Well, you paint a picture of misery, but that got me thinking. Hasn't there ALWAYS been misery for the poorer people of GB? (For the poorer people of most countries in the world.) The poor have always existed. Have socialists addressed poverty and stopped it? Nope.
I'll agree that we have to be very grateful for the welfare acts brought in last century and the NHS, which alleviated much suffering, but even with a benefits system and millions pumped into the NHS every year it sounds as though, from your post above that not a lot has changed, and it must be of course, the fault of a Conservative government. We all know that Labour voters have the monopoly on caring.
. The only people who care are on the left, politically. Who knew, eh?
So why haven't things changed? Why weren't things better not so long ago under Blair and Brown, Labour stewardship?
I conclude that NO government can erase poverty. If the next government happened to be a Labour one, it would be interesting to watch poverty and distress being wiped out. Well, it would be interesting if we witnessed it.
Even with Corbyn, a man I respect but wouldn't vote for, things won't change. benefit payments would increase, taxpayers would have to cough up more, but poverty wouldn't be eradicated.
I grew up in the 50s and poor then was very different from poor now.
We wore hand-me downs, which were repaired or darned. We had two sets of clothes at the most, one for school, one for 'best'. Washing was done by hand. We had to heat up water. We had one fire to heat the whole house. We put coats on our beds to keep us warm at night.We ate bread and dripping, or jam if we were hungry.
We made our own amusement. Parents couldn't afford toys. A skipping rope (or a bit of washing line) sufficed for games.We were often cold. We often hid from rent collectors because we couldn't pay bills. Sanitation was deplorable. Loos were outside and often shared. This was only 50+ years ago. Many of us recognise that impoverished lifestyle.
I could go on. My point is that NO government has created today's poverty. It exists, for many and various reasons, and yes, it is right to address them. We talk of food banks, but in truth, they are a step up from 1950s and '60s poverty because no one ever bailed anyone out back then! Pride meant families made do, and it wasn't a happy situation, just as being given carrier bags of food today indicates a grim way of living.
I felt peeved, all my life that my council introduced the comprehensive system and most working class children, who read a lot (because books were an amusement and pastime given we had no TV etc, and were reasonably bright, missed out on grammar school places whether they passed their 11+ or not. I will have no truck with anyone telling me mixed ability teaching is better for ALL children. It is not. One size does not fit all, yet a Labour government would like to deprive the brightest from getting on and leave the less able to flounder and mess about in a classroom where the teacher is trying to cope with several levels of intellect. Diane Abbot, Corbyn's side kick it the epitome of hypocrisy given she exercises her right, with her wealth, to send her son to a private school.
My point is, blaming Tories for things being more expensive, for the NHS needing more money and for people needing food banks so they can eat is pretty pointless, because all of us know if the next government was a Labour one, those problems would not be eradicated. There is not a magic wand or a magician economist or a sh*t-hot sociologist/philosopher working for any political party who can come up with long term solutions.
The Conservative government recently upped tax thresholds so poorer workers took more money home. A good move I'd say and any government has to implement policies which decrease poverty. However, the taxpayer also has to feel it's worth his while working. S/he isn't working merely to cough up so that people less fortunate do alright, although it's a noble system. The worker also wants rewards for his/her labour and rightly so. The rich family who bring industry/work to areas and ease unemployment do not want to be driven away because of prohibitive taxing.
A government has to cater for all stratas of society, like it or not. This is why the "Only Labour Care" strategies are failing. Most of us would be pretty pissed off if the UK became a land of milk and honey ONLY for the poor.
Son joined the Labour party last year and goes to meetings and has been leafleting etc. He is reasonably active but meetings have been an eye-opener because of the cult of Jeremy.There he says the moderates tend to be in a minority and are out-shouted by hard-left remnants of Old Labour supporters who insist on calling everyone 'comrade'. The other faction is the young, who don't have much political nous or knowledge but are good at swearing, getting angry and saying 'F*ck Tories!" They love Corbyn. They adore him. His observations, not mine.
How is Corbyn going to be different? Say Corbyn was given four years in office, Would we see food banks wiped out? Would we see unsatisfactory housing eradicated and no homeless on the streets?
Nope, we wouldn't. Would the NHS suddenly have billions pumped into it - much more than the Tory budget? I doubt it. Corbyn's chancellor would still have to balance the books.
My point is, Corbyn, should he be elected isn't going to be our saviour, neither is Theresa May in office, or any of the big names in politics out there. All governments make promises but they cannot please everyone or eradicate poverty.
Could the hard left solution be Communism, whereby we give to the poor and take from the rich so we all have the same amount to live on? That to me seems to be the only (misguided) answer to all those who hate Tory governments and seem to think that once out of office Labour will put everything right.
It'll never be right and spleen vented at ANY government is futile, if not misplaced. Utopia doesn't exist and never will.
The fiasco and chasms created by the Labour leadership battle hasn't inspired confidence in Corbyn or indeed the Labour party being a decent opposition because there are so many Labour factions. I suspect, given the chance, they wouldn't run the country any better than the party presently in charge.