to think that Nadine Dorries and Edwina Currie show the Tories in a very bad light

[sincitylover]

We have Edwina saying that no-one in this country is starving/struggling. She visited a family and told them to get rid of their dog (who had been a family pet pre split), commented on their TV and generally was extremely patronising and insulting to them - she lectured them on how to live within their means.

And Nadine Dorries saying that legislation should be passed that teachers should teach a policy of abstinence to teenage girls. So wrong on so many levels.

We're going backwards - with vile Tory women with their hypocritical morals and victorian values

YABU to think the Tories could ever be shown in a good light

I think they ate an entirely accurate representation of the Tory back bench. Loved Nadine Dorries on QT. Not waving but drowning.

maybe I worded the title rather badly !!

I think they at least serve to remind us who these people really are - despite the spin!

Nadine dorries is local. And she fought tooth and nail for us on a local issue. She is to be tarred for the schoolgirl comment? Really?

Edwina is a family friend. Or rather, was, after that shining example of he milk of human kindness.

Can you show me many MP's that show the Tories in a good light?

I think you can have good constituency MPs who still have bonkers policies.

Yes the school girl comment is bonkers and wrong especially as her own history is not that brilliant!

I only know ND for her bonkers abortion views.

Tell me about the schoolgirl comment.

Dorries used to be my constituency MP. I certainly did not vote for her. She is just awful.

she wants legislation to be passed to force teachers to teach abstinence to teenage girls as part of sex education

I didn't see the Edwina Currie programme but I think she has a point.

People do not live in poverty in this country - not poverty in the true sense of the word.

Yes there are people that live on a low income and who struggle financially, but other than actually being homeless and living on the streets there is no reason why anyone in this country needs to not be able to feed their family. We are extremely fortunate in this country in that if you cannot work for whatever reason, there is a benefits system to help you. I think people underestimate the value of that tbh as most people have never lived anywhere where there are no such things as benefits.

Television is so often used as an indicator in terms of how much money people have, but while an actual television is not necessarily such an indicator is, sky/cable is.

People so often seem to measure poverty in terms of not what they genuinely can't afford (i.e. food/clothing), but in terms of what they would like to have, but can't afford.

Poverty is not being able to feed your family - literally - not having a roof over your head or a bed to sleep in at night.

Poverty is not a lack of broadband or sky tv, or not being able to afford cigarettes or a holiday. Those things are luxuries, and while they're certainly nice to have and nobody should begrudge anyone them, if you don't have the money, then you need to prioritise in terms of levels of importance. And if you can afford sky and broadband yet are still claiming you can't afford to feed the kids, then you're not poor you just have no financial management skills or sense of priority.

I don't vote conservative but I agreed with some of what Edwina said to the lady. I didn't think it was patronising to point out that there were ways to save money if she was stating she had to rely on handouts to be able to feed her family. I didn't think the lady did herself any favours on the One Show telling the nation she didn't see why she should work as she didn't want to be away from her children. However in fairness to her, she hasn't had years of media training, so it's easy to be trapped into saying things that can make you like a bit stupid in hindsight.

and really, what's wrong with teaching about abstanence (both boys and girls)? Isn't that better of the culture of promiscuity that seems to be rife among teens at the moment.

Every week there's a new report about the prevalence of this or that STD in teens and how they're on the increase. We have one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the world, and yet it's wrong to promote abstenance?

a friend teaches a little boy with autism who lives with his dad. Mum has mental health problems, he is lookied after by his father and shares a bed with his three brothers in a 1 bed flat. At night the children wet the bed. The sheets are changed by the nine-year-old. The wee boy is so exhausted when he comes to nursery, it worsens his condition.

But obviously people have it worse in Bangladesh or corrupt regimes in Africa or India so he shouldn't complain. Maybe, when he's in his teens and starts to question why he has had such a shit deal in life, we should show him some documentaries of people starving in Ethiopia or Sudan just so he knows how fortunate he is. tell him to count his blessings and all that...

The problem with teaching abstinence is that when young people finally do decide to have sex they don't have a clue about contraception, safe sex and the importance of choosing the right partner if abstinence is the only thing that's emphasised.

Didn't see the programme but Edwina Currie's advice seems reasonable on the face of it.

the bit that I can never work out is the link between promiscuity and teenage pregnancies

I'd say promiscuity was pretty high when I grew up in Sweden in the 70s but the only person I ever heard of who got pregnant was the daughter of the Baptist pastor- and that was on an exchange trip to the US

as far as I know those teenage Swedes are still enjoying sex, but they are still not getting pregnant: the slight increase among teen pregnancies in later years has been clearly linked to immigrant communities with a tendency to early marriages, so probably not really to do with promiscuity

Countries with a comparatively low rate of teen pregnancy so not teach abstinence. These are countries with a relatively small gap between rich and poor and a culture which promotes friendship and camaraderies between girls and boys. It is a culture where the decision to have sex is openly discussed with adults and where contraception is freely available.

I think they show the Tories in exactly the light they deserve to be shown in

norman there are always exceptions - of course there are. And for those people there should be support - and iirc Edwena acknowledged that.

But we're not talking about the exceptions are we - we're talking about people who essentially have no financial management skills but claim it is poverty.

People who are spending their money on sky tv and broadband while claiming they are unable to feed their families, people who think it is ok to not work and live off the state because they can.

Those people are not living in poverty, and yes, I think that for someone who claims to be living in poverty while watching sky tv and surfing the net on their laptop should be bloody grateful they're not living in Ethiopia.

For the mentally ill, the severely disabled, and their carers there needs to be more support.

But there are a lot of people who need to start helping themselves and lose their sense of entitlement.

My main issue with Nadine Dorries is that she shows women in a bad light, never mind a political party.

We are extremely fortunate in this country in that if you cannot work for whatever reason, there is a benefits system to help you

True however I know of a single person who after bills has £15 a week left to feed herself, impossible.

FWIW, I met Edwina Currie once.

Her argument then was that every penny saved from the undeserving should be spent on helping the deserving more. I believed her.

Didn't like her though.

I thought that was just a trick to withdraw general benefits, so you can make the needy jump through hoops and apply at great length to a complicated rejection process, in order to discourage claimants and save money?

I don't suppose she mentioned withdrawing child benefit or state pension from the rich, did she?

I saw the One Show last night. Yes Edwina was very upfront in saying exactly how she felt. I don't think the example family on benefits came across very positively, even with Edwina's rudeness.

• the single parent mum couldn't afford to feed her 3 children without £25 of food from a food bank
• however the same mum COULD afford to spend £15 of her benefits on the dog, could afford to keep caged birds, could afford a huge TV (well never saw it, but she admitted to it) which she said her children were entitled too because their dad no longer saw much of them, could afford to have the tumble dryer constantly in use (her own admission)
• she later said live on the show, she didn't see why she should be obliged to look for work, because then she would be forced to do a job she would not like!!!! And also because she wanted to be with her children.

So do see it from the point of view of someone working 40 hours a week, in order to have just a little more income that that family, that working parent may not see so much of their children that they would ideally like, may also not be in a job which they like either. So why should part of their salary pay for the family which, on the admission of the mum, CHOOSES not to work?

The current system encourages positively those not working, to continue not to work, they then effectively get "paid" more money they have another child, in the form of tax credits, whereas a working family just above CTC threshold doesn't get paid more money from the state for another child. The current system encourages those on a low income part time job to work 16 hours a week, as the optimum, for CTC / WTC reasons, discourages working more than 16 hours a week. It's complete madness. Successive governments since the 1960s have created this entitlement society, UK national debt can no longer afford it. I'm not a Tory supporter, I'm a natural Labour voter, but I'm not stupid, I understand exactly with the Tories are going to scrap those benefits which are supporting this entitlement culture.