I noted an article by Frances Ryan in the Guardian yesterday in which she referred to a YouGov survey that sought opinion from people in the UK on what levels of consumption those on benefits or low pay should enjoy.
The findings were deeply unflattering to the people of this country. As Frances Ryan noted, around 25% of people surveyed thought those on low pay or benefits did not have an entitlement to enjoy a balanced diet. The same number wondered whether those on low pay should be able to heat their homes.
Others questioned why having a mobile phone was a necessity, even though access to government services is now almost impossible without one. The right to a television was also questioned when that is the most basic means of access to the shared culture that defines our community.
As Francis Ryan correctly noted, much of this is indicative of deeply prejudicial opinion within UK society, with those who think that they have wealth, or who believe that they can aspire to it, being deeply hostile towards those on low incomes. What is curious, however, is that for these degrees of prejudice to be prevalent those holding them must themselves have little more than average income in many cases and they might only be possessed of little more than median wealth, which is vastly lower than that enjoyed by those in the top decile of wealth owners in the UK. Prejudice does, in that case, extend well beyond those with wealth in that case.
But this is how the Joseph Rowntree folk work out the living wage. What should people be able to do to not be poor in modern Britain. It’s exactly how they do it – ask folks what people should be able to do.
So apparently vox populi when Spud agrees and vox dei when he doesn’t.
The right to a television was also questioned when that is the most basic means of access to the shared culture that defines our community.
Oh dear.
What is curious, however, is that for these degrees of prejudice to be prevalent those holding them must themselves have little more than average income in many cases and they might only be possessed of little more than median wealth, which is vastly lower than that enjoyed by those in the top decile of wealth owners in the UK.
We can solve low pay in one easy measure: restrict immigration and watch wages rise.
Which is why the Home Office is busily rubber stamping over a million visas a year. Because Britain is a shitty low wage sweatshop economy, run by cunts.
Of course it’s the people who work for low wages who dislike having to fork out for those who don’t. About 20 years ago, while a student, I worked on the bins for a summer. Everyone made it their mission to be as loud as possible when doing the council estates where curtains were still shut at 10am. After all, these guys were making £50-£100 a week more by getting up early to start work at 6:30am doing a physically demanding, smelly job than could be got on benefits. Why shouldn’t they resent having to subsidise the work shy?
Very revealing indeed.
Benefits are meant to be a safety net, to tide people over. They are not intended to support a lifestyle.
Benefits were originally intended as essentially a form of insurance for those working who paid taxes.
That this is no longer the case. Well, that’s what comes from the cult of the magic money tree I suppose.
@Matt
Indeed. So many of those paying through the nose are minimum wage or just above. I’m on quite a good screw and it often turns my piss to plasma when I see workshy layabouts basically putting two fingers up to me.
What that must feel like if you are on minimum wage!
What Matt said. The wealthy aren’t too bothered about the undeserving poor, especially if said wealthy make easy money, like berating the proles in the Guardian.
It’s ok if they haven’t got a tv Steve, they can get their dose of ‘culture’ on their smartphones….
I read that Frances Ryan column. It didn’t do much for my blood pressure: ’This narrative puts the blame squarely on the individual for their lack of resources, as if the reason someone has no cash isn’t poverty wages, but their Netflix subscription.’
If you’re on poverty wages why in the name of savage man-eating lions are you spending them on NETFLIX?!?!
Also, YouGov, so a hefty pinch of salt is necessary.
Those Extinction Rebellion people: as well as money from Mummy and Daddy, and the family trusts, how many are drawing benefits?
The findings were deeply unflattering to the people of this country.
It’s no wonder they kicked him out of every pubwatch overseen pub in Downham Market if he articulated such views after a few pints. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s had a few broken noses in his time as well.
25% of people surveyed thought those on low pay or benefits did not have an entitlement to enjoy a balanced diet.
He’s the one that wants to ban meat for everyone, and dairy as well – after all, if he can forego these things anyone can. Be interesting to see how that goes down with the poorest in society.
What’s unsurprising and is indeed not so much the elephant in the room as Kruger National Park is what Steve points out (in his inimitable style) in that people’s sympathy is arguably limited when people like Barber and Murphy (Arguably an interesting contest as to which is a bigger blowhard – both are certainly evil in a fashion seldom seen outside works of fiction) approve of a city the size of Newcastle being brought over on boats annually and condemn anyone questioning the wisdom of that as a ‘far right racist’.
Hopefully a new floating ‘processing center’ can be maneuvered into the Great Ouse with directions to Murphy’s house for all its inhabitants.
If the wishes of the people of this country are that they don’t want to fork out to support people using benefits as a lifestyle choice, then I would say it is deeply unflattering to lard arse fake professors and his mates that they insist on forcing them to
What’s this “should”? WTF gives Frances Ryan the right to determine my consumption?
AS someone who has never used a mobile phone to access government services, I do not regard it as essential (unlike my wife’s niece who wants an upgrade to her iphone each year). As to accessing culture via TV, that implies that Murphy is horrendously uncultured – “Coronation Street” or “East Enders” are hardly the National or Tate Gallery or Aldeburgh or the British Museum or Covent Garden or “The Proms” or Dickens/Trollope/Thackeray/Tennyson/Wordsworth/ …
Murphy venting his spleen. If he is so concerned about the spending power of those on UC then he is welcome to donate some of his income to them via one of the many charities involved in the relief of poverty.
It pains people who have worked hard all their lives only to discover when they finally get to enjoy their retirement that folks their age on benefits have been enjoying exactly the same “retired” lifestyle for 40 years.
John.
I volunteer for one of said charities cooking breakfasts for the homeless. I see ubiquitous smartphones and the unmistakeable evidence that people can have money for cigarettes, alcohol and drugs but not apparently food.
It’s worth going to the source: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2023/08/02/what-should-living-standards-look-people-benefits- and looking at the full results. It will become obvious that they are not the results of carefully considered opinions which take into account all relevant factors, but mere reactions to questions with little thought wasted on them.
For example: “Commuting daily to and from their place of work”. Firstly we have the 2% who responded “It’s fine if only the wealthiest can afford it”, and the 7% who said “It’s fine if only people on an average salary or above can afford this”, which means that they seem to think that people on low paid jobs should not be able to afford to actually get to work. Even stupider is the 41% who chose “Even people on out of work benefits should be able to afford this”, so people who don’t have a job should be able to afford to commute to the job that they don’t have.
And what do they mean by “afford”? Does it mean having enough money by not spending on other things, or does it mean having enough money while spending as much as you like on anything else?
@Steve – “We can solve low pay in one easy measure: restrict immigration and watch wages rise.”
We don’t care about low pay, so that’s a stupid idea. We care about how much you can buy with your wages. Cheap labour lowers prices, and low prices are of greater benefit than higher wages. That’s why capitalism and international trade has made the world so wealthy.
@Matt – “Everyone made it their mission to be as loud as possible when doing the council estates where curtains were still shut at 10am.”
What a stupid and obnoxious thing to do. What about those who have low paid, demanding shift work and need to sleep during the day? Council estates are not exclusively inhabited by the unemployed.
@JuliaM – “f you’re on poverty wages why in the name of savage man-eating lions are you spending them on NETFLIX?!?!”
Quite right. Your benefits should be cut to the point where you have no entertainment so go out thieving all day instead.
More rationally, if someone is lazy and doesn’t want to work, I don’t want them in my workplace and I especially don’t want them taking a job from someone who is actually keen. It’s much better to pay them to safely stay at home and do amuse themselves there.
@ John
Good for you! I did, for a few years, volunteer for a charity helping the homeless (my role, as an unskilled helper, was handing out soap to guys whose principal desire was a shower to get clean) but ceased when I moved out to the Green Belt.
Sadly, if food might be available for free, some people will choose cigarettes etc and take the small risk that food will not be. [The charity I knew relied for food on donations, largely from a decent but not posh sandwich shop in the City which gave it all its unsold sandwiches when it closed each evening, so supply was obviously unguaranteed]
@charles: ’Quite right. Your benefits should be cut to the point where you have no entertainment so go out thieving all day instead.’
There’s a name for that. Blackmail. ‘Gimmie de moneh or the Co-Op gets it!.
@ Charles
Thank you for the link.
Stupidity of those who think that “People on Minimum Wage” should not be able to afford to commute to work is even greater than those who think the unemployed should be able to do so.
What does YouGov panellists think people between average salary and National Minimum Wage should be able to afford? There is a big gap between median and average salary (the main cause of which ids Premier League footballers).
It is a *terrible* commentary on the NHS that 46% believe that those on Minimum Wage or benefits should be able to afford private dental care and 38% believe that they should be able to afford private healthcare. So the NHS is for “true believers” but anyone, rich or poor, who wants treatment sould go private!
. Everyone made it their mission to be as loud as possible when doing the council estates where curtains were still shut at 10am. After all, these guys were making £50-£100 a week more by getting up early to start work at 6:30am doing a physically demanding, smelly job
Well done with the student thinking, Matt. It never occurred to you that council estates are far more likely to house the people who do shift work or unsocial hours? And of course bin men know that. They’re just aggressively noisy tunts. Always were
“ We don’t care about low pay, so that’s a stupid idea. We care about how much you can buy with your wages. Cheap labour lowers prices, and low prices are of greater benefit than higher wages. That’s why capitalism and international trade has made the world so wealthy.”
It doesn’t provide more housing, GP appointments or school places, though, and that is a major the concern in a lot of places.
Cheap labour lowers prices, and low prices are of greater benefit than higher wages.
That must be why life is so rubbish in places with high wages, compared with places where prices are low.
It’s much better to pay them to safely stay at home and do amuse themselves there.
How many people’s idleness do you think the taxpayer should subsidise? Do you think importing low waged serfs is going generate the taxes needed to cover that cost?
Saw someone begging outside the supermarket, was smoking a cigarette and looking at her mobile phone next to a sign claiming to be a single mother fleeing abuse etc, no sign of the supposed kids
JuliaM – it’s probably not even worth getting annoyed about anymore. At this point, i doubt the majority of British adults are capable of understanding their own finances. Thanks to their, ahem, comprehensive education.
Lockdown compliance proved the infantilisation of Joe Public is nearly complete. The State will be sending us all dummies next, but I doubt the welfare state choo choo train has much track ahead of it.
VP – The Plan is that London will metastasise, and consume the island in one massive, diversely smelling urban sprawl that’s powered by windmills and good intentions. (And if you don’t like that, you’re a RACIST)
Any resemblance to the backstory to Judge Dredd is, I assume, entirely on purpose.
Charles – And here’s me, still waiting on The Free Market to fix the problem of grooming gangs raping our children.
john77 – Coronation Street?
Coronation Street is high quality entertainment by modern telly standards. Practically Shakespeare, duck.
British telly on average in 2023 is more like if cancer and AIDS had an evil, deformed turd baby that spits Ebola on you. If I was Johnny Foreigner and my airwaves were polluted by the BBC, I’d launch the Force Frappe at Londres toot sweet. (Not that the miserable, degenerate Frogs are any better.)
If it’s not love,
Then it’s Le Bombe. x
It’s always funny when Steve tries to pretend there’s some sort of economic basis for his quasi-Nazi race views. Especially on a blog that spends most of its time undermining even that fig-leaf of his.
The vast majority of those paying for it think welfare should be a safety net not a feather bed.
@ bis
The council estates were *less* likely than the ones housing tenants of private landlords to be housing shift workers who deservedly got higher pay for working unsociable hours.
That said, I thoroughly disapprove of deliberately disturbing those on council estates who might well be disabled and, as a consequence, unemployed. Council estates would include an above-average number of pensioners and it does not indicate that we are any more work-shy if we get up at 10 am or 7 am
@john77
As to accessing culture via TV, that implies that Murphy is horrendously uncultured – “Coronation Street” or “East Enders” are hardly the National or Tate Gallery or Aldeburgh or the British Museum or Covent Garden or “The Proms” or Dickens/Trollope/Thackeray/Tennyson/Wordsworth/ …
John, I lived in London for most of my life. I have been to any of the places you mention. Does that make me “uncultured”? I can get by in several languages. I have a Kindle with nearly 3000 books loaded in it. I’ve got through about half of them. I must be one of the few people into French art films. On the other hand, I’ve rarely owned a TV until recently. And hardly ever watched the broadcast services, apart from the French & Spanish ones to pick up the languages. I’m willing to bet that you’re far more TV acculturated than I am. I notice because I’m differently cultured, that a lot of people are TV cultured. Half the time I don’t understand what they’re talking about. No common points of reference. Until fairly recently the majority of people did get their culture through the TV screen. And since Brit, Brit TV.
I should have added,or read any of the books. I don’t like the classics. Not the subject matter. The writing. Ghastly clunky stuff. They’re from the very beginning of the development of the novel as art form. It’s like travelling around in a Model T when you’re used to a Porche. Three paragraphs that could be said in three words.
Humans act mostly because of incentives, not nobility or duty. Unless you are truly (by my standards, I mean) disabled, a compassionate society ought to provide a bare minimum of balanced calories, shelter from the storm, and little else. There are always jobs to be done for pay, but they’re not the sort of jobs people want to do except for that they need money.
But we instead provide incentive to lie around comfortably and watch cable TV and eat well and drink and party – and laugh at the poor suckers who feel like they need to work for such things. That’s not the basis for a healthy society.
@bobby b
The country I’m living in has a far higher unemployment rate than the UK. 11.6% against 4%. And that’s the lowest rate since 2008. Benefits would be about half the UK level. Not much point counting money numbers since the awarding system is so much different from the UK’s. It’s also very hard to get on to it. So you’d expect a devastated country if you listened to UK whining. It isn’t. The Spanish solve it themselves. Lots of family help, because family’s still a strong thing here. Spain’s got sizeable black & grey economies. They’re still economies that produce value. Another way of looking at them is saying that’s the Spanish solving their own problems outside the government’s official system.
Charles: which means that they seem to think that people on low paid jobs should not be able to afford to actually get to work
Fiddlesticks! It probably means that if the travel cost represents a disproportionate share of the earnings then it isn’t economic.
It’s always funny when snag appears to bite my ankles – and for no other reason. He’s my greatest little fan.
I’ve noticed you snag, hope that makes your day. Bless. x
Repeating the survey asking what entitlements or levels of consumption should be afforded by the taxpayer to the cross-channel surfers would really get the pearls clutched.
Incidentally we moved closer to peak irony this week when a charity stated that the barge (similar to those used for our troops in the Falklands) was unacceptable because Mustafa was scared of water while another 4 star hotel-dweller claimed he would be traumatised by the locks on the doors which apparently were like Alcatraz.
As LotusEaters said, moor one of those near London and you’d completely rent it out at £500 per month within hours. I’d have thought nearer twice that figure.
John – don’t worry, the British government is laying on an hourly free bus service to the barge, just so Abdul and Mo and all their dinghy pals can nip into town for some fun.
It’s very important to the British government that your face has more Diversity rubbed into it, at your expense. Obviously if it ends tragically, you’ll be on the news for about 48 hours, then forgotten. (But hopefully not before they find one of your grieving relatives who’s dumb enough to say “don’t be racist” to the cameras.)
And they’re free to disappear into the interior of Britain at any time, so in the very unlikely event it looks like the Home Office might reject their asylum claim, they’ll get to stay forever anyway.
Vote Conservative, lads. I hear they might even pinkie swear to Do Something about immigration if we give them another landslide majority.
@ bis
Don’t bet the house on it – I’ve never owned a TV and lived most of my life in houses or flats that did not have one.
………free to disappear into the interior of Britain at any time.
You mean like “Seventh Turkish Barber Shop to open in small provincial village”?
John – if Turkish barber shops, hand car washes and the most expensive electricity in the world aren’t enough to kick-start the British economy, I don’t know what will.
Another tax rise, perhaps?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanians_in_the_United_Kingdom
At the time of the 2001 Census, 7,631 Romanian-born people were residing in the UK.
As of 2021, approximately 1,350,640 Romanians had applied to the UK government’s post-Brexit European Union Settlement Scheme, with 670,560 receiving pre-settled status and 435,720 receiving settled status.
Plus as Donald Trump would say “They’re not sending us their best”.
What I didn’t realise until the news yesterday is that the migrants do not have to stay in government provided accommodation. They are perfectly free to make their own arrangements. So, go ahead, if you don’t like the government provision, go ahead find your own accommodation. And the pearl-clutchers, if you don’t like the accommodation provided by the government, go ahead and provide the accommodation yourselves. You’re waving signs saying “Refugees welcome here”. So why haven’t you provided your address to the Home Office so you can be taken at your word?
The current system isn’t working (if it was ever meant to) so something else should be tried.
I suggest issuing all illegals with an ID that explicitly says they have no recourse to public assistance except for medical treatment where there is a risk of contagion. Citizenship never. Permit to be employed but not self-employed, paying double employee national insurance to defray cost of patrolling the Channel.
And the long delay to assess asylum claims is transformed from bug into a feature.
@john77 – “What does YouGov panellists think …”
I suggest that, in the light of the survey results, they don’t think. They’re merely responding emotionally to the questions, so the answers don’t make sense.
And the bit about private dental care is probably in response to the stories that people cannot find a dentist willing to take on NHS patients (because, of course, the payments offered are too low).
@MC – “That must be why life is so rubbish in places with high wages, compared with places where prices are low.”
You are confusing cause and effect. The place drives the wages because nice places are nice because they are economically well managed, so people there are richer (on average) and so they are willing to pay more. Make a place nicer and wages will rise. Force wages to rise and that will very much not make the place nicer. Quite the opposite.
@Steve – “And here’s me, still waiting on The Free Market to fix the problem of grooming gangs raping our children.”
That’s very foolish of you. A free market does not solve all problems, and policing is a classic example of one that it doesn’t. But the lack of a free market causes all kinds of extra problems, which is why it’s such a good idea to allow free markets.
@John – “moor one of those near London and you’d completely rent it out at £500 per month within hours”
Well, I suggest you try that as it seems easy money. You’ll probably find that it’s not permitted because it doesn’t meet the standards required by the local council for accommodation. The state is quite good at having one rule for itself and a different one for the public.
@jgh – “They are perfectly free to make their own arrangements.”
Yes, but for the amount they get paid (and, remember, they are not legally allowed to work), they won’t be able to get any legal accommodation anywhere.
” for the amount they get paid (and, remember, they are not legally allowed to work), they won’t be able to get any legal accommodation anywhere.”
You mean all those bien pensant Guardian readers won’t take them in for free? Perhaps every Labour voter should be forced to house at least one migrant. They’d love to, right?
My window cleaner has been cleaning my windows for 25 years. He despises “scum bags” who could work. And he deserves his £50 bonus at Christmas, if only for his decency and his sound political opinions.
“A free market does not solve all problems, and policing is a classic example of one that it doesn’t.”
OH, I dunno. I make, buy, and sell firearms for fun (and sometimes profit!) I also join in with several others to purchase private security services.
Somewhere within those things lies a nugget of information as to how a free market can help address rape gangs.
@bobby b
If you think a free market can address the need for policing, show me a community where it has worked. Not just for those who are permanent members of the community, but also visitors.
The poor should be helped. I find the far right see the poor as parasites and criminals.
The far right see the working class as criminals and parasites.
I find that the shy, bullied, quiet, nice, and good are discriminated against in the job market. The unemployed are often the best people. Often nasty people get the best jobs.
The evil bullies in society are often seen as honest, hard working, normal, clever, funny, ruthless, competent, profound, skilled, intelligent, street wise, flexible, and sane.
Interesting that they talk about rights. What about the rights of the poor sods who go out to work to earn the money the government plays “Robin Hood” with? Given that welfare is supposed to be a leg up rather than a lifestyle choice, then surely the question should be about what is required to subsist. I doubt anyone needs a TV licence or a netflix subscription. And given the government’s stance on CO2 then perhaps they might start by outlawing anyone on welfare from using a car.