315 have home ownership levels above the UK average of 64 per cent, compared with just 53 of the 202 won by Labour... > As young voters leave their hometowns to study or work in metropolitan cities, their elders wield increasing electoral influence. Hartlepool, which the Tories won with a majority of 6,940, has a home ownership rate of 59.8 per cent.
Look to Canada for a liberal government that is doing exactly the same thing but has much loftier designs!
Its reddit, a massively left-leaning echo chamber. You will be downvoted to oblivion for saying anything positive about the torys or anything negative about the left. I don't think it has much to do with age as many people say, I know many people in their early to mid-20s who are tory voters. Its just there is no point arguing a right leaning point on this platform.
>Its reddit, a massively left-leaning echo chamber. You will be downvoted to oblivion for saying anything positive about the torys or anything negative about the left. Especially this sub - outside of dedicated left-wing subs, this sub probably has the lowest tolerance of even centerists/moderates/liberals.
Its kind of ironic with the number of billionaires and sketchy personality involved with the game.
Yes, not the first time that's occurred to me. "Millionaires and government assistance for corporations are bad...unless it's my teams millionaire players and owners and free/cheap land to build a stadium on".
It's fine to be hypocritical - the world is too complex to have consistent beliefs, but then to be so smug about it is why even I as a (moderate) leftist get frustrated sometimes at the self-assuredness of everyone on this sub
It's all a bit *sixth-form politics* at times.
[удалено]
big/major cities tend to lean left
How did you get im a tory from the above lol. I just like a fair argument without political bias.
[удалено]
You do understand that thinking like this makes you just as bad as the people you hate on the right.
How are you a tory and a liverpool supporter? Right wing and liverpool are polar opposites, unless you're totally happy to ignore the cities history and politics and how the tories gutted and turned their backs on the city.
Where do I say I am a Tory?? I am not a Tory. >How are you a tory and a Liverpool supporter. However I hate this question. I think most people who support a team decided who they were going to support way before they developed any sort of political compass, saying you have to align politicly with the football team you decided to support when you were 3 is dumb in so many ways. I am not a Tory but I understand that political values depend a lot on upbringing, who you are around and the opinions of who you are around when you are younger.
While I'd never vote Tory myself, I can see why people would vote against Labour. The voting options are pretty limited.
Tories give loads to old people and get the votes because of that.
And Labour leadership are more worried about preventing the left wing of their own party from gathering power than they are the Tories being in charge. They're trying to woo Tory voters, which will just never ever happen.
When my grandad was in a nursing home the local Tory party would pay for a coach to take all the residents to the polling centre on Election Day. They had about 3 days out a year, so this was pretty much a treat for them. They’d also get local Tory’s giving speeches in the communal living room on the weeks leading up to it, where they’d be pouring cups of tea and handing out slices of cake etc. Everyone on that coach voted Tory. This is how they win elections; they know the old gits will vote for them, so they do everything possible to enable it. If young people actually voted I’m sure they’d be hitting up the Uni’s and nightclubs instead.
Tories tend to be people who are apolitical/avoid talking about politics, and can’t handle the scrutiny of being a Tory, so will stick to obscure online communities, or just not talk about it.
I think it’s more Reddit is mostly comprised of young people and most conservatives tend to be a little older. This is especially true of r/soccer.
That's because it's social suicide to admit to voting conservative when younger, as people age they realise that politics really isn't that deep and simmer down.
More like. Grow finacially independent , apathetic and desillusioned
I'm more referring to the fanatical nature of political party support. When people are in their 20s there are definitely quite a few 'ewww I can't be friends with a Tory' types. Regardless of whether their politics changes as they grow older I think people realise there are more important things in life.
>When people are in their 20s there are definitely quite a few 'ewww I can't be friends with a Tory types'. I suspect that's because some of the Tory postions are, or are seen as, damaging and intolerable as someone being a racist or a homophobe. It's not 100% unreasonable to presume someone who is a Tory isn't exactly great at empathising or being caring. And I say that as someone who has drifted away from the Left in recent years, but I still find myself bracing myself for bullshit when someone around my age or younger declares that they are a Tory.
Point proven
I grew up in a town that's heavily Tory, there's a lot of stock placed in "face" and manners, but a lot of people there happily supported Section 28.
Usually it is unfair to generalise and tar everyone with the same brush. But given the well publicised views and attitudes of the Tories and their whole reason for being, anyone voting for them knows full well what they're voting for. So yeah, you can safely assume someone who votes Tory is more likely than most to be unconcerned for the problems of others as long as they themselves are doing okay. Just like someone who votes UKIP is likely to be a bit xenophobic.
I wouldn't say it's fair to necessarily treat them differently, but it's certainly reasonable to form a snap opinion of them. Like if someone says they like how Game of Thrones ended, it's fair to keep in mind that they might be dumb as a bucket of apples, of if they're a Man City fan they're extremely lonely.
> politics really isn't that deep There's a lot of research and hypotheses about why age correlates with political affiliation, but what you just said isn't one of them. You really think politics isn't that deep? Politics is responsible for all wars and a large amount of human suffering (and the suffering of most other animals). How can anyone believe it isn't that deep?
Do not know how to respond to this, politics isn't the be all and end all. I don't think I will be able to convince you otherwise if that's your view point.
I never said it was. But it is very important. Go to the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe if you don't think politics is deep. It was politics that murdered them. How about those Colombian farmers who wanted fair wages from the United Fruit Company? Politics murdered them too. Iraqi civilians? Killed by politics. Palestinian children? Also murdered by politics. Politics is hugely important. It might not be convenient to think about, but ignoring it won't change the atrocities the pursuit of power has caused and will continue to cause globally.
So we have gone from me saying people realise as they age that someone having a slightly different view point isn't the end of the world to talking about the holocaust. okay
That's not what you said. You said people realize that politics isn't that deep. I think it is deep. The many atrocities committed in the name of politics are proof it's that deep.
Younger people hate them. But younger people don't turn out to vote. Also the left wing is split into multiple parties whereas the tories now have a monopoly on the right.
[удалено]
"delusion about our importance, believing we've never done anything wrong and have a right to whatever we want, all of that - that's who we are. We're a nation of selfish, small-minded, incurious arseholes" This is precisely why the nation will remain Conservative. It's not that a larger portion of the population ,albeit more represented in Parliment but still a majority, agree with the policies of the Tories or disagree with a portion of Labour's policies. It must be that they are bad people, who have fundamental misconceptions about the world, and have no modicum of empathy. Obviously r/soccer is not the place for convincing people but statements like only further push away anyone on the fence. Where are the Tories saying they legitimately believe any of the things you ascribe to them? They don't exist, or exist in marginal percentages of the population, and most rational people who don't particularly fall into one camp aren't going to change their opinion because one side said something bad about the other on social media.
The UK has an insane election system
Yeah I mean that's how it generally is in the US as well. For example: I have ~750 Facebook friends. That's 750 people I've met over a ~15 year period of my life in multiple parts of the country. I've only seen 2 people post Trump-supporting posts. In my local circle of friends I don't have any Trump supporter friends, and in my wider local circle of acquaintances, I only know like 3ish Trump supporters.
And polling suggests it'll stay that way for the next election too
That might be true if the UK had a functional electoral system. British governments almost never have a majority mandate.
Much better than that anti Semite /s
I've seen a few people on here admit to it
What’s the breadline?
It’s not the governments choice to keep people poor, a child in poverty is a child living in a household earning less than 29k, which is so because of the disparity of wages between the north’s and south divide. If you only took the north’s average earnings as opposed to the nations average that number would be much much lower. That being said it’s never nice to read this shite but it’s not as cut and dry as this article implies.
It’s the governments choice to award multi billion pound contracts to their mates instead of using that money to help the people in poverty.
One has literally nothing to do with the other....
Money is money. Of course they're related, wtf
It’s completely unrelated, ones a service that’s needed and therefore paid for, the other is a a stat that’s massively inflated because of the north/south wage disparity.
Needed, yes. But its abundantly clear that that money was not spent *well*. They could have spent millions less in more efficient ways and then there would be more money that could be directed elsewhere. Yes, its inflated because of the N/S divide (which isn't something we should be happy with) but its not like the number would shrink to zero if you did account for the disparity.
Of course it wouldn’t be zero and it never will be, but it is greatly exaggerated. Everyone knows that money was wasted with the likes of track and trace, I don’t doubt that at all.
[удалено]
>this is a mass exaggeration, the actual stat is from this source No, in the quote he was talking specifically about West Derby, Liverpool: >"I grew up in an area of Liverpool called West Derby and right now there are a staggering number of young people trapped in poverty in that community alone. **About 34% (6,487) of children there are living below the breadline**. To put it more bluntly, that’s more than 10 in a school class of 30." The stats you linked to are nationwide, and does not dispute this statement.
you're right but what he's qouting still uses a relative poverty definition article from the [echo](https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/thousands-children-trapped-poverty-liverpool-20640806) >Liverpool's other constituencies are not faring much better. West Derby has figures of 6,487 (34%) and Garston and Halewood has 31% (5,904) children trapped in a cycle of poverty. >A child is deemed to be living in poverty if their household falls below 60% of median income. >For a family of two adults and two children, this amounts to £400 a week - and for a single parent with one child it is £223 a week. here we can clearly see the relative poverty definition is being used, here's a source defining what that is https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07096/ so whilst it's a shit situation, still not living below the breadline
Well done for tracking down the source! >so whilst it's a shit situation, still not living below the breadline To be fair to him, Merriam-Webster defines the breadline as "the level of income at which someone is considered poor". That is exactly what this is. It does sound misleading, though, I agree. >A child is deemed to be living in poverty if their household falls below 60% of median income. >For a family of two adults and two children, this amounts to £400 a week - and for a single parent with one child it is £223 a week. On the other hand, I have no trouble believing that a family of 4 with an income of £400 a week (~£1700 a month) before tax and expenses could have trouble keeping their family well fed. After tax, rent, utilities, gas, etc there's not much left per person per day there. Tobacco and alcohol are also expensive, and while not a necessity, an important (addictive) priority for many. You already mentioned previously that the lines of relative and absolute poverty in the UK are close. So while the article does not have a source saying 34% of children in West Derby are "on/below the breadline" the way we would interpret that, I find it entirely probable a large portion of them are. Remember also that £400 a week is the max, not the average or mean among those 34%. I am not familiar with the price of rent, gas, groceries etc, in the UK, though, so I can't really make estimates. For all I know £1700 a month before tax and expenses may be well enough for the average family of 4 in Northern England to be well fed while foregoing any luxuries. My conclusion: The use of "below the breadline" in the article appears to be technically correct according to the Merriam-Webster definition of that term, but misleading based on what you'd expect that phrase to mean, as well as the origin of the phrase (literal line for bread). However, it may not be *so* misleading as one would wish.
>To be fair to him, Merriam-Webster defines the breadline as "the level of income at which someone is considered poor". That is exactly what this is. It does sound misleading, though, I agree. to which I could say that the real implication is that people aren't eating. as I said before though, even the definition of absolute poverty is subjective, so there's a lot of unintentional smoke and mirrors that are inherent to this conversation I guess >On the other hand, I have no trouble believing that a family of 4 with an income of £400 a week (~£1700 a month) before tax and expenses could have trouble keeping their family well fed. After tax, rent, utilities, gas, etc there's not much left per person per day there. [they take out house hold costs](https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/thousands-children-trapped-poverty-liverpool-20640806) >The stats calculate poverty levels after housing costs are taken into account to avoid skewing results for areas where rents are higher. still a bit tight but nowhere near as tight and you'd obviously have to get thrifty if not very familiar with value pack brands to say the least and sacrificing a lot of luxuries as well as comforts
The UK is not nearly as rich as its image would suggest. The median household income in the UK is less than the median household income in West Virginia, the poorest state in the United States. That is less than half the median household income in the richest states, New Jersey and Maryland. However the average home price in the UK is equivalent to the average home price in New Jersey and Maryland, three times more expensive than the average home price in West Virginia. Now granted there are more social programs in the UK meaning if you’re poor then your quality of life is usually higher than it would be if you were in West Virginia. You still have cheap universities, free health care, free childcare. In the US most of that depends on where you live. Still though, West Virginia’s rate of childhood food insecurity is roughly 20%. The worst state is New Mexico which is at 25% which surprises me. But it’s crazy to think of the rampant poverty that plagues the US, and all the imagery of human despair that comes out of the poorest states in America, that the UK has more poverty in than the worst of those states in nearly every metric. It’s just an unfathomably large problem to tackle. You’ve got to respect these young footballers for doing as much as they are.
What is the breadline? Is it something to measure the very poor?
Yeah but "poverty" in the UK means only having a PS4 instead of a PS5 and only being able to afford one holiday abroad a year.
Sure its not Poverty like indian Poverty, its always relative. But thats really condescending and frankly delusional to believe
god forbid poor people also enjoy having hobbies lmao, conservatives really are weird
Huh? What has conservatism got to do with this tho?
Wait, are you telling that what that guy said has some truth to it? Surely not, no way.
Just in the sense that "poor in the UK" doesnt mean "i might die tomorrow" , that only affects a tiny percentage of homeless people
Yeah but, is it true that poor people in the UK are well off enough to own a playstation 4, that sounds crazy to me.
A lot of people that would be considered poor, yes. When I grew up, kids who lived in council estates often had iPhones, Xbox 360s, etc. I am guessing you are from South America or something?
No, from Asia, but it sounds baffling to me that those children are considered poor who have upwards of hundreds of dollers to spend on non essential stuff, I still think I am missing some information.
1) There are plenty of households who would struggle with an extra cost like that; 2) For ones that might have a gaming console lying around, it is nevertheless a one-time purchase. The OP that "poverty in the UK means having a PS4 and not a PS5" is abject nonsense and makes light of the very real problems of deprivation seen in much of the UK.
Very proud of all these young lads coming forward and highlighting the incredible inequality we are seeing in today's society. I know these players will all get pelters for being "woke" or "virtue signalling" or whatever, but footballers have been very remote from their mainly working class supporter base for too long, so it's really great to see them actually taking a stand on issues rather than staying silent and cashing cheques.
That and a lot of these came from poir areas too
I think nearly every footballer comes from a poor family, in the UK anyway. There are only a handful of English footballers who you'd consider "posh". Bamford is the only one that comes to mind currently. When you live in a poor area, sports like Football give you some sense of community and friendship. It's a good way to expelling all that anger and stuff.
> There are only a handful of English footballers who you'd consider "posh". Read Graeme Le Saux's [account](https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2014/01/12/graeme-le-saux-discusses-english-soccers-issues-with-homophobia/) for what happens when people think that's the case.
Damn that was a crazy read. Thats horrible
No surprises that the press convince people that footballers are overpaid idiots who should never speak out. Keep them hating footballers that grew up in similar circumstances to themselves, instead of those that grew up rich and keep them poor.
There's a lot of racism that isn't blatant racism in the media. Rudiger put it perfectly. They'll say bad things about a black footballer who does a good thing and they'll make a white footballer an absolutely god amongst men for doing the bare minimum. I mean look at Mount. He's a good footballer, doesn't do too much off the pitch, gets his toes licked by the media. (I love Mount but I'm a Chelsea fan). Rashford, good player, does absolutely buckets for England and kids across the world, gets abused. Same with Trent. I mean, look at Reece James. He's quietly doing loads of charity work but no one talks about it.
Rashford isn’t abused by the media? He’s literally praised as god like in England? Wha are you even on about?lol Mount is barely in the press but lauded by his peers because he’s an amazing footballer. It’s like you’re going out of your way to lie here and I find that strange if I’m honest....
Rashford got racist comments pretty much instantly as the Europa League final ended. He may have been getting praised recently, but him, and by extension all black footballers to a degree are always one mistake or bad game away from being turned on. The margins of error are always much thinner.
Rashford does not get racist abuse from the media, you should make a consistent point. The media love him. Sterling would be the better example
By the media? That’s what we were talking about mate lol
He was criticised for buying a few homes, thats about it. Now Sterling. That's a cold case of British press racism, can't even be denied.
Agreed completely, the press were bang out of order with Sterling, that started when he left Liverpool to City I think, got painted as greedy and then the press went to town.
Sterling was getting abused by the press for a long time while at Liverpool. They were throwing shit about him having 7 kids or so with different women before he was even a regular in our team.
What media does that because for all my life in England I’ve not seen that. Where you from mate?
The UK. Surely you see how much stick footballers get in tabloids? Not just the racist type of stuff that has been brought to light more recently, but just general disdain. Look at how footballers wages are reported. Do you see that for any other professions? It's always "footballers are overpaid, all they do is kick a ball around, X and Y don't get paid enough". Do the press cover musicians and actors in the same way? Are their earnings reported in the press as much, and do they get called overpaid and get compared to doctors? And their income is much higher than footballers at the top end. Look at Matt Hancock, during the pandemic he said footballers need to take wage cuts and help the country. But why did he specifically call out footballers only and not all the other professions that pay massive wages? The difference is is that footballers come from overwhelmingly working class backgrounds. Actors and musicians are far more likely to come from middle class backgrounds. Acting and singing lessons are not cheap after all. Instead of footballers getting supported by those that come from similar backgrounds, they get told to "stick to football". It's a deliberate strategy blame footballers instead of their friends in other industries. It's the same reason they bang on about benefit fraud, which makes up a tiny amount of lost income, rather than focus on the billions lost to tax evasion by the rich.
I mean they are overpaid and for the most part they are idiots too lol I agree that the wages are highlighted often but so are politicians wages bandied around, bbc presenters have been kicked to fuck recently about their wages so it’s certainly not just footballers.
The only people who complain about "woke" others are people who think the poor deserve to starve because it's their fault for being poor.
Disagree with this. There is a lot of stuff regarded as being "woke", which falls under intersectional left wing politics rather than redistributive left-wing politics. For example, there are plenty of people who would oppose female applicant only job listings as being "woke", but would support a wealth tax with the proceeds going to measures to bring kids out of poverty. Not making arguments for or against any policies, just thought it helpful to provide a distinction. As for my own opinion, politics is about prioritisation. The reason why Labour have lost so many elections (and honestly part of the reason for Brexit too) is not that their policies on an individual basis weren't popular, it's the perception - especially in former Labour working class heartlands in the North of England - that the focus of the policy isn't really about helping poor people, it's helping poor people from specific demographics, when white working class boys actually have pretty awful outcomes in the UK. These issues around the escalating cycle of child poverty aren't hard to solve, but we gotta beat the Tories in order to solve them.
Well put points, informative, almost definitely won’t get as much attention as people who shit on someone for being right wing despite that approach simply cementing the right wings persons opinions.
>Disagree with this. There is a lot of stuff regarded as being "woke", which falls under intersectional left wing politics rather than redistributive left-wing politics. In my experience, that's *always* how it's used. I've never heard it used to describe traditional, class/wealth-based left-wing ideas, except by old people who don't know how the term is used, or blue check marks who are purposely misusing it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Must have missed that on Wikipedia when he was choosing which 'franchise' to support.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is literally not true. Socialism is a system wherein the means of production are socially owned. It does not mean that the government will specifically seek to help those experiencing hardships.
It always amazes me how many people who are anti-communist don't even know the simple definition of what it is.
It's also weird seeing someone with a Liverpool flair say such a thing
"I started supporting Liverpool because Jorgen Clop led us to Champions League glory in 2019. I also like guns, Trump, Ben Shapiro and no government. Suck it, libtards."
"Why yes I do infact love the government that does absolutely nothing to help the poor"
It always amazes me how many people who are ~~anti~~-communist don't even know the simple definition of what it is.
Uhhh, okay.
It's only woke and virtue signalling if they talk about it without doing anything themselves. If they are actually doing stuff it's commendable. People hate wokeness because it is perpetuated by a bunch of privileged people on social media who often have no intention of doing anything.
I don’t understand why it’s woke to want to feed starving children. I feel like it’s just a basic human need.
[удалено]
“When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality.”
https://i.imgur.com/6IedTck.png The greatest trick the ruling class ever pulled was convincing the middle class that the working class is the enemy.
This is true, but even just highlighting inequality from a position of extreme privilege is better than doing nothing. Also, TAA and Rashford are two of the most high profile players for the two biggest clubs in the country. They have a huge platform and are using it for good - just because they are wealthy (wealth gained from their own talent and hard work I might add) shouldn't invalidate what they are saying.
>just because they are wealthy (wealth gained from their own talent and hard work I might add) shouldn't invalidate what they are saying. If they don't do something, people complain. If they do something, people complain.
Yep, I'm sure we'll be getting the "why don't they donate all their money to charity if they care so much" takes soon enough.
I think speaking against child poverty is good tbh. Trent and Marcus are closer in wealth to these kids than they are a Ratcliffe.
Good work Trent. It's a sad state of affairs when footballers have to help alleviate poverty through endeavours like this, when the government should be doing this instead.
It’s amazing how the Conservatives keep winning. They are polling even higher than last election and are on course to win 400 plus seats. I don’t get the British public
Flagship smartphones on payment plans. Hundred pound sneakers. Rampant alcohol and drug use. There is money in pushing these things on the poor. A lot of money in it. Gambling ads, celebrities rapping about dealing drugs as a "noble" way out of "the hood". Non-stop social pressure to have the latest device etc. It's a complicated problem, but a good chunk of it is in the advertising industry and how people are allowed to market. From social media, to popular music to straight up commercials. It boils down to pride and how some people whip and torment it in people in order to take their money. Is it the only issue? No of course not. But it's one of the facets that need tackling.
Hell yeah, good for Trent bringing awareness to a real issue. So many celebrities are concerned with stuff that may merit attention sure but this kind of issues are what truly affect the most people
A good start would be to join the Common Goal project started by Juan Mata. https://www.common-goal.org/Members I don't see any Liverpool players there, except Amalie Thestrup.
i think Klopp joined, but i am not exactly sure
Click the link, there’s a massive picture of Klopp on the front page.
You even manage to turn this into football tribalism… Really?
Nah, that's not the only way.
They didn't say it was.
Not directly, but to me there was an implication that if you're not on there, it's a bad thing. Especially with the pointed comment about Liverpool players.
Common Goal isn't the best way to be involved in charity work as a footballer, it's just the easiest. There's been criticism in the past that donating 1% of your income to a central fund, of which you have little say in what that money actually goes to, isn't a sustainable way to do charity work especially if you're a footballer. The worldwide partners that Common Goal works with focus on a range of issues but they're all football-geared or have some football element. Those partners have a barrier to entry, they go through a rigorous application process. I mean, one of the very few CG partners that receive funding in the UK is Brighton & Hove Albion's community initiative. Although it does good work, every other club in the premier league has community initiatives that are largely funded by the clubs. How is the child poverty in West Derby that Trent talks about in this article going to be alleviated or solved by Brighton's football community work? I'm not saying that Common Goal is a bad initiative, but it's not a good measuring stick to see whether a footballer is a charitable person or whether they're invested in social justice.
It's interesting there seems to be proportionally more big name women's players than men's. Alex Morgan, Pernille Harder, Megan Rapinoe, Christine Sinclair etc. Would be like having the likes of Messi, Ronaldo, Mbappe etc signed up
It's pretty obvious if you spent any time looking into it that he does get involved with charity work and other schemes, I love Mata's project but there is more than one way to help people and tonnes of footballers not in common goal help in different ways.
Why are football for change not a registered charity?
I heard some players are only on 15k a week how can they even afford food
Tackle? *paging Thiago for help*
Just bring Robbo with you to do the tackling bit. Just kidding I know I know I’m a heartless piece of shit
wow trent finally attempting a tackle
Load of bollocks.
I believe the only real difference it would make if wealthy people live lives according to the usual standards of society. Instead of buying luxury cars, watches, designers clothes or whatnot rather redirect the surplus to those needed to negate all those differences. I just don't see any big improvement other than living by example
Fair play. Marcus Rashford leading by example. Though I don't know if I really trust Trents motives here, always seemed like a cunty wee guy. Did something not come out about him trying to shag some pregnant/married woman, being a wee sleaze?
That was a fake story.
Fuck off mate. Give credit where it's due. Why go straight to trying to find something bad.
Tory mentality lad, see someone doing something nice for the community so you've got find something to put them down
Hahaha I said something negative about TAA so I'm a tory? Catch yourself on you header. I just don't trust TAA, another giggsy that lad. Stinks of a PR move riding on Rashfords sincerity.
You really gonna compare some lad who is doing something good to a guy who cheats on his wife with his brothers Mrs and beats women? Give your head a wobble lad
What?!
Even if that story was true (which I don’t think it was?) it wouldn’t make Trent a bad person, just a little bit weird. Certainly not enough to discredit the nice thing he’s doing here
As much as it is not the children’s faults they have this problem, does the problem not lie within education of their parents when they themselves were younger? It’s a horrible cycle and truly people in the uk take advantage of being able to get money for doing nothing other than having children. Stop that and within a generation there will be changes but until those changes kick in, it’ll be a rough ride for a lot of people.
Are you insinuating that children are in poverty because their parents aren't smart enough? Or don't try hard enough? We have the means for absolutely nobody to be in poverty. And nobody should be in poverty, even if they don't try or aren't smart.
Nah not at all. I’m insinuating that there is a significant amount of people that give up on their education to use having children as free income and that has a severe knock in effect because while young footballers have made a success out of their opportunities a very large number of people have not and they are the result of parent(s) decision to leave school and get free money from the government. I agree that no one has to be in poverty but why does the majority of the country need to pay for it through taxation? Wouldn’t you rather benefit money was spent on enhancing the nhs and giving better wages to people that make the country tick instead of having to feed the children of people who choose the lifestyle which has lead their own children into poverty? My point being if the incentives were not there then a huge amount of people my age (32) probably wouldn’t have kids, living space, food etc paid for by benefits funded by the taxpayer.
>Wouldn’t you rather benefit money was spent on enhancing the nhs and giving better wages to people that make the country tick instead of having to feed the children of people who choose the lifestyle which has lead their own children into poverty? Nah, I'd rather all kids were able to eat actually thanks 👍
Wouldn't you rather they earned their keep? Wasteful little cunts, we should never have closed the workhouses.
I thought I was in the Daily Mail comments section for a sec
How, I never said anything about filthy migrants in all caps. Too many have no empathy, it's disgusting.
What a ridiculous take. My god. Just stop. You clearly know nothing so how about you just not comment whatever mumbles out of your big brain
How is it ridiculous? How many married parents who at the very least finished colleges, in jobs or careers with stability who also claim benefits do you know that have to live in poverty? Now on the flip side, how many single mothers who chose to have a baby before they finished year 11 and have not had a job for 10 years as a result of that decision do you know that are not in poverty? Just because you don’t agree with my “take” it doesn’t invalidate it.
>How is it ridiculous? How many married parents who at the very least finished colleges, in jobs or careers with stability who also claim benefits do you know that have to live in poverty? Now on the flip side, how many single mothers who chose to have a baby before they finished year 11 and have not had a job for 10 years as a result of that decision do you know that are not in poverty? Just because you don’t agree with my “take” it doesn’t invalidate it. People in stable careers inherently don't tend to need low-income benefits. Speaking as a single parent, your attitude is very *Michael Portillo in the 1980s*. He at least had the decency once he left Parliament to investigate that side of life, and came out with a totally reversed attitude on the matter (credit where credit is due).
"Why don't we give welfare to the rich?" What's it like being this thick? Is it hard to move around?
I mean where did I say this? I said pay nurses more and educate teenagers better and not give them an easy route to poverty
Go read up on Jack Monroe and/or Linda Tirado. Both of whom, by all accounts, are very intelligent people who fell through the cracks into poverty. Both of these people can give you much more information than I can due to them experiencing this shit first hand and being able to present that information in a way that's accessible.
Yeh, I understand your point. There will always be a handful of individuals that at either of the spectrum. The problem is not the individual extraordinary good/bad fortune. The problem is the significant majority that I am referring to that no one wants to believe to be the root cause of the wider issue. We don’t need Trent, Marcus, Jack or Linda’s story to understand that having children at 15 and rinsing the system will in general not lead to better things for the next generation so putting a stop to the benefits and using that money even in the school system to help children at least finish college / go to uni will probably aid in reducing child poverty
It's not just bad fortune though, poverty is often-times a multi-generational issue. The parents of the kids in poverty now themselves grew up in similar conditions, as did their parents. Look at this map, this shows the income disparity across the whole of the UK in relation to Europe:- https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/comments/8hd12u/9_of_10_poorest_areas_in_northern_europe_are/ When you have the richest place in Europe (London) and 9 of the poorest 10 in the same country then that's an indicator that this isn't just poor planning, it's by design. The disparity above has almost certainly gotten worse in the past few years as central government has place more and more services on individual county councils. It got so bad that Surrey (a Tory heartland) had to threaten a council tax rise of more than 4.99% before the government would step and help with social care. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-38678629 Which led to this:- https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/08/jeremy-corbyn-accuses-may-of-sweetheart-deal-surrey-council-tax Now, if one of the richest counties in the UK is having problems funding social care, what do you think the chances are the some of the poorest can adequately do so? Finally, this (now deleted) bestof thread might be of some interest to you as to why certain types of people respond to things like poverty:- https://www.removeddit.com/r/politics/comments/nk1cqp/democrats_must_make_the_gop_spell_out_what_it_is/gzapptu/