I think you mean that you were stating an opinion gg54 what you have stated isn’t a fact
Gransnet forums
News & politics
Ten damning conclusions from the new UN poverty report
(124 Posts)These are extracts The Common Space has made from the report. My thoughts are that surely anyone who voted for this wretched state of affairs could not vote for the government that caused it a second time - not if they have an ounce of humanity.
Dickensian Britain
"It might seem to some observers that the Department of Work and Pensions has been tasked with designing a digital and sanitised version of the nineteenth century workhouse, made infamous by Charles Dickens, rather than seeking to respond creatively and compassionately to the real needs of those facing widespread economic insecurity in an age of deep and rapid transformation brought about by automation, zero-hour contracts and rapidly growing inequality."
Employment is no escape from poverty
“Almost 60 per cent of those in poverty in the United Kingdom are in families where someone works, and a shocking 2.9 million people are in poverty in families where all adults work full-time. According to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, 10 per cent of workers over 16 are in insecure employment. And 10 years after the 2008 financial crisis, employees’ median real earnings are, remarkably, still below pre-crisis levels.”
Eat or heat
“People said they had to choose either to eat or heat their homes. Children are showing up at school with empty stomachs, and schools are collecting food and sending it home because teachers know their students will otherwise go hungry. And 2.5 million people in the United Kingdom survive with incomes no more than 10 per cent above the poverty line –just one crisis away from falling into poverty.”
Homeless Britain
“In England, homelessness rose 60 per cent between 2011 and 2017 and rough sleeping rose 165 per cent from 2010 to 2018. The charity Shelter estimates that 320,000 people in Britain are now homeless, and recent research by Crisis suggests that 24,000 people are sleeping rough or on public transportation –more than twice government estimates. Almost 600 people died homeless in England and Wales in 2017 alone, a 24 per cent increase in the past five years.26There were 1.2 million people on the social housing waiting list in 2017, but less than 6,000 homes were built that year.”
The disappearing safety net
“The Special Rapporteur heard time and again about important public programmes being pared down, the loss of institutions that previously protected vulnerable people, social care services at a breaking point, and local government and devolved administrations stretched far too thin. Considering the significant resources available in the country and the sustained and widespread cuts to social support, which have resulted in significantly worse outcomes, the policies pursued since 2010 amount to retrogressive measures in clear violation of the country’s human rights obligations.”
Ideological, not economic
“The ideological rather than economic motivation for the cutbacks is demonstrated by the fact that the United Kingdom spends £78 billion per year to reduce or alleviate poverty, quite apart from the cost of benefits; £1 in every £5 spent on public services goes to repair what poverty has done to people’s lives.40Cuts to preventive services mean that needs go unmet and people in crisis are pushed toward services that cannot turn them away but cost far more, like emergency rooms and expensive temporary housing.”
Harm done by Universal Credit
“The Special Rapporteur heard countless stories of severe hardships suffered under UC. These reports are corroborated by an increasing body of research that suggests UC is being implemented in ways that negatively impact claimants’ mental health, finances and work prospects. Where UC has fully rolled out, food bank demand has increased, a link belatedly acknowledged by the Work and Pensions Secretary in February 2019.”
Sanctions regime
“One of the key features of UC involves the imposition of strict conditions enforced by draconian sanctions for even minor infringements. As the system grows older, some penalties will last years. The Special Rapporteur reviewed seemingly endless evidence illustrating the harsh and arbitrary nature of some sanctions, as well as the devastating effects of losing access to benefits for weeks or months at a time.”
Women and poverty
“Given the structural disadvantages faced by women, it is particularly disturbing that so many policy changes since 2010 have taken a greater toll on them. Changes to tax and benefit policies made since May 2010 will by 2021–2022 have reduced support for women far more than for men. Reductions in social care services translate to an increased burden on primary caregivers, who are disproportionately women. Under UC, single payments to an entire household, which are the default arrangement, can entrench problematic and often gendered interpersonal dynamics, including by giving control of payments to a financially or physically abusive partner.”
Scotland
“It is too soon to say whether these steps – and Scotland’s new powers of taxation – will make a difference for people in poverty. However, it is clear that there is still a real accountability gap which can and should be addressed. The Social Security (Scotland) Act of 2018 provides no redress for violations of the right to social security. But if the compelling recommendations made by the First Minister’s Advisory Group on Human Rights Leadership are adopted, and if the Scottish Government acts swiftly on its commitment to incorporate the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scottish law, these steps will make a huge difference.”
www.commonspace.scot/articles/14270/sanitised-version-nineteenth-century-workhouse-10-damning-conclusions-new-un-poverty
mostlyharmless
Not at all. I was stating facts not making suggestions.
Everyone has a mind of their own.
I’ve never understood why the money from council house sales was not ploughed back into building more social housing. Fair rents, secure tenancies and homes fit to live in would make life easier for so many.
For a family to have to live in a short term rental property (often poor standard) and then have to uproot themselves and move when the tenancy ends must be so unfair on the children who have to move schools and adjust and unfair on families who might lose their support networks on moving. Just another disadvantage in an unequal society.
More social housing should help keep private rents in the area more affordable too.
GG54 Too many people, too little room.
Are you suggesting that Britain should have a “two child only” policy to prevent overcrowding and environmental damage?
Or perhaps a “one child only” policy like China a few years ago?
GracesGranMK3
Whatever.
Have a great weekend.
boat
I'm sure there are many stories which highlight people having multiple jobs for multiple reasons.
Each has it's own back story and value and everyone has to deal with whatever situations occur on any one day.
I hope life is treating you more kindly. 
Varian ?
Gonegirl, absolutely not, we should not close down all threads, but I do think that the political threads get a bit nasty at times.
Gonegirl the rents mightn't do all I suggested but would at least give councils some money. After all "Well begun is half done"
And if there isn't money to be made from renting property why are so many people doing it?
I don't tink selling houses was anything to do with the estates, it was purely a Thatcher vote winner.
I know GG54 is a stickler for correct English but I think she might have meant "implied", not "inferred".
I'm sure that I have never said written or inferred that I alone have worked hard and deserve to enjoy the fruits of my labour. Sat 25-May-19 01:16:55
GabriellaG54 that is exactly what you have written. Why do you think people get so upset about your posts? You appear to think you are the exception to "no man is an island". You also come over as someone who thinks the entire tax system should work to yours and only your advantage. I could say more but you obviously don't understand your own hubris.
I grew up on a rough council estate. Most of the houses there are now privately owned. It's still a rough estate and there are now more problems with drugs (which has obviously increased in general) so it's even rougher. The fact some tenants own their homes hasn't changed things a great deal, other than making it impossible to 'evict' someone when their behaviour is really bad.
And where are the 'undesirables' that can't get council houses now?
gonegirl so if we tackle one of those.
What would you say is fair taxation?
I would argue for right tax at the right time as a minimum.
I would argue for total intolerance of evasion, and a strong support for those revenue officers enforcing that.
I would argue for a strong intolerance of tax avoidance and support officers whose job it is to minimise this avoidance.
I would argue for those with most in society pay the most.
I would argue for sufficient revenue in order that our society is civilised and civilising, where human rights are met and where everyone feels they have a stake in our society.
That is what I would like our government to strive for.
I think they did away with council houses in part because they created, in some places, unpleasant almost ghettos. And owning your house was meant to give you a stake in what happens in your country. I think the present way of allowing private development with low cost housing to be included is probably the best way. With some social housing, of course. Not sure the rents would do all the things trisher suggested.
Couldn't agree more with the need for more social housing trisher - I find the fact that they were sold and not replaced appalling - it's not like paying private landlords etc is saving money.
I did NOT say "no welfare". I would never say that. I believe in fair taxation. And I most certainly do not believe in no regulation.
Ok here's a suggestion. Let any money made from council hose sales be used to build new social housing. In fact I have been thinking about how harmful the policy of selling council housing without providing any new housing has been to our society. If social housing were provided there wouldn't be families in B&B accommodation, so housing benefit wouldn't be going into private hands but to your local council, ditto with private rentals. Of course enough housing would mean the price of houses wouldn't go up and might drop. But a council collecting rents and receiving the benefits and perhaps keeping the money from council house sales would be able to do so many things. Establish and maintain proper services, look after the elderly, even reduce rates on small businesses. Then the local high street might be filled with small independent stores and not just chains and franchises. I just wonder why no government has done this and then I realise it would move power away from them to local councils.
I respect differing opinions on here, because we all have had different experiences in life from which we form our value system. I went from a banking job into the public sector - having worked in social services and then in education, obtaining my degree via the OU. I am very grateful to have had the broadening experience of public sector jobs - it completely changed my view of everything. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of this report, what is clear is it is totally unacceptable for children to suffer in this. This report is backed up by evidence from schools. Yes, there may possibly be some parents who are not coping, but now that there are no Sure-starts there is no way they can be educated out of their difficulties. I live a very comfortable life myself but volunteer now that I'm retired - I certainly am not prepared to live in some self-satisfied bubble, like many of my acquaintances my age. I hope there will be political change to re-balance our society. We can argue about the causes all we like, but we need properly funded long term solutions. Not just throwing money at it either, new innovative services are necessary if we're going to tackle this. I would like to see vocational education extended too, there's far too much emphasis on academic qualifications - decent work can be a route out of poverty and instil self-worth.
gonegirl - maddy hit it on the head. It is all to do with ideology.
So I can accept an argument which says that you think a small state with low tax, low regulation and no welfare is the way forward. I entirely disagree but can understand where you are coming from.
However I am not prepared to accept that there is no alternative. Because there is, and it is alive and healthy in many countries.
We all have only one vote. But sadly, whatever your personal ideology, it's difficult to know what to do with that vote if the options are not presented to you truthfully and fully.
I think one of the reasons there is so much debate is because people are trying to share their experiences of what is actually happening on the ground, since official reports and statistics are very difficult to evaluate.
A lot of it boils down to whether you perceive someone in poverty as a feckless lazy bugger sat in front of their huge TV paid for by their hardworking neighbour, or as someone that life has dealt a very hard time that is unable to feed/house/clothe themselves and is in desperate need. In my experience there are now far more of the latter than the former, though others may observe differently.
But do I begrudge someone paying for a TV on benefits? Or a computer or phone? Not if they are housebound and it is literally their only contact with the outside world for most of the time (and I actually know a lot of people for whom this true).
It would be a lot easier to have faith in a system if the the government didn't use private firms, with questionably qualified people in terms of medical expertise to assess whether someone qualifies for help, and if those firms weren't putting pressure on their staff to get the right 'quotas' - regardless of how many people actually are incapable of work. And they spend far more on paying those firms to weed out a few 'feckless sods' than they save on not paying them.
And although I consider myself quite left wing on many things I've never understood why expecting someone who is healthy but jobless to work a day a week, tidying up the parks, sprucing up public buildings, or something, is not a thing - surely it would help them learn skills and keep active around job seeking. And it would help dispel the idea that the unemployed are sat around being lazy for the fun of it.
"where we act as a collective"
Not sure what you mean by that. The EU?
GabriellaG54
It's nice that you had three jobs so that you could afford the things you liked..
When I was 18 I had three jobs because having just come out of care and with no support from anyone or anywhere I would have starved otherwise.
What alternative would you suggest whitewave? In detail please.
Actually whitewave see my post of Fri 24-May-19 10:05:19.
Read the thread.
Close down all threads then shall we maddyone?
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »