The Politics Thread

[thebish]

if it doesn't include a flatscreen TV - then what kind of TV does it include? surely ALL TVs are flat-screen now?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

if it doesn't include a flatscreen TV - then what kind of TV does it include? surely ALL TVs are flat-screen now?

I realise I come at this from an unusual angle given that I don't have a TV myself...

Seriously though - what is the minimum everyone has a 'right' to today? Is it more than a roof over their head and enough to stay warm and fed?

Does concentrating on material living standards miss the point completely?

Antarctic explorers and the like have, over the years, put up with some incredible deprivation and lack of comfort, but have been happy to do so because of the status and nobility associated with what they are doing in their minds and those of other people.

[thebish]

if it doesn't include a flatscreen TV - then what kind of TV does it include? surely ALL TVs are flat-screen now?

I realise I come at this from an unusual angle given that I don't have a TV myself...

Seriously though - what is the minimum everyone has a 'right' to today? Is it more than a roof over their head and enough to stay warm and fed?

Does concentrating on material living standards miss the point completely?

Antarctic explorers and the like have, over the years, put up with some incredible deprivation and lack of comfort, but have been happy to do so because of the status and nobility associated with what they are doing in their minds and those of other people.

an odd comparison to draw - especially since society seems to be bending over backwards to offer precisely the polar (see what I did there?) opposite of "status and nobility" when it comes to being on benefits...

as I said elsewhere... i think you either have to pick a "basket of goods" approach - give them a basic kit for life (which may or may not included a TV) and a govt approved food parcel each week (this would be a nightmare to administer - surely) - or you give them a sum of money. if the latter - it's very hard to imagine how you could then impose restrictions on what they use the money for...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I know - it is an odd comparison.

But I'm saying does the focus on living standards miss the point?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

if it doesn't include a flatscreen TV - then what kind of TV does it include? surely ALL TVs are flat-screen now?

I realise I come at this from an unusual angle given that I don't have a TV myself...

Seriously though - what is the minimum everyone has a 'right' to today? Is it more than a roof over their head and enough to stay warm and fed?

Does concentrating on material living standards miss the point completely?

Antarctic explorers and the like have, over the years, put up with some incredible deprivation and lack of comfort, but have been happy to do so because of the status and nobility associated with what they are doing in their minds and those of other people.

an odd comparison to draw - especially since society seems to be bending over backwards to offer precisely the polar (see what I did there?) opposite of "status and nobility" when it comes to being on benefits...

as I said elsewhere... i think you either have to pick a "basket of goods" approach - give them a basic kit for life (which may or may not included a TV) and a govt approved food parcel each week (this would be a nightmare to administer - surely) - or you give them a sum of money. if the latter - it's very hard to imagine how you could then impose restrictions on what they use the money for...

There is a third alternative of giving vouchers to equate to a sum of money but placing restrictions on what that sum can be spent on.

[Bruce Rioja]

If the system allows people to choose to stay at home and claim state benefits as a preferential lifestyle choice, funded by those that go out and work, then that system is patently wrong. No?

[William the White]

If the system allows people to choose to stay at home and claim state benefits as a preferential lifestyle choice, funded by those that go out and work, then that system is patently wrong. No?

The expectation should be that people will work. Everybody that can, reasonably, do so, should do so.

For that to happen there need to be jobs, and jobs that pay enough to sustain people in a reasonable degree of comfort and with a reasonable sense of security - workers rights clear, and fair. There should be an unconditional right to join a trade union, and, subject to a vote of all workers, companies must recognise that trade union as a genuine negotiating body. This seems to me a minimum social contract. Meet these and I feel it is meaningful to talk about 'lifestyle choices'. At the moment we don't meet them as a society.

Zero hours contracts, minimum wage jobs, lack of basic rights, arbitrary dismissals etc don't meet these standards. Most of the poor who obtain housing benefit, for instance, are working. That can't be right - and it isn't the housing benefit system that is to blame if people find themselves trapped in this way. They are not being paid a living wage!

(It's always a good thing, i think, to remind people that housing benefit is paid to landlords rather than claimants. Duncan Smith's proposed changes to this are already leading to private landlords threatening to refuse housing for claimants. I suspect this threat is only meaningful in the South East and a few patches elsewhere.)

[Bruce Rioja]

For that to happen there need to be jobs, and jobs that pay enough to sustain people in a reasonable degree of comfort and with a reasonable sense of security - workers rights clear, and fair. There should be an unconditional right to join a trade union, and, subject to a vote of all workers, companies must recognise that trade union as a genuine negotiating body. This seems to me a minimum social contract. Meet these and I feel it is meaningful to talk about 'lifestyle choices'. At the moment we don't meet them as a society.

So you're happy for people to scrounge dole instead then? At the expense of those that go to work? I think that I might pack it all in tomorrow then because my terms of employment don't match your ideals. I could do with a good old scrounge. After all, I've payed in enough.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Zero hours contracts, minimum wage jobs, lack of basic rights, arbitrary dismissals etc don't meet these standards. Most of the poor who obtain housing benefit, for instance, are working. That can't be right - and it isn't the housing benefit system that is to blame if people find themselves trapped in this way. They are not being paid a living wage!

What does a 'living wage' mean though?

What does a person have to be able to afford before they can be said to be 'living'?

This is really what I'm looking to bottom out - soldiers and explorers have willingly endured material privations that exceed even the poorest in society, but they have been sustained in their hardships by an awareness of the esteem in which they are held by others.

Is it humiliation, not material poverty, that gets people down and if so, should we be focusing on how people might not be humiliated and not what basket of goods they can afford?

It probably goes without saying that in this context I don't think giving people vouchers to spend on rations is the way forward.

[Bijou Bob]

The debate about what constitutes absolute poverty and whether we should consider it, as opposed to the relative poverty defined by Townsend in the 1960's is one which will go on forever.

From a classic neo- liberal point of view, absolute poverty is all that should concern the government of the day, whereas social democrats will argue to the death that what matters in the 21st century is that 'real poverty' is about more than just subsistence. Personally, I find myself somewhere between the two.

[William the White]

For that to happen there need to be jobs, and jobs that pay enough to sustain people in a reasonable degree of comfort and with a reasonable sense of security - workers rights clear, and fair. There should be an unconditional right to join a trade union, and, subject to a vote of all workers, companies must recognise that trade union as a genuine negotiating body. This seems to me a minimum social contract. Meet these and I feel it is meaningful to talk about 'lifestyle choices'. At the moment we don't meet them as a society.

So you're happy for people to scrounge dole instead then? At the expense of those that go to work? I think that I might pack it all in tomorrow then because my terms of employment don't match your ideals. I could do with a good old scrounge. After all, I've payed in enough.

I think if you read the first line of my post you have your answer, Bruce. I know this is one of your special excitement topics, but start at the beginning and take it nice and slow and breathe deeply at the end of each line, and it might not be as dreadful a set of ideas as you think...

I note your sense of righteous virtue here. I too have paid in quite a lot. So, clearly, the amount you pay in doesn't necessarily determine your views. But, well done you! Bet you did it really willingly with a happy smile on your face. And, in any case, you won't choose to 'scrounge' - it won't get you the nice new table!

[William the White]

Zero hours contracts, minimum wage jobs, lack of basic rights, arbitrary dismissals etc don't meet these standards. Most of the poor who obtain housing benefit, for instance, are working. That can't be right - and it isn't the housing benefit system that is to blame if people find themselves trapped in this way. They are not being paid a living wage!

What does a 'living wage' mean though?

What does a person have to be able to afford before they can be said to be 'living'?

This is really what I'm looking to bottom out - soldiers and explorers have willingly endured material privations that exceed even the poorest in society, but they have been sustained in their hardships by an awareness of the esteem in which they are held by others.

Is it humiliation, not material poverty, that gets people down and if so, should we be focusing on how people might not be humiliated and not what basket of goods they can afford?

It probably goes without saying that in this context I don't think giving people vouchers to spend on rations is the way forward.

These go together so often. They aren't options. They are blood brothers.

[LeverEnd]

(It's always a good thing, i think, to remind people that housing benefit is paid to landlords rather than claimants. Duncan Smith's proposed changes to this are already leading to private landlords threatening to refuse housing for claimants. I suspect this threat is only meaningful in the South East and a few patches elsewhere.)

It isn't any longer William, it has been paid directly into the bank accounts of claimants for a while now. I know this because I rent my house to a friend and she was on housing benefits for a short time until she started working again.
Ostensibly it's to encourage claimants to take control of their own finances, but there were fear it would lead to a lot of unpaid rent and evictions and legal costs. No idea how it's worked out.

[William the White]

(It's always a good thing, i think, to remind people that housing benefit is paid to landlords rather than claimants. Duncan Smith's proposed changes to this are already leading to private landlords threatening to refuse housing for claimants. I suspect this threat is only meaningful in the South East and a few patches elsewhere.)

It isn't any longer William, it has been paid directly into the bank accounts of claimants for a while now. I know this because I rent my house to a friend and she was on housing benefits for a short time until she started working again.
Ostensibly it's to encourage claimants to take control of their own finances, but there were fear it would lead to a lot of unpaid rent and evictions and legal costs. No idea how it's worked out.

Thank you for the correction. Not the first time I've been out of date!

[Harry Genshaw]

(It's always a good thing, i think, to remind people that housing benefit is paid to landlords rather than claimants. Duncan Smith's proposed changes to this are already leading to private landlords threatening to refuse housing for claimants. I suspect this threat is only meaningful in the South East and a few patches elsewhere.)

It isn't any longer William, it has been paid directly into the bank accounts of claimants for a while now. I know this because I rent my house to a friend and she was on housing benefits for a short time until she started working again.
Ostensibly it's to encourage claimants to take control of their own finances, but there were fear it would lead to a lot of unpaid rent and evictions and legal costs. No idea how it's worked out.

Is that right? I'm not up to speed on housing benefit these days but for years claimants had a choice whether they wanted it to go direct to themselves or to their landlords. Would surprise me if that wasn't still an option. Certainly all Housing Benefit to social landlords (LA's, Housing Assocs etc) goes directly to the landlords and their tenants don't (currently) have the right to have it paid directly to them - although once Universal credit is finally rolled out (currently over time & over budget) then all benefit will be paid to the claimants

[bobo the clown]

I thought a recent change had reversed that and it no longer went directly to the landlords, but to the claimants. As these are usually boracic and often have any more commitments this seems a very foolish thing to do even if I have a general sympathy with constraining benefits.

[Harry Genshaw]

I thought a recent change had reversed that and it no longer went directly to the landlords, but to the claimants. As these are usually boracic and often have any more commitments this seems a very foolish thing to do even if I have a general sympathy with constraining benefits.

That will certainly happen when Universal credit comes in and we go back to a system that was abandoned in the late 1970s. Social Landlords are very twitchy at the thought of their rent money going directly to claimants with say, e.g alcohol problems. If there's a pub or off licence between the Post Office and the Landlords premises

[thebish]

For that to happen there need to be jobs, and jobs that pay enough to sustain people in a reasonable degree of comfort and with a reasonable sense of security - workers rights clear, and fair. There should be an unconditional right to join a trade union, and, subject to a vote of all workers, companies must recognise that trade union as a genuine negotiating body. This seems to me a minimum social contract. Meet these and I feel it is meaningful to talk about 'lifestyle choices'. At the moment we don't meet them as a society.

So you're happy for people to scrounge dole instead then? At the expense of those that go to work? I think that I might pack it all in tomorrow then because my terms of employment don't match your ideals. I could do with a good old scrounge. After all, I've payed in enough.

i believe you have said you'd do this before - but then, on investigation, decided it is not as good a deal as you thought! i bet you conclude the same this time! go on - give it a try...

[BWFC_Insane]

So in short, Bruce Rioja wants to make it shitter for people out of work and shitter for people in work.

And WtW wants to make it better for everyone in work and to create better more sustainable opporunities for those out of work.

Hmmm, I know where my vote would go!

[LeverEnd]

I thought a recent change had reversed that and it no longer went directly to the landlords, but to the claimants. As these are usually boracic and often have any more commitments this seems a very foolish thing to do even if I have a general sympathy with constraining benefits.

That will certainly happen when Universal credit comes in and we go back to a system that was abandoned in the late 1970s. Social Landlords are very twitchy at the thought of their rent money going directly to claimants with say, e.g alcohol problems. If there's a pub or off licence between the Post Office and the Landlords premises

The default is to pay the claimant and then it is their responsibility to cough up the rent. However you can apply jointly to have it paid directly to the landlord where the tenant is vulnerable (eg alcoholism) and have to provide evidence to back this up.