The Politics Thread

[Bruce Rioja]

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

Not the first time you've come out with a complete load of absolute bollocks is it? Where the feck have I said that? Well?

Go and give your head a shake, man.

[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.

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...

I agree - I'm not actually proposing any such restrictions, far less saying that they are workable.

I'm just asking in an abstract way what are the minimum living standards we see as being acceptable today?

[thebish]

I agree - I'm not actually proposing any such restrictions, far less saying that they are workable.

I'm just asking in an abstract way what are the minimum living standards we see as being acceptable today?

I know what you are asking - and the reason you are asking is that is is FAR from simple - else you wouldn't ask! For some kind of benefits system to be universal - then to a large extent it has to be one-size-fits-all.

even at a most basic level - where you to say - "roof over your head" - then there is such huge disparity across the country as to how much housing costs - and huge disparity about how much social housing is available that you are already in trouble.

i don't know how it is worked out - but i presume that the benefits figures are not just plucked out of the air - they must be based on some kind of assessment of what it costs to live in the UK at a basic level... as for proposing my own system for calculating such a level - I'd have no idea where to start...

have you got any ideas?

[Athers]

I suppose you could debate line by line depending on how hawkish you are..

Washing machine a basic standard of living?
Television?
Smartphone?
Broadband connection?
Two new pairs of shoes a year?
Running an old car?
Clothes from somewhere other than Primark?

etc.

[BWFC_Insane]

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

Not the first time you've come out with a complete load of absolute bollocks is it? Where the feck have I said that? Well?

Go and give your head a shake, man.

Ultimately IMO that is the default of your position. If you make it so that people simply cannot afford to live if they aren't working without creating the jobs and terms of employment WtW describes then you will be making things shitter for those out of work and those in work. And u if your only choice is to work (because you can't afford to live otherwise), and the rights aren't there, then everyone suffers especially those with low skiills sets and opportunities (ie the people out of work now).

[Bruce Rioja]

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

Not the first time you've come out with a complete load of absolute bollocks is it? Where the feck have I said that? Well?

Go and give your head a shake, man.

Ultimately IMO that is the default of your position. If you make it so that people simply cannot afford to live if they aren't working without creating the jobs and terms of employment WtW describes then you will be making things shitter for those out of work and those in work. And u if your only choice is to work (because you can't afford to live otherwise), and the rights aren't there, then everyone suffers especially those with low skiills sets and opportunities (ie the people out of work now).

No, my position is that staying home on benefits should not be a more attractive option than going to work. Quite simple.

Further - I don't blame the people that do it, I blame a system that allows it.

[thebish]

I suppose you could debate line by line depending on how hawkish you are..

Washing machine a basic standard of living?
Television?
Smartphone?
Broadband connection?
Two new pairs of shoes a year?
Running an old car?
Clothes from somewhere other than Primark?

etc.

you could... but to enforce that, you'd have to have a voucher system of some sort for govt-issue or govt-approved models of goods - or have the govt buy the actual goods and food and deliver them - giving them no money at all... once you settle on giving people cash, then you have a hard time regulating what they spend it on...

of course - if you put them all in a workhouse - regulating it all becomes much easier!

[BWFC_Insane]

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

Not the first time you've come out with a complete load of absolute bollocks is it? Where the feck have I said that? Well?

Go and give your head a shake, man.

Ultimately IMO that is the default of your position. If you make it so that people simply cannot afford to live if they aren't working without creating the jobs and terms of employment WtW describes then you will be making things shitter for those out of work and those in work. And u if your only choice is to work (because you can't afford to live otherwise), and the rights aren't there, then everyone suffers especially those with low skiills sets and opportunities (ie the people out of work now).

No, my position is that staying home on benefits should not be a more attractive option than going to work. Quite simple.

But I think everyone agrees with that, WtW included. But the question is how to arrive at that point.

I don't believe people without jobs surviving on benefits are living lavish lifestyles. I think they're staying at home and scrimping together enough money to keep warm/eat etc. And discussions about TV's flat screen or otherwise obscure the issue. I don't think having a TV is a measure of wealth now.

So you either cut their money even further or you create extra jobs and the right environment and conditions to enable them to see work as an attractive option.

Which to be frank if it is a choice between 14 hours cleaning toilets every day for minimum wage to be marginally better off (perhaps even break even or worse) than they as it is now I can see the problem. So I think what Wtw is saying and what I'm saying is why not raise the quality of the employment in terms of salary and hours and conditions to make work MORE attractive rather than essentially make things shitter all round?

[Athers]

Ha we're a mile off how to provide people with the shoes once the above list is agreed!

[thebish]

No, my position is that staying home on benefits should not be a more attractive option than going to work. Quite simple.

but it's not, though, is it? Otherwise, that's what you'd do... quite simple...

[Bruce Rioja]

No, my position is that staying home on benefits should not be a more attractive option than going to work. Quite simple.

but it's not, though, is it? Otherwise, that's what you'd do... quite simple...

No, I earn more than I could claim, but that's not the case for everyone, is it?!

[Worthy4England]

No, my position is that staying home on benefits should not be a more attractive option than going to work. Quite simple.

but it's not, though, is it? Otherwise, that's what you'd do... quite simple...

No, I earn more than I could claim, but that's not the case for everyone, is it?!

Clearly then, the answer is to raise the level of benefits so you can share in the welfare state like others have the opportunity to so do.

I'm sort of with you on this one. There shouldn't be a level of optionality around taking a job, if one's on offer and legal (so it pays minimum wage etc.), but - and here's the nub - it would have to have something else in place to prevent people from deliberately being shit at a job and getting their cards.

The problem with BWFCi's comments regarding cleaning the toilets, is that someone has to clean the toilets - not everyone can be a doctor or a dentist.

I just ran a quick calc, assuming my family was all out of work tomorrow - we'd get circa £352 a week in benefits (JSA/Housing Benefit etc) - two of us being over 21, we could get £473 a week, if we could find two jobs cleaning shithouses at the minimum wage for 37.5 hours per week. That seems like a reasonable hike (not discussing whether the baseline is correct in the first place or whether we'd want to clean shithouses), if we could find two such jobs, then it probably just about makes sense to take them, for an extra £480 per month.

However, if we could only find 2, 28 hour a week jobs, then it wouldn't make much sense at all, as we'd get the same amout as "do nowt".

[Athers]

No, my position is that staying home on benefits should not be a more attractive option than going to work. Quite simple.

but it's not, though, is it? Otherwise, that's what you'd do... quite simple...

No, I earn more than I could claim, but that's not the case for everyone, is it?!

Clearly then, the answer is to raise the level of benefits so you can share in the welfare state like others have the opportunity to so do.

I'm sort of with you on this one. There shouldn't be a level of optionality around taking a job, if one's on offer and legal (so it pays minimum wage etc.), but - and here's the nub - it would have to have something else in place to prevent people from deliberately being shit at a job and getting their cards.

The problem with BWFCi's comments regarding cleaning the toilets, is that someone has to clean the toilets - not everyone can be a doctor or a dentist.

I just ran a quick calc, assuming my family was all out of work tomorrow - we'd get circa £352 a week in benefits (JSA/Housing Benefit etc) - two of us being over 21, we could get £473 a week, if we could find two jobs cleaning shithouses at the minimum wage for 37.5 hours per week. That seems like a reasonable hike (not discussing whether the baseline is correct in the first place or whether we'd want to clean shithouses), if we could find two such jobs, then it probably just about makes sense to take them, for an extra £480 per month.

However, if we could only find 2, 28 hour a week jobs, then it wouldn't make much sense at all, as we'd get the same amout as "do nowt".

I remember during one discussion around Daily Mail benefits rage on here that both taking part time jobs was seemingly the smarter move because of the in-work benefits you can receive (and big time if there's any potential childcare costs you would save)

[boltonboris]

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...

What the f*ck do you point your furniture at???

[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...

What the f*ck do you point your furniture at???

he doesn't have any furniture!

[BWFC_Insane]

No, my position is that staying home on benefits should not be a more attractive option than going to work. Quite simple.

but it's not, though, is it? Otherwise, that's what you'd do... quite simple...

No, I earn more than I could claim, but that's not the case for everyone, is it?!

Clearly then, the answer is to raise the level of benefits so you can share in the welfare state like others have the opportunity to so do.

I'm sort of with you on this one. There shouldn't be a level of optionality around taking a job, if one's on offer and legal (so it pays minimum wage etc.), but - and here's the nub - it would have to have something else in place to prevent people from deliberately being shit at a job and getting their cards.

The problem with BWFCi's comments regarding cleaning the toilets, is that someone has to clean the toilets - not everyone can be a doctor or a dentist.

I just ran a quick calc, assuming my family was all out of work tomorrow - we'd get circa £352 a week in benefits (JSA/Housing Benefit etc) - two of us being over 21, we could get £473 a week, if we could find two jobs cleaning shithouses at the minimum wage for 37.5 hours per week. That seems like a reasonable hike (not discussing whether the baseline is correct in the first place or whether we'd want to clean shithouses), if we could find two such jobs, then it probably just about makes sense to take them, for an extra £480 per month.

However, if we could only find 2, 28 hour a week jobs, then it wouldn't make much sense at all, as we'd get the same amout as "do nowt".

Yeah I get that. My point being that is the "sort" of job a lot of people who have been on long term benefits might be able to get. I'm certainly not saying they shouldn't do it. Just that I can see the problem and personally I do not believe the answer is to make their lives on benefits even more shitty than they already are

The proglem with your £473 amount is that it is before National Insurance and tax. And it disregards extra costs such as transport. I drive to work every day but were I reliant on public transport it would be about £30 per week (assuming I had the means to pay up front for a chunk - paying daily - a lot more). So for a couple that would be £60 gone immediately.

Then possibly extra childcare arrangements might cost more.

Take tax and national insurance and yeah......

[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...

What the f*ck do you point your furniture at???

The dog/electric piano/other bits of furniture?!

[Bijou Bob]

Beveridge intended that benefits would provide a safety net and the scheme was initially proposed as an insurance backed scheme.

The current level of benefits provides, as far as I can see, a far bigger net than was ever envisaged.

What galls me is that if I walk into Barclays bank next week and ask for 500 quid, their first question will be "Have you got an account with us", swiftly followed by "And have you paid into that account". Bottom line, no money for Bob.

The same does not apply to benefits, which is why at least one of my school mates has never worked a day in the last thirty years. He didn't have to. It Is also why I've dealt with a lot of young people whose parents actively discourage them from achieving at school or applying for jobs. They have never worked and fear the shame that having a working or achieving child would cause them.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Beveridge intended that benefits would provide a safety net and the scheme was initially proposed as an insurance backed scheme.

The current level of benefits provides, as far as I can see, a far bigger net than was ever envisaged.

What galls me is that if I walk into Barclays bank next week and ask for 500 quid, their first question will be "Have you got an account with us", swiftly followed by "And have you paid into that account". Bottom line, no money for Bob.

The same does not apply to benefits, which is why at least one of my school mates has never worked a day in the last thirty years. He didn't have to. It Is also why I've dealt with a lot of young people whose parents actively discourage them from achieving at school or applying for jobs. They have never worked and fear the shame that having a working or achieving child would cause them.

Surely there cannot be a lot of parents who reason this way....

[Worthy4England]

No, my position is that staying home on benefits should not be a more attractive option than going to work. Quite simple.

but it's not, though, is it? Otherwise, that's what you'd do... quite simple...

No, I earn more than I could claim, but that's not the case for everyone, is it?!

Clearly then, the answer is to raise the level of benefits so you can share in the welfare state like others have the opportunity to so do.

I'm sort of with you on this one. There shouldn't be a level of optionality around taking a job, if one's on offer and legal (so it pays minimum wage etc.), but - and here's the nub - it would have to have something else in place to prevent people from deliberately being shit at a job and getting their cards.

The problem with BWFCi's comments regarding cleaning the toilets, is that someone has to clean the toilets - not everyone can be a doctor or a dentist.

I just ran a quick calc, assuming my family was all out of work tomorrow - we'd get circa £352 a week in benefits (JSA/Housing Benefit etc) - two of us being over 21, we could get £473 a week, if we could find two jobs cleaning shithouses at the minimum wage for 37.5 hours per week. That seems like a reasonable hike (not discussing whether the baseline is correct in the first place or whether we'd want to clean shithouses), if we could find two such jobs, then it probably just about makes sense to take them, for an extra £480 per month.

However, if we could only find 2, 28 hour a week jobs, then it wouldn't make much sense at all, as we'd get the same amout as "do nowt".

Yeah I get that. My point being that is the "sort" of job a lot of people who have been on long term benefits might be able to get. I'm certainly not saying they shouldn't do it. Just that I can see the problem and personally I do not believe the answer is to make their lives on benefits even more shitty than they already are

The proglem with your £473 amount is that it is before National Insurance and tax. And it disregards extra costs such as transport. I drive to work every day but were I reliant on public transport it would be about £30 per week (assuming I had the means to pay up front for a chunk - paying daily - a lot more). So for a couple that would be £60 gone immediately.

Then possibly extra childcare arrangements might cost more.

Take tax and national insurance and yeah......

Aye - you'd lose around £32 to tax and £22 for NI and £23 on travel or there-abouts (per couple) - so sure, it reduces what you can earn extra to £50 or so per week - which is still significant (%) when weighed against £352 benefits baseline. That could easily by taken away by childcare costs.

Someone still has to clean the toilets though...