Benefit Street On Now

[@contradevian]

The school is part of an academy chain - where schools are taken out of the state system and handed to Tory donors to exploit charities to run instead.

The Oasis Academy chain doesn't even get good results - the schools they have taken over have dropped by 12% in performance at GCSE. Yet they are being handed more and more schools.

They will just have to keep those donations going!

[alexw]

War is the health of the state. 1814 was after a very, very long war.

Also 261% of GDP? I suspect you're talking national debt, where I was talking about GDP per capita appropriated by the government per year. The figure I got for 1900 was around 15%.

This chart pulled at random off t'interwebs seems to back that up.

You do realize that the reason the size of the state jumped from ~12% to ~35% is because the people wanted it that way?

That due to the horrendous conditions of the bulk of the population in the early 1900's, it was a choice between higher taxes on the wealthier citizens and greater spending on the needs of the masses, or revolution?

The idea that this was some type of golden age is a fiction of your imagination.

[tinker]

They will just have to keep those donations going!

Is there nothing in this country that isn't corrupt? You get the impression the people at the top are fleecing the taxpayer with impunity. Yet down at the bottom...

[@contradevian]

Also, decent housing for the masses, bwahahaha, I assume thats a joke right? You know what forum you're on? No, we're better off because of technology and working practices, the government is just a pain in the **** that takes undue credit for our enrichment.

For the masses it was a choice of urban or rural squalor.

If they were in work, they might strike lucky with factory or farm provided housing. Loose your job and you were out on your ear.

It wasn't all Downton Abbey by any stretch of the imagination.

Social housing was originally conceived to bring areas up, which might seem laughable now, but considering what they replaced, namely bombed out tenements , were a considerable improvement.

Edited February 18, 2014 by aSecureTenant

[EUBanana]

You do realize that the reason the size of the state jumped from ~12% to ~35% is because the people wanted it that way?

That due to the horrendous conditions of the bulk of the population in the early 1900's, it was a choice between higher taxes on the wealthier citizens and greater spending on the needs of the masses, or revolution?

The idea that this was some type of golden age is a fiction of your imagination.

I say again, £1500 per capita is to blame for that. By modern standards, 1900 England would be absolutely destitute. We're way better off now. Really, we should be in a golden age right now, but we are not.

[alexw]

I say again, £1500 per capita is to blame for that. By modern standards, 1900 England would be absolutely destitute. We're way better off now. Really, we should be in a golden age right now, but we are not.

No it certainly was not.

There was a reason it was called the gilded age. The gini coefficient for the UK 1900-1910 was ~0.50 without any of the redistribution to reduce inequality that we see now. The elites lived like kings, and the resources that could have gone to provide the majority with for that time period a somewhat reasonable living standard was used to keep those elites living like kings. Remember the film titanic where you saw ballrooms and chandeliers above deck and crammed tiny rooms below? That differential was not fiction.

In any age people compare their lifestyles to others in their society. They can tolerate some degree of inequality but if it becomes too great they rebel in some way. This is why gov spending rose as it did and taxes on the wealthy rose dramatically. It was either that or full scale bloody revolution.

Your idea's would return us to that age. You only need to look at the U.S and the way it has lowered taxes on the wealthy since the 1970's, and the plight the bottom 50% of their society are in as a result.

Edited February 19, 2014 by alexw

[EUBanana]

No it certainly was not.

There was a reason it was called the gilded age. The gini coefficient for the UK 1900-1910 was ~0.50 without any of the redistribution to reduce inequality that we see now. The elites lived like kings, and the resources that could have gone to provide the majority with for that time period a somewhat reasonable living standard was used to keep those elites living like kings. Remember the film titanic where you saw ballrooms and chandeliers above deck and crammed tiny rooms below? That differential was not fiction.

The gilded age in the USA perhaps. Notably the gini coefficient of the US is much worse now despite the state being 4-5 times bigger, and indeed federal spending has never been higher, so there's clearly more to it than "big state = good". It's a similar story here. I think it's fairly obvious that in the UK and the US the government is largely to blame for the current state of affairs - you can look at specific policy items in fact, which happens on this board all the time. Housing inequality here is almost entirely the governments fault, for example, and to be on the topic of this board.

Also I don't think the time of prosperity (in the US) of the 1950s was due to redistributive policies because there weren't many on the government teat then compared to now. Prosperity then was more due to how the economy was structured than anything the government did.

[zugzwang]

Diedre Kelly, aka White Dee, star of C4's hit series Benefits Street, releases a rap single 'Your To Blame' today, April 1st.

And though depression has scuppered her efforts to come off benefits, she's DJing a spot on Bank Holiday Sunday at Rumour nightclub in Sutton Coldfield: 'No work Monday, just like being on benefits.'

Bustin' out of George Osborne's broken Britain...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-26831966

[Billy soy]

Diedre Kelly, aka White Dee, star of C4's hit series Benefits Street, releases a rap single 'Your To Blame' today, April 1st.

And though depression has scuppered her efforts to come off benefits, she's DJing a spot on Bank Holiday Sunday at Rumour nightclub in Sutton Coldfield: 'No work Monday, just like being on benefits.'

Bustin' out of George Osborne's broken Britain...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-26831966

Is she still claiming JSA? Cameron must of signed her to his label if she still is.

[olliegog]

April fool joke - right

and is 'you're' in the title really spelt as 'your' - words fail me.

[crashmonitor]

Diedre Kelly, aka White Dee, star of C4's hit series Benefits Street, releases a rap single 'Your To Blame' today, April 1st.

And though depression has scuppered her efforts to come off benefits, she's DJing a spot on Bank Holiday Sunday at Rumour nightclub in Sutton Coldfield: 'No work Monday, just like being on benefits.'

Bustin' out of George Osborne's broken Britain...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-26831966

White Dee's apparent abuse of Benefits has nothing on the families featured on ITVs Dangerous Dogs............we get a woman sat in a chair surrounded by scores of Staffordshire bull terriers. The Council have obliged her breeding scheme by upgrading her to a house from a flat. The dogs are meanwhile fouling the joint and ripping it apart whilst the fat woman tells the RSPCA to f**k off, you couldn't really make it up.

Edited April 1, 2014 by crashmonitor

[crashmonitor]

Ok at a loose end and watched Britain on the Dole last night. I realise these programmes are designed to enrage the working population especially those that have never claimed any benefits, but with me they seem to succeed.

The three subjects were in Scotland. A couple that had lived on the dole for twenty years (well the bloke hadn't worked for 20 years to be precise) and at 46 and 51 were still devoting their lives to becoming rap stars even though they didn't appear to be that good. A girl with learning difficulties who somehow managed to get £500 per month, despite having no obvious overheads, she lived with her overweight parents getting disability. We got to see the over sized rice crispy bowl, here in the link, filled to the brink and this was just the first helping, she liked two overloaded mixing bowls to get her 21 stone frame moving in a morning. And then we got the woman trying to get her business going...some kind of hippie trapeze aid that you suspended from a tree, basically a few blankets stitched together at £145. It appears that she hadn't sold any, but needed benefits to live on while this brilliant idea took off.

But I guess it is all the bloody bankers fault.

http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/tv-guide/23-02-15/benefits-britain-life-on-the-dole

Edited February 27, 2015 by crashmonitor

[wonderpup]

And then we get bankers at RBS making a loss while still paying themselves million pound bonus's.

So why on earth should anyone at the bottom end of society feel any moral obligation to do the right thing?

Most of the dole scroungers are dysfunctional people in some way who came from dysfunctional backgrounds- unlike those in the city who for the most part had every advantage in life and still ended up as parasites- albeit better dressed and better educated ones.

To me shows like benefit street or life on the dole are the modern day version of the freak shows of the Victorian era where the damaged and the dysfunctional of that time were put on display for the edification of the masses- the lowest form of popular entertainment put together by middle class brats who apparently have nothing better to do with their lives.

[silver surfer]

Most of the dole scroungers are dysfunctional people in some way who came from dysfunctional backgrounds- unlike those in the city who for the most part had every advantage in life and still ended up as parasites- albeit better dressed and better educated ones.

The majority are only dysfunctional in the context of a process driven, post-industrial society. Drop us all into a subsistence farming landscape and there'd be precious little difference between dole scroungers and pillar of the community middle managers.

[zugzwang]

And then we get bankers at RBS making a loss while still paying themselves million pound bonus's.

So why on earth should anyone at the bottom end of society feel any moral obligation to do the right thing?

Most of the dole scroungers are dysfunctional people in some way who came from dysfunctional backgrounds- unlike those in the city who for the most part had every advantage in life and still ended up as parasites- albeit better dressed and better educated ones.

To me shows like benefit street or life on the dole are the modern day version of the freak shows of the Victorian era where the damaged and the dysfunctional of that time were put on display for the edification of the masses- the lowest form of popular entertainment put together by middle class brats who apparently have nothing better to do with their lives.

Despite lacking either theoretical or empirical foundation, the 35yr long neoclassical/New Keynesian program of unlimited capital deregulation and privatisation is still assumed to deliver optimal societies and resource allocations. Even the GFC proved incapable of disturbing the status quo, thus bankers remain enobled as the brahmin caste of laissez faire, a privileged minority the rest of society is obliged to venerate at all costs since they alone are capable of performing the sacred Paretian rituals of credit creation and globalisation.

[wonderpup]

The majority are only dysfunctional in the context of a process driven, post-industrial society. Drop us all into a subsistence farming landscape and there'd be precious little difference between dole scroungers and pillar of the community middle managers.

It's also true that many of todays misfits- the violent and the malcontent- in other times and places might be seen as heroic warriors whose violence was an asset to the tribe, rather than as a threat to established order.

There is also something rather bizzare about a society that elevates self interest to the status of a virtue but then complains when it's least capable members choose to exploit that society in their own perceived self interest. Expecting noble self sacrifice from the bottom 10% while the top 10% make out like bandits is a little inconsistent to say the least.

[wonderpup]

Despite lacking either theoretical or empirical foundation, the 35yr long neoclassical/New Keynesian program of unlimited capital deregulation and privatisation is still assumed to deliver optimal societies and resource allocations. Even the GFC proved incapable of disturbing the status quo, thus bankers remain enobled as the brahmin caste of laissez faire, a privileged minority the rest of society is obliged to venerate at all costs since they alone are capable of performing the sacred Paretian rituals of credit creation and globalisation

Was there ever a religious elite who willingly gave up their theological position- with all it's inherent wealth and privilege? It wasn't for nothing that the Church burned heretics- there was a lot of money and power invested in those ideas.

The resilience of the cult of the Delphic Oracle can in part be explained by the fact that whenever a prophecy failed it was to the same Delphic Oracle people turned in order to interpret this failure- in much the same way that the failure of current economic policy and theory is explained by the very authorities who created these policies and theories in the first place.

Intellectually this makes no sense- but from the viewpoint of faith it's entirely consistent.

[wherebee]

Was there ever a religious elite who willingly gave up their theological position- with all it's inherent wealth and privilege? It wasn't for nothing that the Church burned heretics- there was a lot of money and power invested in those ideas.

The resilience of the cult of the Delphic Oracle can in part be explained by the fact that whenever a prophecy failed it was to the same Delphic Oracle people turned in order to interpret this failure- in much the same way that the failure of current economic policy and theory is explained by the very authorities who created these policies and theories in the first place.

Intellectually this makes no sense- but from the viewpoint of faith it's entirely consistent.

I read a comment online yesterday where someone posted "Question everything - trust nothing handed down to you. Only Jesus holds the truth."

They were not being ironic, either.

[@contradevian]

Ok at a loose end and watched Britain on the Dole last night. I realise these programmes are designed to enrage the working population especially those that have never claimed any benefits, but with me they seem to succeed.

The three subjects were in Scotland. A couple that had lived on the dole for twenty years (well the bloke hadn't worked for 20 years to be precise) and at 46 and 51 were still devoting their lives to becoming rap stars even though they didn't appear to be that good. A girl with learning difficulties who somehow managed to get £500 per month, despite having no obvious overheads, she lived with her overweight parents getting disability. We got to see the over sized rice crispy bowl, here in the link, filled to the brink and this was just the first helping, she liked two overloaded mixing bowls to get her 21 stone frame moving in a morning. And then we got the woman trying to get her business going...some kind of hippie trapeze aid that you suspended from a tree, basically a few blankets stitched together at £145. It appears that she hadn't sold any, but needed benefits to live on while this brilliant idea took off.

But I guess it is all the bloody bankers fault.

http://www.whatsontv.co.uk/tv-guide/23-02-15/benefits-britain-life-on-the-dole

Many of these people would have 'mill jobs' in the past. Without the mills, then the State has to indulge some of their fantasies, and if they are 'starting a business' then technically they are not unemployed!

There is a show being promoted on CBSAction called 'The Super.' Its not set in the UK, probably Australia. and its about a guy at some letting agency sorting out all the feckless, dirty tenants he has to supervise.

Only a matter of time before we get the 'British' version.

Its all propaganda, and I would watch some of this 'bread and circus' if ever they put on a landowner or a private landlord. Behind many of this documentary 'subjects' is a private landlord, will be getting considerably more. The rentier overlords want it both ways it seems.

Fact is 26BN a year goes to private landlords, more than 5x what the 'feckless' manage to scrounge, and the State will be buying a cheaply bought auction property for the rentier, roughly every two to three years.

Edited February 28, 2015 by aSecureTenant

[steve99]

Despite lacking either theoretical or empirical foundation, the 35yr long neoclassical/New Keynesian program of unlimited capital deregulation and privatisation is still assumed to deliver optimal societies and resource allocations. Even the GFC proved incapable of disturbing the status quo, thus bankers remain enobled as the brahmin caste of laissez faire, a privileged minority the rest of society is obliged to venerate at all costs since they alone are capable of performing the sacred Paretian rituals of credit creation and globalisation.

I cant write as clever as you but I understand and the ultiamate answer then is.. The guillitine. which is simple for all to understand

Ps and this program is totally focused on the other '1%ers' along with some choice edditing and some creative setups no doubt. My Mother inLaw now thinks anyone loosing thier jobs, a) did it on purpose, b)refuses to work again, c)there is plenty of jobs out there fi you get of your bum and d) the day you lose your job you start hanging out at the shopping centre poncing money and taking drugs. That is the influence of these tacky tv programs.

[steve99]

Many of these people would have 'mill jobs' in the past. Without the mills, then the State has to indulge some of their fantasies, and if they are 'starting a business' then technically they are not unemployed!

There is a show being promoted on CBSAction called 'The Super.' Its not set in the UK, probably Australia. and its about a guy at some letting agency sorting out all the feckless, dirty tenants he has to supervise.

Only a matter of time before we get the 'British' version.

Its all propaganda, and I would watch some of this 'bread and circus' if ever they put on a landowner or a private landlord. Behind many of this documentary 'subjects' is a private landlord, will be getting considerably more. The rentier overlords want it both ways it seems.

Fact is 26BN a year goes to private landlords, more than 5x what the 'feckless' manage to scrounge, and the State will be buying a cheaply bought auction property for the rentier, roughly every two to three years.

''Many of these people would have 'mill jobs' in the past. Without the mills, then the State has to indulge some of their fantasies, and if they are 'starting a business' then technically they are not unemployed!''

Actually we had factories and building sites for all of them. The factories disapeared on account of extremely poor management who did not want to modernise nor involve the worker (aka Japan and Germany at the time) Meantime the poor managment sat in the 'City' of London getting the ear of governments and deciding that if the workers were not going to accept being indentured serfs then we will destroy the lot, no matter what the cost.. And they did.

We havent needed building site workers much now since Thatcher sold off the council housing stock, banned building more and decided that the best answer to Britains housing problems is higher prices, done by restricting buidling and increasing the population along of course with free range banking also started in the UK by Thatcher. 'They' won again. Unfortunelty Labour carried on with the whole poxy deal. And here we are today with the legacy, streets full of ferrals and an oligarch class lording it over the rest of us.

[crashmonitor]

It's also true that many of todays misfits- the violent and the malcontent- in other times and places might be seen as heroic warriors whose violence was an asset to the tribe, rather than as a threat to established order.

There is also something rather bizzare about a society that elevates self interest to the status of a virtue but then complains when it's least capable members choose to exploit that society in their own perceived self interest. Expecting noble self sacrifice from the bottom 10% while the top 10% make out like bandits is a little inconsistent to say the least.

My main problem with the benefits system is drawing arbitrary lines that decree one person is worthy of a lifetime on benefits when another is seen as less equal. So you get a huge safety net for the bottom 10% and may be no safety net for the second to the bottom decile. Well actually the most challenged get to rise above the next mentally or physically challenged decile. It's the people who work on low pay and don't claim benefits that are most let down.

So in the programme I referred to you somehow get someone with mild learning difficulties who gets to live at home with mum and dad, no overheads and the system pays £500 pcm. Far more generous than someone struggling on low pay and having to pay rent. They may have conditions far more challenging than the some of the disabled recipients, just it isn't recognised.

Edited March 2, 2015 by crashmonitor

[@contradevian]

My main problem with the benefits system is drawing arbitrary lines that decree one person is worthy of a lifetime on benefits when another is seen as less equal. So you get a huge safety net for the bottom 10% and may be no safety net for the second to the bottom decile. Well actually the most challenged get to rise above the next mentally or physically challenged decile. It's the people who work on low pay and don't claim benefits that are most let down.

So in the programme I referred to you somehow get someone with mild learning difficulties who gets to live at home with mum and dad, no overheads and the system pays £500 pcm. Far more generous than someone struggling on low pay and having to pay rent. They may have conditions far more challenging than the some of the disabled recipients, just it isn't recognised.

Agree with what you say, but what is your alternative? Dickensian street scenes full of the starving and the homeless, and risk having your throat cut, next time to go to Tesco's for a loaf.

A virtual surveillance/military Police State to protect the private property of the haves from the have not's?

As for the £500 a month, where does it ultimately end up? It doesn't vanish into a black hole, but can be spent, on crisps, rice krispies and even Sky subs. If the claimant smokes and drinks, then even better, as money goes back to the government.

Capitalism can chug along quite nicely with a vast proportion of the population destitute, but life is so much better when they aren't. I agree that an unfair burden is falling on the middle class's who are themselves finding themselves 'precariatised' by global corporatism.

Edited March 2, 2015 by aSecureTenant

[iamnumerate]

Agree with what you say, but what is your alternative? Dickensian street scenes full of the starving and the homeless, and risk having your throat cut, next time to go to Tesco's for a loaf.

A virtual surveillance/military Police State to protect the private property of the haves from the have not's?

As for the £500 a month, where does it ultimately end up? It doesn't vanish into a black hole, but can be spent, on crisps, rice krispies and even Sky subs. If the claimant smokes and drinks, then even better, as money goes back to the government.

Capitalism can chug along quite nicely with a vast proportion of the population destitute, but life is so much better when they aren't. I agree that an unfair burden is falling on the middle class's who are themselves finding themselves 'precariatised' by global corporatism.

My alternative would be a local system as in Switzerland.

http://www.thewelfarestatewerein.com/archives/2010/07/lessons_from_zu.php

This I think sums up the difference between the two systems

"Putting yourself in the position of the mother – and perhaps the father – you can imagine that you will be embarrassed as you pass people in the street who are paying for your baby. Instead of feeling you have impersonal legal rights, as in Britain, you are taking money from people you might meet see at your local café. No wonder unmarried parenting is less common."

Also if we have lots of local systems then sooner or later someone will get a good one. I am not sure about crime being caused by no welfare state, burglary was a lot lower in the 1930s than 1990s.