Breeding useless
Jan. 23rd, 2012 01:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksIt's hard to feel sympathy for Iain Duncan-Smith. In fact it's hard to feel anything for Iain Duncan-Smith – even contempt. But his latest argument for a cap on welfare payments at £25,000 a year does have a certain logic on its side. It's hard to justify even the rare high-profile examples of people living in £8,000 a month houses, paid for by the council.
What I find interesting about the whole affair is the line taken by those opposing the changes – particullarly the various funding lobbyists such as the Children's Society, the Bishops in the Lords and The Observer/Guardian in media-land.
That line is "innocent children will suffer". See, for example, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/22/housing-crisis-benefit-cuts?intcmp=239
Leaving aside the debatability about poverty being a relative concept (under the current definitions you just can't "cure" poverty -- even if everytbody earned exactly the same, because some households would have more working people than others) the logical flaw in this argument stares one in the face, and yet even the Conservatives fail to have the courage to mention it.
If children canot be allowed to suffer, then the best way to ensure a survivable, albeit in no way lavish, lifestyle without having to work is to have children. The rules as they stand encourage adults to use children (innocent bystanders) as an economic weapon. And there are no easy social or political solutions to this. It's not acceptable to say "yes, the innocent will suffer along with the guilty, but that's the parents' fault, not the state's". It's not acceptable to say "we will ensure that the children do not suffer economically by putting them into care". (And neither would it be wise to do it.)
But what puzzles me is, how hard can it be? It's not as if the current situation sees children not suffering. The child benefit money is paid to parents, not to the children, and there are clearly examples of where what little money there is, is spent by the parents on themselves. I've started buying much of my food from Lewisham market. If I spend a tenner I've got more than I can eat in a week, and that includes frying steak and chicken. Or, alternatively, I could buy four pizzas or a single big bucket of KFC.
I don't want to come out with the "they are all scroungers" line beloved by the likes of the Daily Mail, preferably accompanied by a Somalian refugee outside a six-bedroom house in Hampstead. I know that it's more complex than that. But to dismiss Duncan-Smith's arguments with the homily "but what about the children?" does little service to a complex problem. After all, you can ALWAYS use that argument to protest about cuts in expenditure. And if it's an argument that you can always use, then it isn't really an argument. Sadly, in real life, people suffer all the time through events which are no fault of their own. I'm afraid that I can't see what part of our Judeo-Christian heritage dictates that this should only apply to people over the age of 18, or 16, or 10, or whatever age to want to apply.
A stronger argument against such cuts is that it will breed social unrest in the future. But this strikes me as being based on other flawed arguments.
1) The most significant causes of unrest are the lack of a stable family and a feeling of exclusion from society. Paying more benefits won't solve that problem.
2) There are more effective ways of spending money to create a sense of inclusiveness within society than throwing child benefit payments at parents. TBH, give some of the examples that I see in Lewisham, these are teenage girls who do really love their kids (at least to start with) but who are utterly ill-equipped to cope with "real life" as we know it. For them "real life" is benefits. Maybe with a little off-the-books money on the side, and some free babysitting from granny (a slightly misleading term when the chances are that 'granny' is only just 40). All of this is a mess, but it's not a mess because benefits are or are not capped at £25k. It's a mess for a hole range of other reasons that, I suspect, will not be made better or worse by the introduction of a cap.
I've got no real bee in my bonnet about this issue, TBH. What irritates me is the lack of logic from both sides when it comes to approaching the issue. One side cries "but who will think of the children?" as if it were a simpleton Simpsons episode, and the other side has to respond "the children won't suffer".
No-one is allowed to ask the question: "when did being young and innocent start protecting you against bad things in life happening to you?
++++++++++++++++++++
What I find interesting about the whole affair is the line taken by those opposing the changes – particullarly the various funding lobbyists such as the Children's Society, the Bishops in the Lords and The Observer/Guardian in media-land.
That line is "innocent children will suffer". See, for example, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/22/housing-crisis-benefit-cuts?intcmp=239
However, figures produced for internal use by the Department for Work and Pensions reveal that thousands of children in families on benefits will be pushed into poverty, defined as homes where the income is below 60% of the median household income for families of a similar size.
Leaving aside the debatability about poverty being a relative concept (under the current definitions you just can't "cure" poverty -- even if everytbody earned exactly the same, because some households would have more working people than others) the logical flaw in this argument stares one in the face, and yet even the Conservatives fail to have the courage to mention it.
If children canot be allowed to suffer, then the best way to ensure a survivable, albeit in no way lavish, lifestyle without having to work is to have children. The rules as they stand encourage adults to use children (innocent bystanders) as an economic weapon. And there are no easy social or political solutions to this. It's not acceptable to say "yes, the innocent will suffer along with the guilty, but that's the parents' fault, not the state's". It's not acceptable to say "we will ensure that the children do not suffer economically by putting them into care". (And neither would it be wise to do it.)
But what puzzles me is, how hard can it be? It's not as if the current situation sees children not suffering. The child benefit money is paid to parents, not to the children, and there are clearly examples of where what little money there is, is spent by the parents on themselves. I've started buying much of my food from Lewisham market. If I spend a tenner I've got more than I can eat in a week, and that includes frying steak and chicken. Or, alternatively, I could buy four pizzas or a single big bucket of KFC.
I don't want to come out with the "they are all scroungers" line beloved by the likes of the Daily Mail, preferably accompanied by a Somalian refugee outside a six-bedroom house in Hampstead. I know that it's more complex than that. But to dismiss Duncan-Smith's arguments with the homily "but what about the children?" does little service to a complex problem. After all, you can ALWAYS use that argument to protest about cuts in expenditure. And if it's an argument that you can always use, then it isn't really an argument. Sadly, in real life, people suffer all the time through events which are no fault of their own. I'm afraid that I can't see what part of our Judeo-Christian heritage dictates that this should only apply to people over the age of 18, or 16, or 10, or whatever age to want to apply.
A stronger argument against such cuts is that it will breed social unrest in the future. But this strikes me as being based on other flawed arguments.
1) The most significant causes of unrest are the lack of a stable family and a feeling of exclusion from society. Paying more benefits won't solve that problem.
2) There are more effective ways of spending money to create a sense of inclusiveness within society than throwing child benefit payments at parents. TBH, give some of the examples that I see in Lewisham, these are teenage girls who do really love their kids (at least to start with) but who are utterly ill-equipped to cope with "real life" as we know it. For them "real life" is benefits. Maybe with a little off-the-books money on the side, and some free babysitting from granny (a slightly misleading term when the chances are that 'granny' is only just 40). All of this is a mess, but it's not a mess because benefits are or are not capped at £25k. It's a mess for a hole range of other reasons that, I suspect, will not be made better or worse by the introduction of a cap.
I've got no real bee in my bonnet about this issue, TBH. What irritates me is the lack of logic from both sides when it comes to approaching the issue. One side cries "but who will think of the children?" as if it were a simpleton Simpsons episode, and the other side has to respond "the children won't suffer".
No-one is allowed to ask the question: "when did being young and innocent start protecting you against bad things in life happening to you?
++++++++++++++++++++
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-01-28 02:08 am (UTC)(Pauses to admire the complicated chain of first-order predicate logic involved there.
(Admits that it probably isn't quite right.)
On the other hand, it's a blog.
We've had Homer, and commentaries on Homer, for nigh on 3,000 years.
Let's dispense with the controversies surrounding religions of one (fanatical) persuasion or another. Perhaps this hints at something? Maybe blogs work the same way that pubs do?
However, I am fairly sure that the following quote:
"... buying foods ready-prepared by chains such as Eat, Pret a Manger or Simply M&S."
... was yours.
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if these people do. God knows, I've met enough scroungers down my local in a perfectly respectable suburb of Birmingham with a 90% employment rate.
It just sounded "off" by your standards. That's all.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-28 02:17 am (UTC)It was, of course, to do with Matt, and specifically with your comment:
"Matt is of the very reasonable school of only responding when he thinks I am talking bollocks."
I brought Homer in (could have been Hesiod, I suppose, or if we want to talk about foundational myths, even Gilgamesh) for one reason and one reason only, and I'm beginning to suspect that it makes no sense whatsoever.
People have been interpreting, and reinterpreting, and rere and rerere and this obviously is where the word "reiterating" comes from, except that interestingly it doesn't for two entirely opposite reasons ...
I'll start again.
I don't doubt, for a moment, that Matt is being entirely reasonable. (I do suspect that both of you are far more "right wing," for what that is worth, than you were when you were at college.)
It isn't so much the quality of Matt's response (which was unimpeachable).
It was about the stupid and thoughtless reference, and the obvious fact that the reference in question did not match up to the documentation.
Incidentally, are you ever going to complete your PhD, or at least publish an abridged version of it?
no subject
Date: 2012-01-28 02:28 am (UTC)Jesu Christos
I really shouldn't have to point this out, but I have learned the hard way that My Master the Internet insists upon it.
When I said "stupid and thoughtless," I couldn't find a better way to express it. Thoughtless is about right, but not quite. "Without bothering to look it up and think about it" is closer to the point (well, it's "ironic, isn't it? That explains everything).
Plainly, it was a ridiculous quote.
As for "stupid," and here we go again on the Internet thing, I am by no means implying that Matt is permanently stupid. Or even more stupid than me.
But in that particular case, and on that particular point, I, as a potentially stupid and ignorant person who is willing to accept further discussion that indicates one of the following four non-exclusive possibilities:
(1) I am stupid
(2) I am ignorant
(3) The comment was stupid (within the terms defined above)
(4) The comment was ignorant (within the terms defined above)
I, yes, I, am prepared to submit that the reference in question was stupid and thoughtless.
And most definitely not ironic. Socratean irony or otherwise.
no subject
Date: 2012-01-28 02:44 am (UTC)"My response related to where Matt was likely to eat, rather than the subjects of my original post."
De ma faute.
I get a little too much worked up about this stuff. You were right and I was wrong.
In re, the wonderful comment from Tidjane Thiam, chief executive of Prudential, who has branded minimum wage legislation across Europe as an "enemy" of young people...
Isn't it time to rediscover your inner revolutionary?
This tit, in a mature business if you like, is being paid -- I don't have the figures, but you probably do -- somewhere north of £2 million a year to oil the cogs. Which is fine. Somebody has to oil the cogs.
Beats me where he comes off with the noxious suggestion that we should push the poor into the quicksands, however. I look forward to an explanation of how the demand/supply curve for unskilled labour is perfectly elastic between, say, £5.80 per hour and fuck all.