Welcome to Britain’s Victorian Christmas……..

HousePlantQueen

nanna8

Phones have to be paid for and charged so I can understand why, when you are very poor and don’t have enough food to eat, you might get questioned for being able to pay for one- particularly if it is a very up to date one. After the war when we were poor we didn’t have phones - not until the late 1960s when things eased up a bit. All our money went on food and the house. We certainly didn’t own a tv.

Sigh. Again

Why the sighs. People are entitled to their views and opinions. Or should we all go around wearing sack cloth and ashes.

Victorian Britain indeed!

These same arguments have been the background noise down through the decades.

Scrooge would easily recognise them, as would my grandfather, who post WW1 remembered a neighbour who had applied for unemployment relief and was told to sell the family piano to raise some cash. You can hear the same arguments over and over.

The poor are and always will be with us, it is the mark of a societies civilisation as to how they are treated.

Society’s

Whitewavemark2

Victorian Britain indeed!

These same arguments have been the background noise down through the decades.

Scrooge would easily recognise them, as would my grandfather, who post WW1 remembered a neighbour who had applied for unemployment relief and was told to sell the family piano to raise some cash. You can hear the same arguments over and over.

The poor are and always will be with us, it is the mark of a societies civilisation as to how they are treated.

So true.

I couldn't get to work if I didn't have a car. No bus route passes it and it is too dangerous to cycle

Whitewavemark2
I can remember two incidents as close as the fifties where people were told to sell things.
One was a family friend who had pancreatic cancer.
The other was my own father.

I think that would satisfy some peoples fear that someone might possibly get something they're not entitled to.

A question to those who resent others having 'the latest phone'. Do you think that those who claim benefits or use foodbanks should have to have nothing before they can do so?

Would you like to see a return to a genuine means test, where someone came to the house and made sure there was nothing that could be sold before passing claim for assistance? No TV (flatscreen or otherwise), no phone, no grandmother's wedding ring? What about children's toys?

If not, how would you organise things so that you aren't so angry at the idea of the 'undeserving' getting handouts?

Not forgetting, it will now include pensioners who qualify for the fuel allowance.

MissAdventure

Not forgetting, it will now include pensioners who qualify for the fuel allowance.

Good point, well made.

That must be a conflict of interest for all those who want all those over 66 to get it, yet also think that only those with no personal possessions should qualify. Tricky, eh?

A real conundrum.

Freya5

HousePlantQueen

nanna8

Phones have to be paid for and charged so I can understand why, when you are very poor and don’t have enough food to eat, you might get questioned for being able to pay for one- particularly if it is a very up to date one. After the war when we were poor we didn’t have phones - not until the late 1960s when things eased up a bit. All our money went on food and the house. We certainly didn’t own a tv.

Sigh. Again

Why the sighs. People are entitled to their views and opinions. Or should we all go around wearing sack cloth and ashes.

Why the sighs. People are entitled to their views and opinions. Or should we all go around wearing sack cloth and ashes.

Because "After the war when we were poor we didn’t have phones - not until the late 1960s when things eased up a bit. All our money went on food and the house"

After the war, the poor didn't need 'phones to claim any 'relief' that might be available, nor did they need them for appointments - which were sent through the post - and jobs were advertised in newspapers plus, Labour Exchanges (for those looking for work) were dotted around towns and cities where the staff would liaise with the prospective employer and employee; and when an awful lot of people - poor or not - could and did manage their lives quite well making the occasional telephone call from the telephone kiosk at the end of the road...

In other words, it wasn't an essential, and today it is. Because times have changed.

And it seems more like it is the poor who are expected to wear sackcloth and have ashes sprinkled on their heads as a penitence for being poor. So that we can all recognise them and decide whether we think they are genuinely poor or not based on what possessions they have which we think either are or aren't a necessity.

Doodledog "Would you like to see a return to a genuine means test, where someone came to the house and made sure there was nothing that could be sold before passing claim for assistance?" Such as my grandmother in 1950, with a husband at home for 14 months with terminal lung cancer, and no savings because for many years before that he was frequently unable to work in winter with bronchitis (only paid when he was fit enough to do the work) She earned a little by charring part-time, when she wasn't looking after him, and her family (not much better off) helped out by paying her rent, to keep a roof over their parents' heads, but she was told she might get help by applying for assistance. The "lady" who turned up to assess her looked at the two fireside chairs in the sparsely furnished livingroom and told her to sell one of them, as her husband wouldn't be needing it. The "help" she received was some second-hand pyjamas, with stains at the collar and front, from old washed-out bloodstains. Her comment was "No wonder the poor b****r who last owned these cut his b****y throat!"

It's horrible, isn't it?

I wonder whether the people who want a return to that sort of thing have any idea of the cruelty involved? I'm pretty sure that they don't expect ever to have to go through that themselves, though, or they wouldn't be so keen to have it become policy.

the road to wigan pier

I remain impressed by the ability of some on GN to spot "the latest i-phone".

I asked my grandsons, aged 17 and 22, and neither of them knew, even though the older one has probably as near as "the latest" iPhone, as do his whole huge family.

In the blink of an eye, your comfortable and well-ordered life can crash around you.

Unless you are very very wealthy, an accident or sudden onset serious disease can eventually rob you of your savings, and you will end up like so many, reliant on the medical and social services that have either been privatised or run down to the ground.

You might sell some of the possessions that no longer have the same charm or meaning anymore, but will keep your 'phone and / or computer for all the endless forms you have to fill in and the emails you have to send in this 'new life'; and you might keep your flat-screen TV (aren't all TVs flat-screen now?) for those sleepless late nights, or the companionship of hearing a 'voice' other than the one in your head - and who buys second-hand TVs anyway, how much would you even get for it that would make any notable difference?.

I bought a second-hand, refurbished iPhone 7 years ago which is now unable to support all the apps that are available so will upgrade to another refurbished model, which will obviously be larger and might well look like the 'latest' model. But no-one will be judging me because I'm not poor, but I will remember that if I ever become part of that demographic, to hide it lest I be judged on its appearance - though of course, no-one will know it's a refurbished, second-hand model...

Fortunately, neither of us drive now - our driving days are over so I won't need to worry about being judged on that basis! However, when I go out anywhere, I do try to look smart and well-turned out, even if it's only a trip to the supermarket, so I might have to consider not wearing some of the expensive gear I bought some time ago.

But you know - those who are convinced that, for example, people rock up at food banks just to get cheap food - because they can (even though the system doesn't work like that) are never going to change their minds by anything I or anyone else says. The only thing that will, is if they are ever in that position themselves, and I'm not uncharitable enough to wish it on them.

Poverty sucks. You may not end up starving on the streets here in the UK, but it grinds the life and soul out of you. That much I know.

Just to be clear, this post is not directed at any specific individual posting on here.

Most people are only a salary away from poverty - meaning that if one is made redundant with no prospect of another job, then once any savings are depleted, then the house is lost if it is mortgaged, or indeed rented, and you become totally dependent on the welfare state to survive.

Post war politicians and voters understood this, particularly after the economic depression in the 1920/30’s and thus the welfare state was constructed, with the intention of preventing the abject poverty witnessed during that period. The ‘safety net’ was there to prevent this. However ideological differences played out by the different political parties since the post war period have seen much of this ‘net’ undermined and we are witnessing greater poverty in the U.K. than we have experienced for decades.

Oreo

The more food banks are set up the more people will use them until it’s a sort of circle.If they’re there they will be used.

It's the same with welfare benefits. It can take away that drive, resilience and stoicism to make you do better. I would go out all day and not come home until I'd found work when I was young. People want everything to be convenient for them now because they know there is a safety net.

People are paying more rent than they earn.
What would you have done about that when you were young?

Incidentally, job seekers are expected to spend 35 hours a week looking for, applying for, work.

So just the same as you did.

Whitewavemark2

Most people are only a salary away from poverty - meaning that if one is made redundant with no prospect of another job, then once any savings are depleted, then the house is lost if it is mortgaged, or indeed rented, and you become totally dependent on the welfare state to survive.

Post war politicians and voters understood this, particularly after the economic depression in the 1920/30’s and thus the welfare state was constructed, with the intention of preventing the abject poverty witnessed during that period. The ‘safety net’ was there to prevent this. However ideological differences played out by the different political parties since the post war period have seen much of this ‘net’ undermined and we are witnessing greater poverty in the U.K. than we have experienced for decades.

However ideological differences played out by the different political parties since the post war period have seen much of this ‘net’ undermined and we are witnessing greater poverty in the U.K. than we have experienced for decades.

One way of making sure the safety-net is undermined is to create a continual narrative via the media that it's being abused to an alarming extent and that those in receipt of benefits are quite likely to be lazy / feckless / choosing the safety net as a life-style choice / trying to bag something for nothing (etc) so that ultimately anyone claiming any kind of benefit might find themselves viewed with suspicion. This has the added bonus for successive governments such that they are then able to cap and cut benefits without any major challenge and, indeed, with the approval of the electorate.

Divide and Rule has always worked well, and never so well as it does with this matter. The idea that one section of the public is getting something for nothing whilst the other half is slogging its guts out going to work is a very persuasive argument.

Undoubtedly there are those who game the system one way or another, but I'd like to know just how many in relation to those who really are in need of the safety net.

An independent review found that sickness benefit fraud was about 1 percent, i think.

And as I keep pointing out, jobseekers has an exacting list of conditions someone must meet.

A puzzle.

GDP per capita is approximately £36,000. That is, £36,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.

How come it is impossible to distribute this money in such a way that every adult is able to support themselves and, if they have one, a modest family?

( Either by wages or state support for those unable to work. Though this could be a different puzzle to solve.)

Ah! GDP. It’s about time we developed a better measure of how the country is doing than merely market activity. Senator Robert Kennedy apparently once said GDP measures everything apart from that which makes life worthwhile.

It takes no account of sustainability, environment, health education, equality of opportunity, all of which would give a better indication of how a country is really doing socially, in addition to economically.