The Politics Thread

[Zulus Thousand of em]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this heartwarming story about the champion of the working class. I think it probably is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-so ... e-25681118" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Power to the people? Jog on Arthur.

[Bruce Rioja]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this heartwarming story about the champion of the working class. I think it probably is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-so ... e-25681118" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Power to the people? Jog on Arthur.

Arthur Scargill's house.

[Zulus Thousand of em]

And a nice pied-a-terre in the Barbican? Lovely.

[Worthy4England]

I think this thread needs Billy Bragg's house as well. It's a poor show with only Arthur's on it...

[William the White]

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....

There aren't any in real life, of course. Only in the little therapist's imagination and the Daily Mail.

[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....

There aren't any in real life, of course. Only in the little therapist's imagination and the Daily Mail.

Ah, this stirs the muse in me.

Hoboh, know for short as Hob
Thought a lot like Bijou Bob
Believing in minute detail
The "facts" found in the Daily Mail.

[Bijou Bob]

As it happens, there are a good number. Ten years ago I managed a youth offending team. That attitude was found fairly often amongst parents.

I'm sorry that my experiences don't support your liberal, armchair supposition. Worked at the sharp end with real people at all? For those of us who have and are doing society's dirty work, it's a difficult, challenging world out there full of contradictions. Of course, you'll both know that having worked in those well known fields of deprivation and poverty, academia and the theatre.

[William the White]

As it happens, there are a good number. Ten years ago I managed a youth offending team. That attitude was found fairly often amongst parents.

I'm sorry that my experiences don't support your liberal, armchair supposition. Worked at the sharp end with real people at all? For those of us who have and are doing society's dirty work, it's a difficult, challenging world out there full of contradictions. Of course, you'll both know that having worked in those well known fields of deprivation and poverty, academia and the theatre.

I'm sorry you've had such a difficult life. And I accept totally that my work as a writer and academic disables me from having any opinion about anything. I hadn't thought that before, so many thanks for pointing out my errors. I really hope your life gets a lot better soon. I'm not a liberal, by the way, though you are right, I possess more than one armchair and often sit on them.

[Prufrock]

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.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that at all.

Where that is the case, it poses the question 'Are benefits too high, or are wages too low?' I really don't think it's the former. Journos with nothing better to do are constantly trying to 'live for a week' on that kind of money and I'm yet to see one manage it. I really do think the Daily Mail idea of scrounging a comfortable living off benefits is a myth perpetuated by tabloids with agendas finding the exceptions who slip through the net.

For me, the minimum wage isn't high enough. Multi-nationals make massive profits, but pay the bare minimum. In the same way you wouldn't blame the person who takes the benefits which are higher than the wage, I don't blame them, it's their job. There are plenty people who want that job who'll do it for that wage. I'm still not sure that's 'right' though, and is the sort of thing I'm on about when I get ranting about politicians who think the markets should run *everything*.

I don't think it's right that we live in a country where our Dorris could sell £35k worth of glass chandelier to some city boy's wife on a whim, who doesn't bat an eyelid at it, but where a 20 year-old, soon no longer eligible even for automatic housing benefit, can be paid £201.20 for a 40 hour week. How the feck do you live off that?

And your Amazons, your Tescos, your Asdas, they can afford to pay more than that. They don't, because their job is to maximise profits not come up with social policy. Your John Lewises and even Boots have shown you can pay above the minimum wage (they tend to be around £8 per hour I think) and not go bust. If you can't afford to pay your staff a decent wage, your business model isn't good enough. I understand small businesses would struggle, but surely the answer isn't to let everyone pay shit wages, but to help the small business in other ways through tax breaks?

35 hours (if you can get them) on the full-whack MW is just over £220 per week. How people live off that I don't know.

This whole thing leads us back to Crayon's question(s), which he's asked before and never got a straight answer to . I'm going to try:

I think the minimum wage should be set at a level which means the recipient can have a nice standard of living, more than barely surviving. TV, holiday once a year, enough money to eat well and, enough for a Friday night in the pub. That, in a rich, modern, country should be the minimum anyone who works a full-time job should be getting. There has to be enough money in this country that we can afford that, IMO. I actually think it's not a bad idea of getting around these tax avoidance schemes too. Cut the taxes the multi-nationals don't pay anyway, but make they pay a proper wage. Sure the doom-mongers will say they'll up sticks and go abroad, but firstly their competitors who do pay the tax they are supposed to would be back on a level playing field, and Britons are still going to buy DVDs. Amazon would either have to employ *some* staff here, or they'd go off, and a British equivalent, admittedly charging higher prices probably, would come in and pay their staff properly. So basically, proper living standards depend on us paying a bit more for DVDs.

Benefits should be aimed at a level below that which is survivable and preferably comfortably without being comfortable, if that makes sense, but low enough that there is an incentive to work.

[Bijou Bob]

You are of course entitled to an opinion Monty, but to rubbish mine on the basis that they are fiction or just an impression picked up from a trash newspaper is unjust.

I may have different opinions to yours, but mine are based on work I've undertaken over the past fifteen years in areas of urban deprivation. They are founded on my experiences, not just made up to support my political beliefs.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I feel this thread is particularly poor at the moment... especially regarding the level of income required for the unemployed. All of this is made fruitless by the completely outrageous top end wages that a particular few can command. Why the feck it is possible for somebody to be be able to out auction other wankers so that can fly out (probably utilising technology they have no idea how it works) so they can shoot a black rhino, just because the c*nt is rich makes any kind of argument as to what a fair society is, completely inane.

[Montreal Wanderer]

You are of course entitled to an opinion Monty, but to rubbish mine on the basis that they are fiction or just an impression picked up from a trash newspaper is unjust.

I may have different opinions to yours, but mine are based on work I've undertaken over the past fifteen years in areas of urban deprivation. They are founded on my experiences, not just made up to support my political beliefs.

I didn't rubbish you nor do I have an opinion. I expressed surprised that lots of parents would have the attitude you indicated - and it still seems odd to me. However, I have no first hand knowledge of contemporary British parents and didn't state that I believed you were wrong. After WtW responded to my note of surprise, I wrote a little ditty about his assertion but that was merely intended to be amusing. Perhaps you are confusing academics. Again I do not assert your opinion is wrong and I have none of my own. Although to hold one's children back in case they make one look bad is contrary to my entire experience of parents and I have met many in this country.

[jaffka]

You are of course entitled to an opinion Monty, but to rubbish mine on the basis that they are fiction or just an impression picked up from a trash newspaper is unjust.

I may have different opinions to yours, but mine are based on work I've undertaken over the past fifteen years in areas of urban deprivation. They are founded on my experiences, not just made up to support my political beliefs.

I didn't rubbish you nor do I have an opinion. I expressed surprised that lots of parents would have the attitude you indicated - and it still seems odd to me. However, I have no first hand knowledge of contemporary British parents and didn't state that I believed you were wrong. After WtW responded to my note of surprise, I wrote a little ditty about his assertion but that was merely intended to be amusing. Perhaps you are confusing academics. Again I do not assert your opinion is wrong and I have none of my own. Although to hold one's children back in case they make one look bad is contrary to my entire experience of parents and I have met many in this country.

How many of them with children not in college. That is what Bob is saying.

[Montreal Wanderer]

You are of course entitled to an opinion Monty, but to rubbish mine on the basis that they are fiction or just an impression picked up from a trash newspaper is unjust.

I may have different opinions to yours, but mine are based on work I've undertaken over the past fifteen years in areas of urban deprivation. They are founded on my experiences, not just made up to support my political beliefs.

I didn't rubbish you nor do I have an opinion. I expressed surprised that lots of parents would have the attitude you indicated - and it still seems odd to me. However, I have no first hand knowledge of contemporary British parents and didn't state that I believed you were wrong. After WtW responded to my note of surprise, I wrote a little ditty about his assertion but that was merely intended to be amusing. Perhaps you are confusing academics. Again I do not assert your opinion is wrong and I have none of my own. Although to hold one's children back in case they make one look bad is contrary to my entire experience of parents and I have met many in this country.

How many of them with children not in college. That is what Bob is saying.

I don't think he said that. He said parents discouraged their children from getting jobs because to do so would make the parents look bad. This had to do with living on social assistance. As for my own experience I was for fifteen years a coach in minor sports and had children from all social stratas. Even parents on welfare wanted the best for their children as far as I could tell. While I knew thousands of college students in my career I very seldom met any parents - so I'm talking about my community activity.

[Hoboh]

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.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that at all.

Where that is the case, it poses the question 'Are benefits too high, or are wages too low?' I really don't think it's the former. Journos with nothing better to do are constantly trying to 'live for a week' on that kind of money and I'm yet to see one manage it. I really do think the Daily Mail idea of scrounging a comfortable living off benefits is a myth perpetuated by tabloids with agendas finding the exceptions who slip through the net.

For me, the minimum wage isn't high enough. Multi-nationals make massive profits, but pay the bare minimum. In the same way you wouldn't blame the person who takes the benefits which are higher than the wage, I don't blame them, it's their job. There are plenty people who want that job who'll do it for that wage. I'm still not sure that's 'right' though, and is the sort of thing I'm on about when I get ranting about politicians who think the markets should run *everything*.

I don't think it's right that we live in a country where our Dorris could sell £35k worth of glass chandelier to some city boy's wife on a whim, who doesn't bat an eyelid at it, but where a 20 year-old, soon no longer eligible even for automatic housing benefit, can be paid £201.20 for a 40 hour week. How the feck do you live off that?

And your Amazons, your Tescos, your Asdas, they can afford to pay more than that. They don't, because their job is to maximise profits not come up with social policy. Your John Lewises and even Boots have shown you can pay above the minimum wage (they tend to be around £8 per hour I think) and not go bust. If you can't afford to pay your staff a decent wage, your business model isn't good enough. I understand small businesses would struggle, but surely the answer isn't to let everyone pay shit wages, but to help the small business in other ways through tax breaks?

35 hours (if you can get them) on the full-whack MW is just over £220 per week. How people live off that I don't know.

This whole thing leads us back to Crayon's question(s), which he's asked before and never got a straight answer to . I'm going to try:

I think the minimum wage should be set at a level which means the recipient can have a nice standard of living, more than barely surviving. TV, holiday once a year, enough money to eat well and, enough for a Friday night in the pub. That, in a rich, modern, country should be the minimum anyone who works a full-time job should be getting. There has to be enough money in this country that we can afford that, IMO. I actually think it's not a bad idea of getting around these tax avoidance schemes too. Cut the taxes the multi-nationals don't pay anyway, but make they pay a proper wage. Sure the doom-mongers will say they'll up sticks and go abroad, but firstly their competitors who do pay the tax they are supposed to would be back on a level playing field, and Britons are still going to buy DVDs. Amazon would either have to employ *some* staff here, or they'd go off, and a British equivalent, admittedly charging higher prices probably, would come in and pay their staff properly. So basically, proper living standards depend on us paying a bit more for DVDs.
Benefits should be aimed at a level below that which is survivable and preferably comfortably without being comfortable, if that makes sense, but low enough that there is an incentive to work.

SHOCK. HORROR! Pru taking first steps on route to planet hobo
Same applies to the EU pru

[jaffka]

You are of course entitled to an opinion Monty, but to rubbish mine on the basis that they are fiction or just an impression picked up from a trash newspaper is unjust.

I may have different opinions to yours, but mine are based on work I've undertaken over the past fifteen years in areas of urban deprivation. They are founded on my experiences, not just made up to support my political beliefs.

I didn't rubbish you nor do I have an opinion. I expressed surprised that lots of parents would have the attitude you indicated - and it still seems odd to me. However, I have no first hand knowledge of contemporary British parents and didn't state that I believed you were wrong. After WtW responded to my note of surprise, I wrote a little ditty about his assertion but that was merely intended to be amusing. Perhaps you are confusing academics. Again I do not assert your opinion is wrong and I have none of my own. Although to hold one's children back in case they make one look bad is contrary to my entire experience of parents and I have met many in this country.

How many of them with children not in college. That is what Bob is saying.

I don't think he said that. He said parents discouraged their children from getting jobs because to do so would make the parents look bad. This had to do with living on social assistance. As for my own experience I was for fifteen years a coach in minor sports and had children from all social stratas. Even parents on welfare wanted the best for their children as far as I could tell. While I knew thousands of college students in my career I very seldom met any parents - so I'm talking about my community activity.

That is a very narrow margin, a sports coach. How many on each team? Local community as well.

You must accept what he is saying that due to his job he will come across some of the worst in society. Have you had that same exposure?

[Bijou Bob]

I could go on for weeks with anecdotes. I'm not saying that the majority of parents on benefits think the same, clearly they don't. Frankly I could cry for the kids I've come across with no support at home, no ambition and little or no hope for a positive future.

Its not just the kids either. A college mate of mine lives on a notorious social housing estate in Bolton. Her other half has been out of work with depression for 3 years. At a bbq they had for friends and neighbours last summer, he announced that he had an interview for a driving job. She described what then followed as heart breaking.

Almost as one, their guests rounded on him asking what he wanted to do that for, did he think he was better than them, was he a mug etc? He was basically intimidated into not going for the job and remains on the sick.

[thebish]

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....

There aren't any in real life, of course. Only in the little therapist's imagination and the Daily Mail.

sadly, I'm afraid there are, i have met some of them. I don't believe there are hordes of them - they aren't even close to being a significant proportion of people on benefits - but to totally deny their existence is short-sighted/a little naive...

[LeverEnd]

You are of course entitled to an opinion Monty, but to rubbish mine on the basis that they are fiction or just an impression picked up from a trash newspaper is unjust.

I may have different opinions to yours, but mine are based on work I've undertaken over the past fifteen years in areas of urban deprivation. They are founded on my experiences, not just made up to support my political beliefs.

I didn't rubbish you nor do I have an opinion. I expressed surprised that lots of parents would have the attitude you indicated - and it still seems odd to me. However, I have no first hand knowledge of contemporary British parents and didn't state that I believed you were wrong. After WtW responded to my note of surprise, I wrote a little ditty about his assertion but that was merely intended to be amusing. Perhaps you are confusing academics. Again I do not assert your opinion is wrong and I have none of my own. Although to hold one's children back in case they make one look bad is contrary to my entire experience of parents and I have met many in this country.

How many of them with children not in college. That is what Bob is saying.

I don't think he said that. He said parents discouraged their children from getting jobs because to do so would make the parents look bad. This had to do with living on social assistance. As for my own experience I was for fifteen years a coach in minor sports and had children from all social stratas. Even parents on welfare wanted the best for their children as far as I could tell. While I knew thousands of college students in my career I very seldom met any parents - so I'm talking about my community activity.

The sort of parents we are talking about wouldn't turn up to your sports coaching sessions and nor, probably, would their kids. The parents to which Bob refers are extreme examples, and a small minority in my experience. However people like that do exist and you only come across them in certain types of jobs as they don't generally mix with people outside their own narrow way of life.
No-one should be mocking Bob for what he says unless they have done his job and know it to be untrue.
In my teaching career I had a pastoral role for a while which involved me attending Child in Need meetings with social workers and other agencies and have seen similar things, though rarely it must be said.
I think it's fear of their children looking down at them, wanting to retain what little control they have in life. Or just fear of losing the relationship with child. Or maybe they are very defensive because seeing a child do well would shine a light on their failings in life, whatever they might be.
I don't know the answers but I can assure you Bob is not making this up. Why would he?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Look, guys, I'm not criticizing Bob and I'm not saying I know more about it than him. Indeed, I have said I know nothing about it and have no opinion. All I did was a) express surprise that he said lots of parents didn't want their children to succeed as if would reflect badly on them and b) write a bit of doggerel as a joke after WtW's response. I freely admit I have not spent huge amounts of time with the "dregs of society" and I don't even know what Bob does for a living. I still find it astonishing that a significant number of parents wish to hamper their kids for stupidly selfish reasons but that world must be very different from the one most of us live in.