I've been away on holiday (Anglo-French hiking around Chichester followed by visiting long-standing friends near Margate) for a couple of weeks, hence no posts. However, here are a few random thoughts on what I've gathered from such of the news I've caught.
Liz Truss is so awful that I find myself willing Rishi Sunak to do well in the debates and interviews (in some of which Truss is too chicken to participate.)
Sadly we need to remember that Sunak is not only a lightweight (see previous comments on his Chancellorship) but also without backbone. His predecessor as Chancellor resigned rather than accept Johnson's demand that the Treasury should sack its advisors and rely on those in Downing Street. Good for Javid. No person of principle would have accepted the job under those conditions. But Sunak did.
Liz Truss promises that under her premiership entrepreneurial economic energies will be released and all sorts of wonderful prospects will eventuate as a result of growth. That myth, if not as old as the hills. goes back at least to Harold Wilson at the opposite end of the political spectrum He promised us that under socialist planning a healthy, caring and prosperous state would emerge and wouldn't cost us a penny (real pennies in those days): It would be financed out of growth. There are two problems with Truss's policy. First there is no lever to pull that will produce wondrous growth in the short run - but poverty-stricken households need help to eat, and heat thee homes, this winter, not is some golden decade in the future. Secondly, she may be right in the long run, maybe even before we're all dead, but additional growth based on additional consumption is gong to exhaust the planet's finite resources and make it uninhabitable, as is evidenced by fires in France, floods in Australia and aridity in Africa, to name but some.
Yet, following on form that last point, both Truss and Sunak cheerfully advocate undoing such modest measures as we have to alleviate global heating. Truss would abandon the Green Levy and Sunak reduce the VAT on fuel. Such short-termism is now totally unacceptable. As Truss said in another context THIS-IS-A-DISGACE.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj49CogLemQ)
In the Guardian on the 10th August George Monbiot quoted some interesting facts about our water industry: not a single new reservoir has been commissioned since privatisation in 1989; the distribution system leaks at the rate of 2.4bn litres per day on current estimates; untreated sewage is poured into our rivers on a regular basis; rather than fix these problems the companies have distributed £72 billion (that's billions, not mere millions,) into the bank accounts of their shareholders.
I don't have any figures to hand, but I suspect much the same can be said of oil industry, as for years it has cheerfully denied that its product has anything to do with the climate crisis (much as the tobacco companies denied that there is any connection between smoking and lung cancer. In Africa one of the most popular cigarette brands was called "Life." )
The use of food banks has increased, is increasing and ought to be not so much diminished as eliminated. In addition we are now reduced to the humiliation of having to create "warm banks" to which we may retreat when they can no longer afford to heat our homes. THIS-IS-A DISGRACE.
The reality is that the economic model touted by the Tories, based on the "trickle down effect"** does not adequately serve the needs of a significant proportion of our population. A tiny proportion - 0.1%, 1% or maybe even 10% - do very well indeed out of it. The vast bulk of us live very comfortably indeed, taking as normal luxuries (foreign holidays, designer clothes if you like that sort of thing, meals out, centrally heated houses, separate bedrooms of the kids, arts and entertainment, gadgetry galore) beyond the wildest dreams of our grandparents and even, for some of us, our parents. But a bottom 20% to 25% are constantly on the breadline, tempted into unaffordable debt, and some can't manage at all without recourse to food banks and, coming shorty, warm banks. THIS-IS-A-DISGRACE. As still one of the richest society in the world we need to be devising ways of sharing our incomes and wealth more equitably. The candidates for the Tory leadership are offering the opposite.
Conservatives, including both leadership candidates, like to indicate that their inhuman and possibly illegal policy towards refugees is aimed at combatting "the evil business of people smuggling." Hmm? If that were the case then the easiest and quickest way to do it would be to set up booths on the coast of France, or wherever else potential migrants are gathering, with banners saying "Welcome to Britain." I forget which European crisis it was which produced a lot of refugees at an airport, and an assertive woman, probably from the WVS or something similar,announced in commanding tones: "Those who wish to come to Britain follow me!" and marched them on to a nearby RAF transport. Whoever they were will have contributed considerably to our prosperity and diversity. The comfortable and ageing Conservatives who form the electorate for our next prime minister might like to ponder how much these and similar migrants have contributed to their comforts. But they won't read about it in the Daily Mail, the Sun or the Express.
*Very old readers may remember this as the heading for a Guardian column.
** Shorthand for cutting taxes and scrapping regulations to release the energies of entrepreneurs and the resulting employment opportunities will eventually benefit the lower orders.
Spot on Peter. Some people never learn
ReplyDeleteBut a bottom 20% to 25% are constantly on the breadline
ReplyDeleteWhere did you get this statistic from? It sounds suspiciously like the ‘one-fifth of the population is in poverty’ you trotted out before, but as was established then that’s the figure for those in relative poverty, ie, are on less than 60% of the median income. As the median household income in the UK after tax is about £31,000, that means 20% of the population live in households with an after-tax income of below £18,600. That equates to a salary of somewhere in the high £20,000s.
Someone with an after-tax income of £18,600 is not well off, but they are clearly not ‘constantly on the breadline’ either. So where’s the source for that figure?
the easiest and quickest way to do it would be to set up booths on the coast of France, or wherever else potential migrants are gathering
I think I agree with whoever said that the best way to stop people landing on the south coast would be to fill the beaches with GP receptionists. No living soul can get past that barrier.
‘On the breadline’ is a vague term but it seems to be something to do with being unable to reliably afford food; in which case a good place to look for figures would be the ‘State of Hunger’ report produced by the Trussell Trust, as that means a diehard leftie can hardly quibble with its use as a source.
DeleteThat report (p. 10, https://www.stateofhunger.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/State-of-Hunger-Report-November2019-Digital.pdf ) gives:
8-10% of UK households as ‘food insecure’
2.8% of UK households experiencing ‘severe food insecurity’.
So for accuracy in future if you want to give a figure for the population ‘on the breadline’ you should probably give one between 2.8% and 10%, depending on whether you think that means ‘food insecure’ pr ‘severely food insecure’.
But certainly the figure is nowhere near 20% let alone 25%.
Agreed, we've been over this argument before;: "breadline" is a vague term and 20% to 25% are what i believe we can now call "ballpark figures" (ie approximations.) However, the precise extent of the poverty is not the point: it is undoubtedly too large. Your 2.8% people in "severe" food insecurity amounts, given a population of 67m, to 1 876 000 people, presumably many of them children. THIS IS A DISGRACE. 8% in just plain ordinary (ie not "severe" food insecurity is more than the population of either Yorkshire or Scotland. And we are still the sixth richest economy in the world. By any standards it unacceptable.
DeleteYou are far too dismissive of the concept of "relative poverty." It means an inability to participate in what is regarded as "normal" in a society. "Normal" in a developed country is very different to what is "normal" in, say, sub-Saharan Africa (or what was "normal" in the 1940s when we all had patched trousers and elbows, only two ounces of sweets a week and used the communal lavatories "down the yard.") The median (or is it mean?) income sounds a lot, but if a third of it goes in rent, plus the ring cost of travel to work, school uniforms,10% inflation, rising fuel costs, than many people with insecure housing rights, short-term contacts, child care, juggling with several part-time jobs, punished by the bedroom tax or the two child limit, are not enjoying the secure minimum quality of life our society can well afford to guarantee
20% to 25% are what i believe we can now call "ballpark figures" (ie approximations.)
DeleteSomething which is out by, at best, a factor of 100%, and at worst, an entire order of magnitude, is not an 'approximation'. An 'exaggeration' would be a better word. Especially when there's no excuse because you have had the true figures pointed out to you.
I can only imagine what your reaction would be if Labour proposed some programme that you were in favour of that would cost £2.8 billion, and the Conservatives started claiming that it would actually cost £25 billion. Would you accept that was just 'an approximation'? I doubt you would. You'd be livid. You'd be jumping up and down spitting tacks about how they were evil and dishonest and a bunch of lying liars not fit to govern, wouldn't you?
it is undoubtedly too large
I agree: it's a serious problem. Which is why we need to be accurate about both the nature, and the scale of the problem, because that's the only way to come up with real strategies to reduce it.
The median (or is it mean?) income sounds a lot
It's median. I wrote 'median' and the reason I wrote 'median' is because it was is the median. If it were the mean I would have written 'mean' instead of 'median', but I did write 'median' because it is the median. I'm not sure how that isn't obvious.
It doesn't sound 'a lot'. What it sounds like is the income which half the people in the country earn above and half earn below, and the reason it sounds like that is because that is what it is.
the secure minimum quality of life our society can well afford to guarantee
And what do you think is the 'secure minimum quality of life our society can well afford to guarantee'? Does it include, say, one foreign holiday a year? Serious question. If a family cannot afford a foreign holiday every year, do you think that family should be described as living in poverty? Or not? I just want to find out precisely where you draw the line, because you obviously have a pretty solid line in mind, and I am curious as to where exactly it is.
Will you answer two questions:
Delete1. Do you agree that there is a serious level of poverty in the UK?
2. Do you believe that, with the political will, his could be reduced to a tiny, but inevitable, minimum?
1. Do you agree that there is a serious level of poverty in the UK?
DeleteI can't answer that unless you define what 'a serious level' is. Is 1% a serious level? Is 10%? Is 20%? Tell me what you think is a 'serious level' and I'll tell you whether I think there is that much poverty in the UK.
2. Do you believe that, with the political will, his could be reduced to a tiny, but inevitable, minimum?
This one's simple: No. I don't think political will is enough. I think it would also take a proper analysis of the problem and a reasonable amount of competence in delivery. Someone with sufficient 'political will' but no understanding of the realities of the world might well force through well-intentioned but bonkers plans that would be aimed at reducing poverty but would in fact end up unintentionally increasing it instead (eg, communism).
You seem to prefer niggling about the actual size of the problem rather than being concerned about the consequences for the unfortunates involved. For a definitive answer to the question (the minimum to which poverty can be reduced) you'd need to ask a sociologist with expertise in that area. 1% of the UK population is well over half a million. I would hope it could be squeezed down to half that. And of course it can be done, with the will (and without communism.) For example, street sleeping was almost eliminated during the first stages of the pandemic. Now I believe it's back.
DeleteYou seem to prefer niggling about the actual size of the problem rather than being concerned about the consequences for the unfortunates involved.
DeleteI don't understand what you mean here. That isn't an either/or proposition. One can be concerned about the consequences for the unfortunates involves and also think that it is important to be accurate in one's use of figures, and I happen to be both.
I seems to remember you, for example, getting quite het up about a certain inaccurate figure on the side of a bus. It's a bit hypocritical to make a big deal of an inaccurate figure used by someone else and then declare that you don't care whether your figures are accurate. Either be scrupulous about using accurate figures yourself, or lose any moral right to criticise others when they use inaccurate, exaggerated figures just like you. Choose.
For a definitive answer to the question (the minimum to which poverty can be reduced) you'd need to ask a sociologist with expertise in that area.
Sociologists' predictions are about as much use as economists' forecasts, aren't they? Which is to say, neither one has ever given a prediction that has turned out to be even close to reality.
1% of the UK population is well over half a million. I would hope it could be squeezed down to half that.
And I hope I get a pony. See how much good hope is?
And of course it can be done, with the will (and without communism.)
As I wrote, not just the will. Also with the right ideas and the the competence to carry them out. An enthusiastic amateur with a lot of will and no idea can do a lot of damage, and a committee of experts suffering from groupthink can do hundreds of times as much damage as the amateur.
For example, street sleeping was almost eliminated during the first stages of the pandemic. Now I believe it's back.
Yes you can do a lot if you round people up and imprison them. but it's not really how we want to run our society long-term, now, is it?
(Actually maybe imprisoning people for their own good is how technocrats like you want to run our society. Do you admire the efficiency of the Chinese way of doing things, by any chance? Do you wish people like you could be in charge and, like the Chinese Communist Party, just implement the policies that seem rational to you without having to worry about whether the population agrees with you or not, because you're acting in their best interests, as they would see if only they were smart enough to understand, like you?)
Perhaps the "Trickle Down" concept should have been put in the hands of the water companies.
ReplyDeleteNice one!
Delete