Universial Credit

Jen, there's no 'what about' anything at all in my post.

Oxfam are a highly political charity who believe they are qualified to tell world governments how to run their economies.

'At the moment we have an extreme form of capitalism that only works for those at the top. That is why we are calling for governments to manage our economies so that they work for everyone and not just the fortunate few'
(Oxfam twitter - 2 days ago)

They are not interested in the facts - poverty has been massively reduced - they seem to have a political agenda. Since when has it been OK for a charity to promote political ideologies?

They've turned poverty into a business and pay their executives accordingly in my opinion. Their accounts state that they paid executives
"pension allowance, accommodation and education benefits and payments for additional tax in countries with high tax rates"

They certainly have a view as to how things should 'work at the top'

What a silly chart,comparing population in 1820 with that in 2015.
The curve looks good seen from a distance.
So 90% of the world's population in 1820 were in poverty, and only 10% in 2015.

That means that 100 million were in poverty in 1820, and 730 million in 2015, according to that chart.
Is that supposed to make them feel any better?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/elderly-pensioners-isolation-malnourished-uk-mp-warning-withering-in-homes-a8171901.html

I suppose these pensioners should be grateful that they are living in these conditions in 2018, and not in 1820.

We might not have the problem depending on where we live.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/life-expectancy-uk-plumments-ons-data-hartlepool-torridge-amber-valley-barnsley-a8164171.html

I think you are missing the point of the chart Jen.
If you look at the rate of decrease, there has been massive reduction since the 1980s.
It's funny how you dismiss academic studies and organisations like the World Bank when they don't fit the solution you've already formed.
Surely a sustainable solution to global poverty has to be the ultimate goal. You just seem to want to punish those people you think are wealthy and are looking for validation of that.
But this has really strayed from the OP now, so I'm signing off.

It went off the point from the start of the thread.
You took it off the point I made by your criticism of the CEO of Oxfam.
What do you think a reasonable amount of pay should be?

I am not missing the point of the chart. I just do not see the point of the chart.
730 million in poverty in 2015 don't matter, don't they?
I think that in 1820 the majority of those in poverty wouldn't know about most of the rest because of lack of communications.
Which shows how stupid it is to compare poverty in 1820 with that in 2015.

It's strange how you dismiss academic studies for Oxfam when they don't fit in with your agenda.

"It is very difficult to compare income or consumption levels over long periods of time because the available goods and services tend to change significantly, to the extent where even completely new goods and services emerge. This point is so significant that it would not be incorrect to claim that every person in the world was extremely poor in the 19th century. Nathan Rothschild was surely the richest man in the world when he died in 1836. But the cause of his death was an infection—a condition that can now be treated with antibiotics sold for less than a couple of cents. Today, only the very poorest people in the world would die in the way that the richest man of the 19th century died. This example is a good indicator of how difficult it is to judge and compare levels of prosperity and poverty, especially for the distant past."

The authors agree with me.

Good posts, primrose, but I don't think the capitalism we have now is only working for those at the top. Global poverty is being reduced as we speak so something, and I think it is global capitalism, is working for everyone.

That's not to say there are vast inequalities still but I'm not sure that it is the inequalities that are important here. What's important is that globally poverty is being reduced and has been being reduced for the last several decades. The argument is that making the rich poorer does not make the poor richer whereas increasing global wealth overall does make the poor richer.

The difference for an individual or a family between having a source of clean water, for example, and not having a source of clean water is massive. The difference for an individual between having fifty posh cars and having a hundred posh cars (or houses or yachts or whatever) is tiny by comparison.

not to say there aren't...

Obviously there's still a long way to go in reducing poverty till everyone, or as near to everyone as it's feasible to get (nothing's perfect), has a decent standard of living. That, to me, is the goal, and giving everyone equal opportunities as far as possible to improve their lot. I think there will always be inequality of outcome.

kittysjones.wordpress.com/2018/01/28/call-for-evidence-laura-pidcock-secures-debate-on-pip-and-wants-to-hear-about-peoples-experiences/

For anyone who has had problems with PIP assessments, your information would be welcomed for this debate next Wednesday. If you know anyone who has had problems, pass this on, please.

Not UC but we have had the same results from those who simply do not care about people. Tory government will reconsider 1.6MILLION people's disability benefits after offering higher payments in huge U-turn

Great news as, although the Tories talk the talk on mental health issues they certainly did not walk the walk when it came to PIP.

It took a high court ruling for them to make that u-turn, though.

Hope Laura Pidcock gets lots of evidence about PIP assessments.

It's all been so wicked but they will decide they can convince us they are good people after all.

They will also tell us that they are giving extra money to the DWP, even though they took it away in the first place.
I wonder if it will be backdated.

Saving money by discriminating against people with a mental illness.........You're right about them not walking the walk GG

Did you see Heidi Allen - "It shows the government is prepared to listen."

Esther McVey

Announcing the DWP would not appeal on Friday, Ms McVey said: “Supporting people with mental health conditions is a top priority for this Government. We are committed to ensuring our welfare system is a strong safety net for those who need it.

“That is why we spend over £50bn a year supporting people with disabilities and health conditions – more than ever before. Disabled people and people with health conditions, including mental health conditions, deserve the very best support.”

They say it with such straight faces, I am surprised nobody has slapped them.

Just had a thought - I wonder if they are botoxed.

Esther McVey is on the board of the Samaritans!

www.samaritans.org/about-us/our-organisation/structure-and-governance/our-trustees/our-advisory-board

I know our resident right-wingers don't like links but for those who use the internet to expand their reading around the political they can be very helpful. This certainly gives insight into UC.

Revealed: Secret Universal Credit Reports 'Barely Mention Claimants

www.24housing.co.uk/news/housing-associations-need-better-engagement-over-future-for-universal-credit/

According to this article I have just read, it seems the DWP are blaming the problems of the roll-out on housing associations and local councils, for not engaging fully with the idea. They told the DWP it wouldn't work, so why should they?

Right-wingers don't know any universal credit claimants, GracesGran, so they don't need to read about them.

UC is coming to my area soon. As a Food Bank volunteer I want to know what our clients will be facing. I have read lots on various sites and tried to contact DWP and CAB, but they are either online, or voice- activated and not appropriate to a general enquiry. I understand the new claim stuff, and the long waiting period, and the loan clients can apply for. What I can't find out is how existing claimants if JSA/ESA will be treated. Currently they will be paid fort nightly, and that is difficult enough. From the day that UC goes live, will they immediately start to be paid monthly or will they continue to be paid fortnightly until they stop their claim. Or indeed it is stopped by a sanction. I do hood someone can tell me.

Pensionpat do you have any idea if that means your area will become a 'Full Service Area'? If so this may help although they do seem to make it as complicated as possible.

www.welfare-benefits-unit.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/What-triggers-a-claim-for-Universal-Credit-in-a-full-service-area.pdf

Sometimes I think GNHQ should use the powers our numbers give them and ask the government departments some of these questions on our behalf directly.

Off to do so more, hopefully useful, research.