"Strivers vs Skivers" - what do you think?

[KateMumsnet]

Hello all

Prompted by a blog post this week from MN Blogger Sonya Cisco, and this opinion piece by BlogFest panellist Zoe Williams, for our first blog-prompt of the New Year we thought we'd ask for your thoughts on the current debate around benefits cuts.

According to both Sonya and Zoe, politicians have deliberately encouraged us to think of people as either 'skivers' or 'strivers' in order to pit people on low incomes against one another - and to divert attention from the fact that the economy simply can't provide enough jobs.

Do you agree with them? And if not - why not? Post your URLs here if you blog - or, if you haven't got a blog (why not? ) do tell us what you think here on the thread.

i feel like tories want to shake their heads indulgently at me like i'm some naive child when i talk common sense. what is it that i'm missing? you don't give a business that has fucked up zillions of pounds and say oh pay me back some day when you can - you take it over and get back your money and run it efficiently so it works for you (us).

I would love to be in a world whete we didn't need it. I agree though that cutting tax credits will not improve wages...only make the poor still poorer.

My tac credit per month is £450 which is high because DS is disabled. If DS were not disabled it would be much much less. I am grateful to have it because it allows me NOT to work at the moment and to care for DS full time and rest if and when I need to.

I agree we DO need tax credits at the moment.

SAF, what I think you are suggesting is a more even distribution of wealth. I would say that could be explored to see if it could be done in a way which avoids the pitfalls others on the thread have talked of.

Its always the people who dont have to rely on tax credits who think they are a bad idea.

swallowed and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The last thing I want is the state to employ more people. I needs to employ many fewer and make changes which enable business to thrive. It should probably stop interfering in interest rates too. 0.5% base rate held down for years might well benefit me with huge debt, but it has hugely increased pension costs and quantitative easing has ensured that pension funds make hardly anything nor do those with savings which is having a knock on effect on pension costs. This market interference hinders rather than helps.

The state does things badly and also if everyone works for the state nothing is made in terms of profit as everyone is a civil servant or NHS worker rather than supplying goods or services that people want to buy, particularly things we can export.

Indeed. SwallowedAFly - that state that you think should employ more people - where do you think it is going to money to pay their wages?

State-funded schools and health care for all are a massive luxury that only functioning developed economies can indulge in. For most of history, those things were unheard of.

Be careful what you wish for, Xenia.

Both here and in the US, the "state employing fewer people" actually means "the taxpayer continues to pay, but services are contracted out to private companies which a) siphon off profit and b) have no democratic accountability and are exempt from the FOI Act, etc."

Don't confuse optional consumer goods, like a new kitchen, with essential services like healthcare and rubbish collection.

Im with xenia on this one.

The amount of lazy, incompetent people working in the public sector is a real issue. There are no incentives. Targets yes, but no profit to be made. So managers dont enforce the targets and lazy people have jobs where their collegues pick up the slack for them to walk home with £16k a year. It just doesnt work.

Thats not to say I agree with privatisation of the NHS. I dont.

I just dont agree with making more jobs paid by the government.

ParsingFancy Mon 28-Jan-13 10:40:53
i think i love you

Problem is, wannabe, that ATOS jobs are paid by the government (hence us).

Ditto G4S, the people who screwed up on Olympic security.

Ditto Serco, who do Ofsted inspections, collect our rubbish and run prisons, among their many, many other activities.

custardo, liking your work too...

Im not saying there should be no jobs paid by government.

I just dont think its the way to get the economy back on track.

We do need more nurses and midwives and doctors though. Why not employ more of them while encouraging enterprise.

And with perfect timing, tonight's Panorama: The Great Disability Scam, 8:30 pm, is about the private companies taking taxpayer money to "assist disabled people to work", while actually parking them and walking off with the cash. While calling aforementioned disabled people Lying Thieving Bastards, or LTBs for short. Apparently.

Today also sees a report by Church Action on Poverty : "The Blame Game Must Stop: Challenging the stigmatisation of people experiencing poverty"

p7 gives the real figures behind the myth-manufacturing.

Public perception of welfare budget lost to fraud = 27%
Actual figure = 0.7%

Public perception of welfare budget to unemployed = 41%
Actual figure = 3%

Politicians pontificate about families where three generations have never worked.
Rowntree Foundation actively looks for them and can't find a single family.

Politicians claim welfare spending has risen out of control.
Govt data shows proportion of taxes spent on welfare is flat.

And so on.

I saw that too parsing.
And yet it won't be on the bbc will it?

Doubt it, badvoc.

That's the same BBC which, in the article plugging Panorama, described someone on incapacity benefits as "long-term unemployed".

Which is like calling a SAHM unemployed, but worse, as many SAHM could work if they chose, but people on incapacity benefits are not fit to work (except in carefully tailored jobs, and many not even then).

The "68,000 disabled people able to work" are actually people who even under the new, incredibly limited tests, have been found not fit to work. But in the govt's mind they will be fit to work one day, even if they have progressive conditions. So that's nice.

Its just unbelievable.
I expect this from the tories....same old same old, butnthe lib dems are over as a political party after getting into bed with these right wing fuckers.
And they know it.

Actually welfare cuts, particularly for the disabled, originated under Labour with the 2007 Freud report.

Preparations for the privatisation of the NHS started under Labour as well. Something even Thatcher didn't dare to do.

Hmmm..didn't know about the Freud report.
The privatisation of the NHS started before I left in 2007.
More managers than hcps.

I think the rhetoric that the Tories use is very divisive. It's meant to be.
Them and us etc etc

again maybe i'm missing something but i'm thinking it's cheaper to employ someone, get necessary work done and get tax back from them than it is to just hand them benefits.

especially if the alternative is to outsource the necessary work to a private company who siphon off profit and pay the employees too little for them to pay tax (and so little they need the govt to subsidise their wages in tax credits).

and bonsoir how does france afford to employ so many binmen and street sweepers etc? when my sister lived in paris their was a collection every single day.

Problem was, jobs were created in unnecessary areas. Managers instead of frontline staff.

It would happen the same way again. In that situation a person gets a job for 10 years paid by gov versus benefits for maybe a year? Two years?

Its not cheaper long term.

Also in many situations, agency staff are paid more than LA staff.

I am all for the government creating jobs. But not for the sake of it. It has to make sense.

ok so if agency staff are paid more and the agency is taking an extra huge cut on top where is the loss being taken from? the quality of service or what?

it's just more money for nothing - more middle men taking their cut