Forum Home → Discussion → Access to justice and advice sector issues → Thread
The Future State of Welfare with John Humphrys - BBC2 Thursday 27 October
...I’m not sure it follows from that that a person is wrong to choose not to work when they physically can and when others are working for a minimum wage.
I’d say you are making an argument to get rid of NMW and possibly other benefits like HB/CTB.
Although a massive change when it was introduced by raising many employees wages to a higer rate. NMW, by raising the wage payable and putting a lot of jobs in the NMW category, arguably acts as a barrier to work as employees can gauge themselves and their worth against a known figure. The NMW.
Prior to NMW hard physical work was paid at a trainee rate of 50p an hour (1994/5 I can’t imagine the amount changed much before NMW came in at £3 per hour.)
If ‘they’ can get away with it ‘they’ will and I would not be surprised to see a move towards scrapping or lowering NMW to encourage entrepeuners…....... as well as scrapping higher tax bands.
I agree with John Birks here (edited: see next post) My brother happened to own a german shepherd dog when he was on JSA in the 1990s. The jobcentre (before the pointless rebranding of Jobcentre plus) said he could get a job as a security guard as he had an alsation and he could easily work a 70 hour week at £1 per hour. Those were the days when such jobs could be refused without sanction. He told them the dog had anxiety issues.
[ Edited: 31 Oct 2011 at 04:01 pm by benefitsadviser ]I agree with John here.
Which one: Humphrys or Birks? :-)
I’m suggesting the minimum wage is a distraction from the real issue of being able through work to enjoy a life before death.
I see where Tom H is coming from regarding the “relative” issues of the minimum wage. I still believe that the principle of the minimum wage is sound though and the alternative doesnt bear thinking about. If you cant afford to pay your employees 6 quid an hour then you are not fit to run a business in the first place, or perhaps the business isnt viable anyway. I wonder how many of the directors who got a 50 percent pay rise last year are in favour of scrapping NMW and leaving it to the market? The market dont always work for everyone.
In my opinion work is good for you as it does raise and breed confidence, however the economic realities must also be an equal consideration as thats the carrott most people need. Other issues such as the confidence thing can be seen as intangible and theoretical to some claimants, especially the young who have never worked.
I’m suggesting the minimum wage is a distraction from the real issue of being able through work to enjoy a life before death.
Has that not always been the case?
From sefdom to the present?
From service in the ’ big house’ or to the master craftsman?
NMW (and Tax Credits) were not the panacea that they were intended and to quote someone with insight into these matters.“Mo’ money, mo’ problems.”
Without going into the can work should work issue, I was thinking about the programme over the weekend and I realized I missed a vital point. The programme (deliberately or not – you decide) conflated idleness with indolence. The idleness which was Beveridge’s concern was the enforced idleness caused by involuntary unemployment. The waste and immiseration of millions of people during the great depression of the 1930’s, and the effects on their families and communities, who wanted to work but through no fault of their own were thrown onto the dole and condemned to a life of idleness, offended many. The memory of that time underpinned much of the thinking of many on social policy before and after the war and there was a sense of never going back their again.
Because of the long boom following the war the precepts that underpinned the operation of the Beveridge welfare state were never open to serious challenge until the sharp economic decline of the 1970’s and 1980’s. The programme then, has taken the contemporary form of the welfare state as a fundamental departure of what Beveridge intended without exploring in any real depth the changed socio-economic conditions and the effects they had on people’s attitudes and perceptions.
Thus it missed a prime opportunity to explore how and when, for some, idleness turned into indolence, and just exactly how big or small that particular problem is. And in that sense the programme was a failure. It simply fell into the trap of taking as its cue the lies and misinformation spread by politicians and the media. And in that it was sloppy, lazy and tired journalism.
Poverty is an emotive word. In my view (waiting to be shot down in flames!) it is wrong to define it as a % of average income. If such a definition goes on being used I suspect you will never get rid of “poverty”.
Has that not always been the case?
From sefdom to the present?
From service in the ’ big house’ or to the master craftsman?.....
... The programme (deliberately or not – you decide) conflated idleness with indolence….
Thus it missed a prime opportunity to explore how and when, for some, idleness turned into indolence, and just exactly how big or small that particular problem is.
““Drink is the cause of most of the poverty,” said Slyme….
“Yes,” said Crass, agreeing with Slyme, “an ’thers plenty of ‘em wot’s too lazy to work when they can get it. Some of the b—s who go about pleading poverty ‘ave never done a fair day’s work in all their bloody lives….”
“There’s no need for us to talk about drink or laziness, “ returned Owen, impatiently, “because they have nothing to do with the matter. The question is, what is the cause of the life-long poverty of the majority of those who are not drunkards and who do work? Why, if all the drunkards and won’t-works and unskilled or inefficient workers could be by some miracle transformed into sober, industrious and skilled workers tomorrow, it would, under the present conditions, be so much the worse for us, because there isn’t enough work for all now and those people by increasing the competition for what work there is, would inevitably cause a reduction of wages and a greater scarcity of employment. The theories that drunkenness, laziness or inefficiency are the causes of poverty are so many devices invented and fostered by those who are selfishly interested in maintaining the present states of affairs, for the purpose of preventing us from discovering the real causes of our present condition.”…
“It can’t never be haltered,” interrupted old Linden. “I don’t see no sense in all this ‘ere talk. There’s always been rich and poor in the world, and there always will be.”…
“What do you mean by poverty, then?” asked Easton.
“What I call poverty is when people are not able to secure for themselves all the benefits of civilization; the necessaries, comforts, pleasures and refinements of life, leisure, books, theatres, pictures, music, holidays, travel, good and beautiful homes, good clothes, good and pleasant food”.
Everybody laughed. It was so ridiculous. The idea of the likes of them wanting or having such things! Any doubts that any of them had entertained as to Owen’s sanity disappeared. The man was as mad as a March hare.”
Robert Tressel: The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists (1909)
[ Edited: 1 Nov 2011 at 11:46 am by Tom H ]“What do you mean by poverty, then?” asked Easton.
“What I call poverty is when people are not able to secure for themselves all the benefits of civilization; the necessaries, comforts, pleasures and refinements of life, leisure, books, theatres, pictures, music, holidays, travel, good and beautiful homes, good clothes, good and pleasant food”.
Robert Tressel: The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists (1909)
After reading that I realise I too am in poverty.
After reading that I realise I too am in poverty.
John, that’s precisely the point.
[ Edited: 2 Nov 2011 at 09:17 pm by Tom H ]After reading that I realise I too am in poverty.
John, that’s precisely the point.
Hmmmmmm…...confused, it’s still early and too many words.
Is the point a) I am in poverty and I shouldn’t be (P=ie squared?) or b) that I am not in a poverty that existed in 1909 or c) that poverty is relative?
I treated the 1909 quote as lighthearted and inconsequential. Does anyone seriously believe that whoever does not have all the things listed in the quote is in poverty?
As I said before, poverty is an emotional word - conjuring up really serious deprivation of the essentials of living. I do not have all the things in the list (in common, I have no doubt, with the majority of the population) but I am very fortunate in what I do have and am not in any way “in poverty”.
The terminology needs to change. “Relative poverty” is still an emotive phrase to anyone who has any memory of real poverty from years gone by - or from the (I think small %) of people who are in real poverty now. To use the word in such a general sense takes away - in my view - from the importance of dealing with the real poverty that does still exist. It creates danger of diffusing the efforts to overcome that real poverty.
I treated the 1909 quote as lighthearted and inconsequential. Does anyone seriously believe that whoever does not have all the things listed in the quote is in poverty?
I’m not sure. Post number 29 suggests a different view of poverty which is not one that I prescribe to nor recognise.
“Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them”
I prefer however - “some are born great, some achieve greatness, some have greatness thrust upon them and some just don’t.”
......and another which is you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
I don’t like the class arguments but there is one that says the working classes are afraid of failure so don’t try.
Of course this can’t be ascribed to a group of people by economic profile, but can be a characteristic of people.
......If such a definition goes on being used I suspect you will never get rid of “poverty”.
….The terminology needs to change….
A lot of people are uncomfortable with Tressel’s definition and with other narrower definitions, eg relative poverty. And I think they would very much like to eradicate poverty by simply re-defining it.
Tressel’s definition for me is a statement of political intent. It makes people question why they shouldn’t have more for their efforts in work. In that sense, it’s both dangerous and rightly a provocation to those who are content with their place in the world (“the likes of them”). In combination with the Great Money Trick (a re-hashed version of Marxist surplus value theory) which appears later in the novel, it is an attempt to make people more class conscious.
Your political view will obviously determine how you define poverty. If you do not share Noonan’s (Tressel was a pseudonym) politics then obviously you’ll regard his definition as “lighthearted and inconsequential”. That’s fine.
The only thing I’ll say about the whole thing is it’s a bit rich for the Western Nations to go cap in hand to the Chinese Nation for one with a begging bowl asking for support for the ailing Euro.
China is a country where poverty is old school, poor food, poor sanitation, poor education, poor life & high death rates.
China GDP per capita = $7600.
France GDP per Capita = $33,100 (i pick on France as its in the Euro zone.)
UK GDP per capita = $34800
China infant mortality = 16.06 per 1000. Drinking water/ sanitation available to 58% of population
France infant mortality = 3.29 per 1000. Drinking water/ sanitation available to 100% of population
UK infant mortality 4.62 per 1000. Water/toilets? UK as France
Chinese population living below the poverty line 2.8%
French population below poverty Line 6.2%
Uk population below poverty line 14%
Someone, somewhere is ‘cooking the books.’
For me the real problem is the disparity of income.
Those with far too much and those with hardly enough to get by on. And many of them are in the working full time economic group.
That applies Nationally and Internationally.
as an aside German GDP per capita = $35700, Greece ................. = $29600
Jeez! Statto’s eaten John Birks.
Just to remind people about tonight’s Panorama, fragrantly titled ‘Britain on the Fiddle’.
I’m sure this weill be an accurate, well crafted and responsible piece of programming, especially given the write-up that is on the BBC website….
It’s estimated that twenty-two billion pounds of taxpayers’ money is effectively stolen or lost every year through fraud and error - a sizeable chunk of that is benefit fraud - money that could end up being taken out of the pockets of those in genuine need.
I thought they’d sorted out the MPs expenses…
I honestly don’t think I can watch it. There’s a limit to what my blood pressure can stand. I’ve been in this game for over 20 years (far too long obviously) and I’ve had to think back a long, long time to remember when I shouted at the telly as much as I’ve done recently.
On the subject of poverty… yes, I agree that poverty is relative. However, taking my own definition (lacking the basic essentials of life- shelter, food, adequate clothing and fuel) I’m sure as anything seeing much more of it now than I have done for years, if ever. I have too many clients reliant on food parcels and charitable handouts.
This demonization of the most vulnerable and expendable members of our community has gone well beyond the pale and is becoming more than worrying- it’s sinister.
And it’s curious how tonight’s programme comes hard on the heels of Humphreys programme. Is there a third piece of propaganda in the pipeline? I agree with Tony, I think the word sinister is a very appropriate description.
I also hate the ridiculous assertion that the billions lost in fraud comes out of other claimants pockets. What nonsense.
Do we really believe that if all loss was stopped then the government would give it back to society in the form of higher benefit rates?
Nowt like trying to turn people against each other to deflect the main issues now is there? Of course the BBC would never do that .....
Panorama. (noun) a wide, all-encompassing view. From the Greek pan (“all”) horama (“view”)
Okley Dokley!
Unfortunately, it’s quite true in my opinion. I was at a tribunal hearing recently, in the waiting room with my client, the previous hearing (waiting for her decision) and the hearing after us (running late), all WCA failures. The three of them got talking and within less than 2 minutes they were all giving off about ‘people down the road’ they variously knew, who were getting all these benefits and driving these flash cars when there was nothing wrong with them and how people like those were giving a bad name to the genuine ones (like them).
Yes, we’ve all of us heard similar over the years (if I had a pound for every client who’s told me that if they were one of those illegal immigrants, etc, etc) but I do think it happens much more frequently now and that it’s far more indoctrinated than it ever was before. My client and the other two appellants were educated, intelligent, reasonable people but they were spouting the worst ‘Daily Mail’ propoganda and none of them really grasped the point I made- that they were, in fact, the ‘people down the road’ as far as the tabloid press were concerned.
I don’t want to sound overly dramatic and I know I’ve had one of those weeks but I do start seeing parallels with Germany in 1937.
I totally agree Tony. Once you start demeaning the values that underpin society you are on a very slippery slope indeed.
Whenever someone says to me “there’s loads of people fiddling the system” (or some such nonsense), I curtly reply, “and there’s plenty getting prosecuted for fraud”. Tends to shut them up pretty quickly.
...And I’m not Tony! (although we share the same office so I suppose we’re sort of collectively Reading Welfare Rights). LOL!!
Sounds like something you hear on University Challenge.
Hello, I’m Ethel Scrungebucket, I’m from Ulan Batar and I’m reading Welfare Rights.
Thank you both for cheering me up no end.
If the BBC are going to use the £22 billion figure, I wish they would put it in context. At the start of a segment trailing the Panaorama programme on the news this morning, there was mention of “£22 billion in fraud or error, much of it benefit fraud”. Then at the end of the piece we had this exchange:
Bill Turnbull: “.. you mentioned billions of pounds being lost, £22 billion every year in fraud or error, what’s being done to stop it?”
Richard Bilton: “... We’re pretty poor nationally at spotting it. Most councils ... are not very good and we consistently underestimate it, and actually the chances of being caught if you’re committing benefit fraud are about 1 in 30.”
This implied to anyone watching that in order to make in-roads on that £22 billion loss, we really need to be better at catching benefit fraudsters. A more accurate and responsible answer to “How do we reduce the £22 billion loss?” could be to begin by pointing out that perhaps £15 billion of that total is due to tax fraud, and maybe that is where our efforts should be concentrated; and of the £5 billion loss in the benefit system, most of that is via error rather than fraud, so devoting resources to simplifying the system and having better checks may be wise. And yet, the government still spends ten times more on advertising benefit fraud initiatives than it does on tax evasion ones, and the media just follows the narrative.
Apologies Not Tony! Was trying to get an ESA sub through the fax machine and not concentrating.
What I’ve learned from the BBC:
- sick people can’t have nice cars
- disabled people can’t take part in sports