Comments on: Cutting child poverty http://sw2be.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/cutting-child-poverty/ The musings of a British social work student Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:40:25 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Kev L http://sw2be.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/cutting-child-poverty/#comment-50 Kev L Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:22:57 +0000 http://sw2be.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-50 Just one more thought before I get a cuppa. I was lying awake last night thinking about investing heavily in the 'no-win no-fee' law firms that will inevitably salivate at the prospect of taking on the cases of the plethora of kids that will not have been raised out of relative poverty by their local council. Enjoy the debate between the Government and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation about the definition of relative poverty in this country then :-] Just one more thought before I get a cuppa. I was lying awake last night thinking about investing heavily in the ‘no-win no-fee’ law firms that will inevitably salivate at the prospect of taking on the cases of the plethora of kids that will not have been raised out of relative poverty by their local council. Enjoy the debate between the Government and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation about the definition of relative poverty in this country then :-]

]]> By: Kev L http://sw2be.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/cutting-child-poverty/#comment-49 Kev L Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:04:05 +0000 http://sw2be.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-49 Hi sw, Of course, Jobseekers is designed to be temporary because contributing their labour to our society must surely be the desired state for everyone. Would there be much point in working, hence the benefits trap, if (temporary) Jobseekers allowance was too generous? The lowest level of Jobseekers may be harsh for the unemployed but possibly necessary from a utilitarian perspective. However, it is, hopefully, not a permanent position for the unemployed. Of course disability, and other, benefits are another issue entirely and must be simultaneously stringently policed and generous. If those with jobseekers were given £361 per week, I wonder if the guiding hand of the market would simultaneously increase the price of the most basic commodities accordingly. Possibly the pricing mechanism already used by supermarkets - but I don't know? I see our problem as having a political system where career politicians are driven primarily by re-election and thus will not facilitate an open and honest debate about what it really costs to run a 'caring capitalist society', which is surely the next stage in our evolution. Personally, I would rather be part of a poorer society that was firm but fair and I get the impression from the projection going on re the banking crisis and MP's expenses that the majority of people unconsciously fantasise similarly - but I may be wrong. At present we seem to have a confused 'third way' without any single ideology but also without honesty and integrity - all spin. I think as a society we would be better off without those who reacted to the increase to 50% income tax for those earning over £150k with promises to 'move to Jersey'. Wonderful, what a selfless society they will be building for their children there then. Allocation of scarce resources, especially in a progressive society where the population has ever-increasing expectations, will always be a thorny issue. Would Sharon prefer an extra £150 per week Jobseekers allowance or would she rather the money went to keep her sister alive fighting, rightly or wrongly, on behalf of our society in Afghanistan? Ideally, both of course but that would mean tax increases which would be political suicide unless society as a whole understands the issues and takes ownership of the restructuring of itself - not in my lifetime I guess and certainly not whilst we have such an individualistic collective (if that's not a contradiction in terms) outlook. Thatcher was the right person at the right time (I can hear you booing) but we now need to smooth off the rough edges and address the concomitant harms that came with her New Right ideology. Peace out. I'm off the Jersey to bag a handout...and I may be sometime. Have a great weekend. Kev x Hi sw,

Of course, Jobseekers is designed to be temporary because contributing their labour to our society must surely be the desired state for everyone. Would there be much point in working, hence the benefits trap, if (temporary) Jobseekers allowance was too generous? The lowest level of Jobseekers may be harsh for the unemployed but possibly necessary from a utilitarian perspective. However, it is, hopefully, not a permanent position for the unemployed. Of course disability, and other, benefits are another issue entirely and must be simultaneously stringently policed and generous.

If those with jobseekers were given £361 per week, I wonder if the guiding hand of the market would simultaneously increase the price of the most basic commodities accordingly. Possibly the pricing mechanism already used by supermarkets – but I don’t know?

I see our problem as having a political system where career politicians are driven primarily by re-election and thus will not facilitate an open and honest debate about what it really costs to run a ‘caring capitalist society’, which is surely the next stage in our evolution. Personally, I would rather be part of a poorer society that was firm but fair and I get the impression from the projection going on re the banking crisis and MP’s expenses that the majority of people unconsciously fantasise similarly – but I may be wrong. At present we seem to have a confused ‘third way’ without any single ideology but also without honesty and integrity – all spin. I think as a society we would be better off without those who reacted to the increase to 50% income tax for those earning over £150k with promises to ‘move to Jersey’. Wonderful, what a selfless society they will be building for their children there then.

Allocation of scarce resources, especially in a progressive society where the population has ever-increasing expectations, will always be a thorny issue. Would Sharon prefer an extra £150 per week Jobseekers allowance or would she rather the money went to keep her sister alive fighting, rightly or wrongly, on behalf of our society in Afghanistan? Ideally, both of course but that would mean tax increases which would be political suicide unless society as a whole understands the issues and takes ownership of the restructuring of itself – not in my lifetime I guess and certainly not whilst we have such an individualistic collective (if that’s not a contradiction in terms) outlook. Thatcher was the right person at the right time (I can hear you booing) but we now need to smooth off the rough edges and address the concomitant harms that came with her New Right ideology.

Peace out. I’m off the Jersey to bag a handout…and I may be sometime.

Have a great weekend.

Kev x

]]> By: sw2be http://sw2be.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/cutting-child-poverty/#comment-48 sw2be Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:54:16 +0000 http://sw2be.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-48 I agree, Kev, that the government is referring to relative poverty- absolute poverty would mean little in this country, in comparison to others in the world. (The usually accepted definition of absolute poverty is an income of less than US$1 a day). The government's own figures for relative poverty however, for a couple with two children, refer to an income figure of £361 a week. The same family, reliant entirely on Jobseekers Allowance and no other income, receive £197.27 a week benefit income. And, like you say, the government can only just afford the welfare state at these levels now. If the economy gets worse, as predicted, we risk the same situation that Thatcher found herself in, with rising welfare benefit costs, and arguably social care costs too, and less income from taxes, to pay for it. Something will have to give- and I can't see that something being in the areas of health, education etc. Which leaves welfare benefits, meaning that, yet again, the target for removing more children form poverty will be missed, bill or no bill. I agree, Kev, that the government is referring to relative poverty- absolute poverty would mean little in this country, in comparison to others in the world. (The usually accepted definition of absolute poverty is an income of less than US$1 a day).
The government’s own figures for relative poverty however, for a couple with two children, refer to an income figure of £361 a week. The same family, reliant entirely on Jobseekers Allowance and no other income, receive £197.27 a week benefit income.
And, like you say, the government can only just afford the welfare state at these levels now. If the economy gets worse, as predicted, we risk the same situation that Thatcher found herself in, with rising welfare benefit costs, and arguably social care costs too, and less income from taxes, to pay for it. Something will have to give- and I can’t see that something being in the areas of health, education etc.
Which leaves welfare benefits, meaning that, yet again, the target for removing more children form poverty will be missed, bill or no bill.

]]> By: Kev L http://sw2be.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/cutting-child-poverty/#comment-47 Kev L Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:20:58 +0000 http://sw2be.wordpress.com/?p=93#comment-47 Hiya, Could it be argued that what the Government is referring to here is relative poverty? Perhaps it could be argued that welfare benefits do keep people out of absolute poverty, which shouldn't exist in a modern industrialised society anyway. Of course the problem here is that the definition of relative poverty is a social construction forced through by the hegemonic power of the Government. When is enough, enough? Computers in all homes with children, free Play Stations and cable TV so youngsters aren't socially disadvantaged? Even if they were given them, they would still be in relative poverty because the rich kids would then have PS4, etc, etc, because that's the way the market and our society works isn't it? The trouble is that relative poverty will always exist in a capitalist society so attempts to lift children out of this type of poverty by a nation with crippling national debt and already spiralling costs associated with the welfare state can only be a thinly disguised bribe to the electorate as you say. Could it be argued that, actually, the state cannot afford the welfare systems already in place - hence the gargantuan national debt? I feel for the poor agencies of the welfare state that will now have a legal requirement to draw on resources that don't exist. Perhaps if MPs' expenses were redirected... In a globalised world, I guess the emphasis could now be on educating the UK population to the extent that we can compete with the other nation-states and ensure that our whole society doesn't fall into global 'relative' poverty. Education, education, education. Don't get me started on crime... Food for thought, a rant or utter garbage - your call x Hiya,

Could it be argued that what the Government is referring to here is relative poverty? Perhaps it could be argued that welfare benefits do keep people out of absolute poverty, which shouldn’t exist in a modern industrialised society anyway. Of course the problem here is that the definition of relative poverty is a social construction forced through by the hegemonic power of the Government. When is enough, enough? Computers in all homes with children, free Play Stations and cable TV so youngsters aren’t socially disadvantaged? Even if they were given them, they would still be in relative poverty because the rich kids would then have PS4, etc, etc, because that’s the way the market and our society works isn’t it? The trouble is that relative poverty will always exist in a capitalist society so attempts to lift children out of this type of poverty by a nation with crippling national debt and already spiralling costs associated with the welfare state can only be a thinly disguised bribe to the electorate as you say. Could it be argued that, actually, the state cannot afford the welfare systems already in place – hence the gargantuan national debt? I feel for the poor agencies of the welfare state that will now have a legal requirement to draw on resources that don’t exist. Perhaps if MPs’ expenses were redirected…

In a globalised world, I guess the emphasis could now be on educating the UK population to the extent that we can compete with the other nation-states and ensure that our whole society doesn’t fall into global ‘relative’ poverty. Education, education, education.

Don’t get me started on crime…

Food for thought, a rant or utter garbage – your call x

]]>