[Politics] Dispatches on Channel 4 - homelessness and children in poverty.

[Solid at the back]

The trouble with council accommodation is that it doesn't go to those who need it most, it just doesn't. It's supposed to be there for those that need it. Not 30 year old single males that still live with their mums, who got it when they needed it 30 years ago.

Another thing that pisses me off, is that those who benefitted from buying their council house at reduced cost, then rent it out through letting agents, who will put it up for market value, but won't rent it out to those on housing benefits, even though its on a council estate, and that the owner more than likely would of been on receipt of housing benefits. Work that one out.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

How about……….. improving the areas in which they live! Blair and his lot did that as well.

I am not treating Blair as some sort of hero figure, just thinking that he and his government did do a fair amount of good

Blair was the corner turned. Been a fair bit of turning back since, though

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Yep.

And Das Reich won't reply or explain.

Because he's a racist Nazi.

Who knew?

We all knew!

Still waiting......

 

[Swansman]

We have that.

Er, up to uni level.

Is uni education free in your gaff?

Yup university education is free here both for Swedes and people "in the European community" (not sure if UK counts..?). Similar in Norway and Denmark.

 

[CheeseRolls]

It was a question, not a statement. Do you not think people might have a reason to stay in a less than ideal situation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The answer I think is you invest in people. If one in four takes up the challenge and improves their lot, the world is a better place. You can't help those who won't help themselves, but this shouldn't be an excuse for not trying.

 

[Weststander]

Far from it!

Weird comment.

And...back on ignore

Reading posts by people I have on ignore is not bringing much* to my table

*OK. Anything.

If anything you’re socially minded, it’s always been obvious in your posts.

A sign of these facebook/twatter-stirred polarised times, a bit of independent thinking and someone is wrongly pigeon-holed in the wrong camp.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Blair was the corner turned. Been a fair bit of turning back since, though

Two things I remember very distinctly:
I had a group of French people visiting the main Job Centre innSouthampton early in the Blair years. In conversation with the manager afterwards, she said: “we feel as if we have been liberated to do the job we should be doing!” In other words, helping people to find decent jobs rather than finding reasons to stop people’s benefits.
The Conversation with a Vicar mentioned elsewhere in this thread - that was in the days of SRB (Single Regeneration Budget) and the like. Decent amounts of money being given to revive/regenerate communities, with the communities being trusted to sort out what the priorities were to be and so on. In my experience, it worked and threw up some real local heroes.

 

[robinsonsgrin]

They would not be able to sort anything out to move elsewhere, I would imagine. One of the mothers - a full-time care administrator but on Universal Credit as well - had been on the waiting list for a Council House for 9 years and was applying for things as they came up but being number 200+ for an individual house.

And yes, I am aware there is a sense of community in poverty. And it is a good thing in my view. People help each other.

I remember talking in a meeting to the Vicar of one of the poorer parts of Southampton a few years ago where he said: “People who don’t live in Thornhill wouldn't want to live there, and people who live in Thornhill wouldn’t want to live anywhere else.”

Did my final teaching practise in Thornhill back in mid 90s... lovely kids and parents - grateful for learning.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Still waiting......

You could be waiting a long time

 

[larus]

One of the biggest problems is everything is politicised, or maybe I should say, weaponised to attack one side or the other.

For example, when we get given figures in regards to ‘poverty’, they are relative poverty and not absolute poverty. As relative poverty is based on a percentage of average earnings/household income (or some other figure), it’s not really a true measure of genuine poverty.

I think most normal people, be that socialists, liberals or conservatives believe in a fair welfare state (Tories aren’t the selfish cvnts that so many seem to want to class them as). However, whenever any party tries to reform anything, the changes suggested are attacked as there will always be some group who are perceived to be losers. Then, rather than having a constructive debate and deciding on coherent plans to improve the situation, all that seems to happen is those in genuine need in society get screwed over.

The only real way to benefit everyone in society is to increase overall wealth. However, the problem that this causes is that the distribution is never fair (it never has been nor will it ever be). So, the wealthy get wealthier at a higher rate than those at the bottom. So, although they also gain, the disparity widens and feeds back to the ‘relative poverty’ debate.

As Swansman pointed out, the best way to alleviate poverty long-term is via education and opportunity. One thing to consider, even those is poverty (true hardship) in this country will be much better off than the vast majority of people on the planet. For example, comments like not being able to afford a holiday don’t fit the absolute poverty category. As a kid I never had holidays and often had hand-me-down stuff from friends like football boots or coats from charity shops but I never really considered myself poor. I knew I missed out on things compared to my friends, but I knew we couldn’t afford stuff. It wasn’t great, buy you learn to accept.

 

[Baldseagull]

One of the biggest problems is everything is politicised, or maybe I should say, weaponised to attack one side or the other.

For example, when we get given figures in regards to ‘poverty’, they are relative poverty and not absolute poverty. As relative poverty is based on a percentage of average earnings/household income (or some other figure), it’s not really a true measure of genuine poverty.

I think most normal people, be that socialists, liberals or conservatives believe in a fair welfare state (Tories aren’t the selfish cvnts that so many seem to want to class them as). However, whenever any party tries to reform anything, the changes suggested are attacked as there will always be some group who are perceived to be losers. Then, rather than having a constructive debate and deciding on coherent plans to improve the situation, all that seems to happen is those in genuine need in society get screwed over.

The only real way to benefit everyone in society is to increase overall wealth. However, the problem that this causes is that the distribution is never fair (it never has been nor will it ever be). So, the wealthy get wealthier at a higher rate than those at the bottom. So, although they also gain, the disparity widens and feeds back to the ‘relative poverty’ debate.

As Swansman pointed out, the best way to alleviate poverty long-term is via education and opportunity. One thing to consider, even those is poverty (true hardship) in this country will be much better off than the vast majority of people on the planet. For example, comments like not being able to afford a holiday don’t fit the absolute poverty category. As a kid I never had holidays and often had hand-me-down stuff from friends like football boots or coats from charity shops but I never really considered myself poor. I knew I missed out on things compared to my friends, but I knew we couldn’t afford stuff. It wasn’t great, buy you learn to accept.

I agree that relative poverty can throw up some weird things, like when the national average wage goes down, it takes a chunk of people out of relative poverty, despite them having absolutely no improvements in their standard of living.

But I am afraid it is all political, distribution of wealth will always be unequal, but it doesn't have to be so unfair.

 

[Randy McNob]

That’s kind of what I was getting at.

So what’s the solution to helping these people whilst keeping society fair and meritocratic?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We live in a plutocracy and the ruling elites are there to keep it that way. Much of the wealth is invested convincing the ordinary people at the bottom that plutocracy is in their best interests. you can only create fair society if you break that system

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

One of the biggest problems is everything is politicised, or maybe I should say, weaponised to attack one side or the other.

For example, when we get given figures in regards to ‘poverty’, they are relative poverty and not absolute poverty. As relative poverty is based on a percentage of average earnings/household income (or some other figure), it’s not really a true measure of genuine poverty.

I think most normal people, be that socialists, liberals or conservatives believe in a fair welfare state (Tories aren’t the selfish cvnts that so many seem to want to class them as). However, whenever any party tries to reform anything, the changes suggested are attacked as there will always be some group who are perceived to be losers. Then, rather than having a constructive debate and deciding on coherent plans to improve the situation, all that seems to happen is those in genuine need in society get screwed over.

The only real way to benefit everyone in society is to increase overall wealth. However, the problem that this causes is that the distribution is never fair (it never has been nor will it ever be). So, the wealthy get wealthier at a higher rate than those at the bottom. So, although they also gain, the disparity widens and feeds back to the ‘relative poverty’ debate.

As Swansman pointed out, the best way to alleviate poverty long-term is via education and opportunity. One thing to consider, even those is poverty (true hardship) in this country will be much better off than the vast majority of people on the planet. For example, comments like not being able to afford a holiday don’t fit the absolute poverty category. As a kid I never had holidays and often had hand-me-down stuff from friends like football boots or coats from charity shops but I never really considered myself poor. I knew I missed out on things compared to my friends, but I knew we couldn’t afford stuff. It wasn’t great, buy you learn to accept.

I wouldn’t disagree with anything you say, but the thing about never had a holiday was a bit of a red herring. There was plenty else about uniform exchanges at the school and things like that because people couldn’t afford clothes, about the need for food banks, about the worry about eviction - one 13 year old older sister having been evicted once at a week’s notice being almost paranoid about the same thing happening again and about having to live on the streets.

There was an article in the Guardian yesterday about Burnley - another place NSCers love to hate - which is a red wall seat turned blue and where there is great poverty. The Tory MP is trying to work (all credit to him) with the Labour Council to get the best for the constituency. There are plenty of decent people across all the parties who want this levelling up thing to work.

 

[Happy Exile]

Sure Start in Brighton did a fantastic job until the Conservatives got rid of it. Then there was PACE (Providing Access to Childcare and Employment) which helped parents and families out of poverty through supporting people into work. That was an EU funded project (obviously not anymore) run by the council with as far as I know no government support.

When there's strong evidence for what works and it's removed it does start to look like it's a choice not to help people.

 

[Guinness Boy]

But how would their situation be improved by moving?
Bearing in mind it would cost time and money, leave them without a support network?

The OP read to me a bit “places like Luton”. He’s clarified that since. Still there is an issue of perception though. I know someone who works with a poverty charity who knows families in Whitehawk where the kids have never been to the beach. The charity saw that as a problem but the families didn’t. They had everything they needed on the estate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

The OP read to me a bit “places like Luton”. He’s clarified that since. Still there is an issue of perception though. I know someone who works with a poverty charity who knows families in Whitehawk where the kids have never been to the beach. The charity saw that as a problem but the families didn’t. They had everything they needed on the estate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Saddest thing I've read today. The parents have every right to live their lives as moronic drongos, but have no such right to inflict the same on their kids. Kids in Whitehawk who have never been (taken) to the beach? Damn right I blame the c***ish parents

 

[Machiavelli]

That’s kind of what I was getting at.

So what’s the solution to helping these people whilst keeping society fair and meritocratic?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do realise that meritocracy is an ideology that is widely subscribed to, and is conceived of as fair. I'm not trying to make any comment about whether society is meritocratic (football is largely FWIW). But meritocracy is a simply dreadful ideology. What it basically argues is that people have different skills and aptitude (this is uncontroversial) and different levels of effort (far less so), and their combined application amounts to an output that equals 'merit'. This level and/or complexity of merit translates into differentiated rewards. And these differentiated rewards can be limitless, leading to the stretching of the 'ladder' of income/wealth/etc.
So, in effect it's an argument for more inequality while, at the same time, offering a justification for that stretching of inequality: you're paid a negligible wage because you haven't put in sufficient effort or you lack the acumen to receive anything better.
It's the argument that smug middle class professionals make around the dinner table, to make them feel better about themselves, and it's not unrelated to why so many in neglected parts of the country made a certain decision in 2016.

PS I'm responding to you because, despite what certain people have said on this thread, you're attuned to either critiquing the premise or the logic of an argument (such as this one). Aspects of this critique are by no means directed at you personally (although it might be appropriate), but the thought process has a fairly wide prevalence on here.

 

[Machiavelli]

Sure Start in Brighton did a fantastic job until the Conservatives got rid of it. Then there was PACE (Providing Access to Childcare and Employment) which helped parents and families out of poverty through supporting people into work. That was an EU funded project (obviously not anymore) run by the council with as far as I know no government support.

When there's strong evidence for what works and it's removed it does start to look like it's a choice not to help people.

Agreed. I'll criticise New Labour for many things, but Sure Start was one of their shining successes, and not the only one.

 

[Denis]

My parents used to voluntary work and used to pick up children from Whitehawk and Moulscoomb and drive them to families that had offered to give them a little holiday along the coast, e.g. Eastbourne, Camber, Littlehampton etc. it broke my Mum’s heart to see how excited the children were. It seemed unbelievable that children from Brighton were never taken to the beach, what wrong with jumping on the 49 or number 1 bus?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

My parents used to voluntary work and used to pick up children from Whitehawk and Moulscoomb and drive them to families that had offered to give them a little holiday along the coast, e.g. Eastbourne, Camber, Littlehampton etc. it broke my Mum’s heart to see how excited the children were. It seemed unbelievable that children from Brighton were never taken to the beach, what wrong with jumping on the 49 or number 1 bus?

The cheapest fare for a child is £2.20 or £10 for a family ticket. It doesn’t sound much but after rent and food it can be a luxury.