The Politics Thread

[thebish]

amid the calls for IDS to live on whatever it was a week... an MP did try to live on £18 a week (just taking into account food and groceries...)

Helen Goodman - this is her description:

“I was so shocked when I read what my constituents wrote to me about the implications for them of the bedroom tax, and about how little they would have left to live on, that I decided during the week of the recent recess to see if I could survive on £18 a week, which is what they will be left with to buy their food after 1 April. That figure of £18 is entirely based on the experiences of my constituents, in particular women on employment and support allowance who are about the same age as me, but who had to stop working owing to chronic health conditions, perhaps after 20 years of working life. Out of their £71.70, they have to find £10 for electricity, £20 for heating—gas or coal—£6 for water rates, £4 for bus fares in the case of those who live in villages and have to get to the main town, and £10 for the bedroom tax, which left them with £23 for weekly living expenses.

That £23 has to cover more than food, of course. We did a calculation, and set aside £5 for all the non-food things everyone has to buy—soap, washing powder, washing-up liquid, toothpaste, loo paper—plus a small amount in order to save £50 a year for clothes or a pair of trainers, or in case the iron breaks. That leaves £18.

I therefore took up the challenge of trying to live on £18, and I want to tell Members what it is like. It is extremely unpleasant. I had porridge for breakfast every morning, as I usually do, but I make my porridge with milk; now I was making it with water. I had to eat the same food over and over and over again. Single people are hit particularly hard, because cheap food comes in big packs. I made a stew at the beginning of the week, and I ate the same food four nights a week. I had pasta twice a week. I had baked potatoes. I had eggs on six occasions. It was completely impossible to have meat or fish; that was out of the question. It was also impossible to have five portions of fruit and vegetables a week.

I therefore also have a message for the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is responsible for public health. She was criticising people on low incomes for obesity. Of course people on low incomes are more likely to have that problem; they have to fill up on toast and biscuits.

I found myself waking up in the middle of the night absolutely ravenous, having to make cups of tea and eat biscuits. I had a headache for five days in that week, and I was completely lethargic and exhausted by 4 pm. Some people are on jobseeker’s allowance and are looking for a job. Looking for a job is a job in itself; it takes time and energy. The people whom DWP Ministers want to do workfare are being expected to work 30 hours a week, yet they are not going to have enough to eat properly.

Most shocking of all was the fact that come Sunday I ran out of food—there was literally nothing left to eat that night. If Ministers are happy with the notion that 660,000 of our fellow citizens are literally not going to have enough to eat by the end of the week, all I can say is that I pity them because they have no pity and no conception of what they are going to do to the people in our constituencies who will be faced with this bedroom tax.

The Minister has been very free and easy in talking about all these wonderful alternatives, such as the fact that people can move. In my constituency more than 1,000 people will be affected by the bedroom tax, but there are fewer than 100 smaller properties to which they could move. In my constituency, it is not possible for all these people to increase the number of hours they work, as seven people are chasing every job; people are in part-time work because they cannot get full-time work. Government Members have shown their complete ignorance of the benefits system by saying, “You just have to work a couple of hours a week on the minimum wage.” Of course that is not true, because these people would get then into the tapers and the disregards, and their benefits would be cut or they might find themselves paying tax. The numbers simply do not add up.

Of course some individuals or couples have properties that are larger than they need, but the so-called under-occupancy is in one part of the country and the overcrowding is in another. It simply is not credible to suggest that all the large, over-occupying families in London will move up to Durham, particularly given that the unemployment rate there is more than 9%. What would they be moving to? What would they be moving for?

I made a video diary of my week, so I got a lot of feedback from people affected by this policy. Interestingly, they said, “Yes, this is the reality of our lives. We are not able to survive properly now and things are going to get worse to the tune of £10 a week from 1 April.” In 2006, I did the same experiment under the previous Labour Government, living on benefits to see what life was like for young people on the lowest rate of income support. I found that difficult, but there was enough money to get through the whole week. I wish to point out to the Minister that we have reached a new low, because the £21 that people had in 2006 is equivalent to £28 now, and that should be compared with the £18 with which people are going to be expected to feed themselves.

The Minister has made much, too, of the discretionary housing benefits, which many hon. Members have questioned. In County Durham, £5 million of income will be taken out of people’s pockets and out of the local economy. The size of the discretionary fund is half a million pounds, so once again there is a huge gap between actual need and the resources being given to people to deal with it.

Many hon. Members have pointed out the unfairness of the policy for people who are disabled and need to sleep separately, be they adults or children; people who have children in the Army; foster carers; and separated parents. This policy is a fundamental attack on the poorest people in this country. People are going to lose between £500 and £1,000 over the course of next year, through no fault of their own. But the really disgusting thing is that on the same day that the bedroom tax is being introduced millionaires are being given a tax cut that will be worth £1,000—not over the year as a whole, but every single week.”

[BWFC_Insane]

I guess people know where my politics lie. Bruce would happily label me a "champagne socialist" I'm sure.

However, I'm not keen on this idea of randomly asking politicians "could you live on £x a week/month/year".

Because quite clearly they couldn't, without completely abandoning their current lifestyle. So if they have a mortgage, clearly even if they did suddenly live on a small amount they'd still have the luxury of their nice house and of course the knowledge that their predicament was as temporary as they'd like to make it. I actually think it's a silly argument.

What we should be doing is looking at those supported by the welfare state, and examine whether we feel they are adequately supported. The problem in this country (and the guardian article Mummy derided in the pretentious thread is bang on with this) is that only the stories that suit the right wing agenda and feed the publics gut emotional reaction are brought to the fore.

I watched a program the other night about people living in social housing and one family in particular (and I don't know their full circumstances) but the young parents had 2 kids but the dad had been diagnosed with a terminal brain tumour. He could still lead a relatively normal life but was suffering from dizzy spells and fell down the stairs. They needed a bigger house so that he could sleep downstairs and to do so were having another baby to qualify for the extra rooms. However the mum had a miscarriage and therefore another stair falling incident occurred as they were denied a bigger house as they didn't have enough kids to qualify. Fairly horrific. Eventually they got a bigger house on medical grounds after a letter from the surgeon. But I mean they were so happy and grateful, yet it was a place most of us would probably not be happy to live in.

I don't know what benefits they had or didn't. It wasn't about that.

But my point is that because of a minority that the right wing press in this country like to demonise a lot of people will potentially suffer even more than they have done.

The response will no doubt be about people helping themselves etc etc. But the problem is not everyone is given an equal chance to do so. Life is very unequal. It's fine to feel that your money is yours, and if you a lucky enough or brilliant enough to earn it that you shouldn't have to give any (if you don't want) or be asked to contribute to those with lesser opportunities or chances. I actually think people who are brave enough to say that should be heralded. Because that's honest. I doubt there are many people who haven't at one point or another walked past a homeless person without giving them change or a hot drink. I'd like to think I always have given when I've seen need, but I'm 100% sure there are instances where I have been rushing or simply too distracted to do so.

However, personally I do think as a society we should look after each other. I realise that's my opinion. I'd be very happy to contribute more tax to do so. In fact I feel it would only need to be a small amount from everyone who could afford it to make a big difference. However, I respect those that don't want to or disagree.

I just don't respect those who aren't honest enough to admit it, and would like to hide behind the Daily Mail headlines and right wing propaganda.

Most people, myself included are inherently greedy. It's not just MP's or bankers, if truth be told. I don't think we should be ashamed by that. But I also don't think those who think a little more could be done and a little more given, should be decried either. It's a fine balance if truth be told......

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

amid the calls for IDS to live on whatever it was a week... an MP did try to live on £18 a week (just taking into account food and groceries...)

Helen Goodman - this is her description:

“The Minister has been very free and easy in talking about all these wonderful alternatives, such as the fact that people can move. In my constituency more than 1,000 people will be affected by the bedroom tax, but there are fewer than 100 smaller properties to which they could move.”

This is the bit that really strikes me as being unfair. Surely it should depend on a more appropriate property being availabe and offered and not taken up?

[thebish]

amid the calls for IDS to live on whatever it was a week... an MP did try to live on £18 a week (just taking into account food and groceries...)

Helen Goodman - this is her description:

“The Minister has been very free and easy in talking about all these wonderful alternatives, such as the fact that people can move. In my constituency more than 1,000 people will be affected by the bedroom tax, but there are fewer than 100 smaller properties to which they could move.”

This is the bit that really strikes me as being unfair. Surely it should depend on a more appropriate being avaibale and offered and not taken up?

I agree, as long as it is appropriate to the actual circumstances of the person to whom it is being offered... to penalise someone for having housing with "too many rooms" when there is no alternative offered is pretty plainly unfair...

[Worthy4England]

Stew - 4 nights a week! Bliss!

MP's food allowance without receipts up to £400 per month - £92 per week, over and above their pay.

[thebish]

I guess people know where my politics lie. Bruce would happily label me a "champagne socialist" I'm sure.

However, I'm not keen on this idea of randomly asking politicians "could you live on £x a week/month/year".

me neither - because it is impossible to do properly (as you say)... for one thing - it is different to something for a week or a month than to face it year after year...

I worked in an aluminium foundry in Burnley for a year - it was a crappety crap, hot, poorly-paid, manually exhausting job - most of my fellow workers were ex-cons who couldn't get work elsewhere...

I quite enjoyed it - it was the kind of work I often think about - a job that you don't "take home" with you. BUT - I only enjoyed it because i knew it was temporary - it was a false experience of how "the other half live" - I knew that at the end of the year I'd be off to and Oxford college to study for 4 years and then have a reasonably well-paid job that didn't involve getting up at 5am every morning and being shafted by the piece-work system because the machine I was assigned to didn't work properly...

the above piece recognises this - and so limits itself to food and groceries... it sounds like she still learned summat from it... (i have lost count of the smug people on the radio telling us how it would be easy - all you need to do is learn to cook the old fashioned way using fresh vegetables and casseroles and hot-pots... it sounds like she tried this - and it wasn't as easy as some make out...)

[BWFC_Insane]

I guess people know where my politics lie. Bruce would happily label me a "champagne socialist" I'm sure.

However, I'm not keen on this idea of randomly asking politicians "could you live on £x a week/month/year".

me neither - because it is impossible to do properly (as you say)... for one thing - it is different to something for a week or a month than to face it year after year...

I worked in an aluminium foundry in Burnley for a year - it was a crappety crap, hot, poorly-paid, manually exhausting job - most of my fellow workers were ex-cons who couldn't get work elsewhere...

I quite enjoyed it - it was the kind of work I often think about - a job that you don't "take home" with you. BUT - I only enjoyed it because i knew it was temporary - it was a false experience of how "the other half live" - I knew that at the end of the year I'd be off to and Oxford college to study for 4 years and then have a reasonably well-paid job that didn't involve getting up at 5am every morning and being shafted by the piece-work system because the machine I was assigned to didn't work properly...

the above piece recognises this - and so limits itself to food and groceries... it sounds like she still learned summat from it... (i have lost count of the smug people on the radio telling us how it would be easy - all you need to do is learn to cook the old fashioned way using fresh vegetables and casseroles and hot-pots... it sounds like she tried this - and it wasn't as easy as some make out...)

I'm sure the counter will be that she could have eaten porridge twice a day and perhaps a stew or something spread across the week and been full enough.

It's all about how it's framed.

The core problem is still that some sections of the public (probably a fair number) will believe they are personally funding (through their "hard work") extravagant lifestyles full of Plasma TV's, Drugs, and lie-ins whilst watching this morning. The numbers and statistics tell us that is not the case for the vast majority. But it's the picture people have now.

Until that is either proven to be the case, or dispelled as a myth categorically, and the public convinced either way, the argument about how much a week folk can live on or not is a bit redundant IMO!

[thebish]

Until that is either proven to be the case, or dispelled as a myth categorically, the argument about how much a week folk can live on is required is a bit redundant IMO!

indeed - I don't think that's all it is about, though... I think at least some of it is about perception of attitude.

If IDS had instead said summat like, "I think I would really struggle to do that and I'd have to rely on friends and community. i count myself very fortunate that I don't have to find out." - then he might have still got some flak - but I imagine he would have garnered a little more respect for recognising that life would the tough and he'd struggle.

[Worthy4England]

I guess people know where my politics lie. Bruce would happily label me a "champagne socialist" I'm sure.

However, I'm not keen on this idea of randomly asking politicians "could you live on £x a week/month/year".

Because quite clearly they couldn't, without completely abandoning their current lifestyle. So if they have a mortgage, clearly even if they did suddenly live on a small amount they'd still have the luxury of their nice house and of course the knowledge that their predicament was as temporary as they'd like to make it. I actually think it's a silly argument.

What we should be doing is looking at those supported by the welfare state, and examine whether we feel they are adequately supported. The problem in this country (and the guardian article Mummy derided in the pretentious thread is bang on with this) is that only the stories that suit the right wing agenda and feed the publics gut emotional reaction are brought to the fore.

I watched a program the other night about people living in social housing and one family in particular (and I don't know their full circumstances) but the young parents had 2 kids but the dad had been diagnosed with a terminal brain tumour. He could still lead a relatively normal life but was suffering from dizzy spells and fell down the stairs. They needed a bigger house so that he could sleep downstairs and to do so were having another baby to qualify for the extra rooms. However the mum had a miscarriage and therefore another stair falling incident occurred as they were denied a bigger house as they didn't have enough kids to qualify. Fairly horrific. Eventually they got a bigger house on medical grounds after a letter from the surgeon. But I mean they were so happy and grateful, yet it was a place most of us would probably not be happy to live in.

I don't know what benefits they had or didn't. It wasn't about that.

But my point is that because of a minority that the right wing press in this country like to demonise a lot of people will potentially suffer even more than they have done.

The response will no doubt be about people helping themselves etc etc. But the problem is not everyone is given an equal chance to do so. Life is very unequal. It's fine to feel that your money is yours, and if you a lucky enough or brilliant enough to earn it that you shouldn't have to give any (if you don't want) or be asked to contribute to those with lesser opportunities or chances. I actually think people who are brave enough to say that should be heralded. Because that's honest. I doubt there are many people who haven't at one point or another walked past a homeless person without giving them change or a hot drink. I'd like to think I always have given when I've seen need, but I'm 100% sure there are instances where I have been rushing or simply too distracted to do so.

However, personally I do think as a society we should look after each other. I realise that's my opinion. I'd be very happy to contribute more tax to do so. In fact I feel it would only need to be a small amount from everyone who could afford it to make a big difference. However, I respect those that don't want to or disagree.

I just don't respect those who aren't honest enough to admit it, and would like to hide behind the Daily Mail headlines and right wing propaganda.

Most people, myself included are inherently greedy. It's not just MP's or bankers, if truth be told. I don't think we should be ashamed by that. But I also don't think those who think a little more could be done and a little more given, should be decried either. It's a fine balance if truth be told......

I don't fundamentally disagree with what you're saying here. But (and there is a but). As much as you might dislike the right-wing press, there is a whole lot of pi$$ taking going on too. There are people who's view of career development is to drop another sprog, there are plenty who know how to play the system etc.

We're losing sight of the wood, because of the trees.

Some need a genuine lift up - and I'm fine with that.

Some need a big kick up the arse - and I'm fine with that too.

[BWFC_Insane]

I don't fundamentally disagree with what you're saying here. But (and there is a but). As much as you might dislike the right-wing press, there is a whole lot of pi$$ taking going on too. There are people who's view of career development is to drop another sprog, there are plenty who know how to play the system etc.

We're losing sight of the wood, because of the trees.

Some need a genuine lift up - and I'm fine with that.

Some need a big kick up the arse - and I'm fine with that too.

But say that family I described were essentially "playing the system" by having another baby in order to get a bigger house.....but I'm not sure I'd want to penalise them for that. In fact the right thing happened in the end, but still. It's very much how the situation is portrayed.

As I say the numbers suggest that the vast majority are not, "playing the system", but it is the minority that is reported. But perhaps a more complete picture needs to be somehow established to convince people either way.

I actually agree with what you say in that what we need to do is sort out the piss takers (and supply a kick where required) from the genuine cases, but again that's not going to be clear cut, and most certainly is going to be more expensive than the actual support we will end up giving people.

There isn't an easy answer.

The public appetite for attacking welfare state claimants seems higher than for going after say tax dodgers or multi-national tax avoiders. I'm not saying there isn't desire to do both, but they are certainly pushed in one direction primarily by politicians on the right and the media. Ultimately all are taking public money, one way or another. And essentially we are all paying our taxes to cover that.

[Worthy4England]

I don't fundamentally disagree with what you're saying here. But (and there is a but). As much as you might dislike the right-wing press, there is a whole lot of pi$$ taking going on too. There are people who's view of career development is to drop another sprog, there are plenty who know how to play the system etc.

We're losing sight of the wood, because of the trees.

Some need a genuine lift up - and I'm fine with that.

Some need a big kick up the arse - and I'm fine with that too.

But say that family I described were essentially "playing the system" by having another baby in order to get a bigger house.....but I'm not sure I'd want to penalise them for that. In fact the right thing happened in the end, but still. It's very much how the situation is portrayed.

As I say the numbers suggest that the vast majority are not, "playing the system", but it is the minority that is reported. But perhaps a more complete picture needs to be somehow established to convince people either way.

I actually agree with what you say in that what we need to do is sort out the piss takers (and supply a kick where required) from the genuine cases, but again that's not going to be clear cut, and most certainly is going to be more expensive than the actual support we will end up giving people.

There isn't an easy answer.

The public appetite for attacking welfare state claimants seems higher than for going after say tax dodgers or multi-national tax avoiders. I'm not saying there isn't desire to do both, but they are certainly pushed in one direction primarily by politicians on the right and the media. Ultimately all are taking public money, one way or another. And essentially we are all paying our taxes to cover that.

We can probably both find cases that prove/disprove a particular rule.

I'm not convinced that "the vast majority" are not playing they system and would be interested in anything you have to support that contention. When I say I'm not convinced, I mean "I don't know either way" rather than "You're wrong".

The public (in my opinion) want to go after both, rather than one or the other. If you'd asked them 12/24 months ago they might well have given "fat cats" as their first response, now they might say welfare dodgers. Either way, they'll generally go after anyone they perceive doesn't fit their personal view of what's right or wrong. Regardless of the press coverage, more people are likely to know someone who's had 6 kids with 3 different fathers than to know someone who ferrets away their hard earned in the Cayman Islands. That probably isn't going to change anytime soon as one's very visible and the other is amorphous.

[Harry Genshaw]

I'm stunned that the war of words between the U.S & North Korea is reason, according to Cameron why we should press ahead with Trident. Whats even more galling is that Labour agree with him!

[TANGODANCER]

I'm stunned that the war of words between the U.S & North Korea is reason, according to Cameron why we should press ahead with Trident. Whats even more galling is that Labour agree with him!

Is, it it just words, H.G.? Real problem is the world's constant obsession with war. When, since biblical times has there not been one going on somewhere or other? Crazy, in this advanced world, that all that's changed is they've swapped bows and arrows for nuclear weapons. World peace is still as much a pipe-dream as ever it's been. Progress...really?

[Harry Genshaw]

I'm stunned that the war of words between the U.S & North Korea is reason, according to Cameron why we should press ahead with Trident. Whats even more galling is that Labour agree with him!

Is, it it just words, H.G.? Real problem is the world's constant obsession with war. When, since biblical times has there not been one going on somewhere or other? Crazy, in this advanced world, that all that's changed is they've swapped bows and arrows for nuclear weapons. World peace is still as much a pipe-dream as ever it's been. Progress...really?

I suspect it is just words. North Korea have a history of brinkmanship, although they do seem to be pushing the US pretty hard right now. It's delusional of Cameron imo to think we have any say or importance in the matter, or that it merits the multi billion trident scheme.

[thebish]

I'm stunned that the war of words between the U.S & North Korea is reason, according to Cameron why we should press ahead with Trident. Whats even more galling is that Labour agree with him!

Is, it it just words, H.G.? Real problem is the world's constant obsession with war. When, since biblical times has there not been one going on somewhere or other? Crazy, in this advanced world, that all that's changed is they've swapped bows and arrows for nuclear weapons. World peace is still as much a pipe-dream as ever it's been. Progress...really?

I suspect it is just words. North Korea have a history of brinkmanship, although they do seem to be pushing the US pretty hard right now. It's delusional of Cameron imo to think we have any say or importance in the matter, or that it merits the multi billion trident scheme.

we can afford it... err.... ummmmm....

[Prufrock]

I lost a lot of respect for George Osborne yesterday when he came out at lunchtime, a couple of hours after the Philpotts' sentences were announced, and said that we need to 'have a conversation' about individuals like him living entirely off benefits.

Coming a couple of days after the whole IDS fuss I thought it was really distasteful to play politics with a tragic event like this.

Boo George, boo.

[Worthy4England]

I lost a lot of respect for George Osborne yesterday when he came out at lunchtime, a couple of hours after the Philpotts' sentences were announced, and said that we need to 'have a conversation' about individuals like him living entirely off benefits.

Coming a couple of days after the whole IDS fuss I thought it was really distasteful to play politics with a tragic event like this.

Boo George, boo.

Bit harsh Pru.

I still have the same amount of respect for him as I did at 0900 yesterday morning.

[Prufrock]

I've always thought Osborne got a raw deal. I don't think either he, or Cameron, are in the 'nasty' ranks of the Tories, your Theresa May types. Whilst I don't necessarily agree with their economic policies, I think they tend to be pretty 'on it' socially, and come across as decent enough people.

He came across as a massive cock yesterday though.

[Bruce Rioja]

I lost a lot of respect for George Osborne yesterday when he came out at lunchtime, a couple of hours after the Philpotts' sentences were announced, and said that we need to 'have a conversation' about individuals like him living entirely off benefits.

Coming a couple of days after the whole IDS fuss I thought it was really distasteful to play politics with a tragic event like this.

Boo George, boo.

Is he playing politics or was it more a somewhat characteristically insensitive brainfart and offensively bad timing? He's right, we do need to have a discussion about individuals that live entirely off benefits, but to hold Philpott up as his example and at the time that he did is, I think, the work of an absolute 4uckwit that simply hadn't considered the ramifications, rather than those of someone hoping to score backing on the back of the events.

[BWFC_Insane]

I've always thought Osborne got a raw deal. I don't think either he, or Cameron, are in the 'nasty' ranks of the Tories, your Theresa May types. Whilst I don't necessarily agree with their economic policies, I think they tend to be pretty 'on it' socially, and come across as decent enough people.

He came across as a massive cock yesterday though.

Really? To me they're a pair of horrendously nasty individuals who hide it pretty badly.

They are certainly no 'Ken Clarkes'.