"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 think it would have been more fun if they had gone for 'scythers v. hivers' and then they could have had a government sponsored game show where bee keepers and arable farmers competed in 'it's a knock out style' challenges.

As it is, I feel that the conservatives are trying to speak to me as a 'striver', (Live in Tory Land, pay tax) but I am just confused. The whole child benefit thing is just 'wtf?' (I expect they will ditch it completely in a couple of years once universal benefits are up and running), and the ATOS assessments seem to have been a fiasco. I can't really understand the part where I benefit from any of this.

There have been cutbacks to services I use (NHS, libraries, schools), but I think the pill is supposed to be sweetened by the idea that somewhere a family with 10 children and a massive council house are loosing their wide screen TV.

I hate this "strivers" thing. Does that mean that people who are earning very high incomes are going to donate what they don't need to families that are still striving but have to claim tax credits to top up their income in order to live, in an effort to strive for a healthier economy?

Probably not, they will resist higher taxes and the Tories will side with them on that. Probably because if this notion that they have strived for that money so they deserve to keep it. However it is no coincidence that most very wealthy people I know had very wealthy parents, who were able to provide houses/businesses/jobs for them.

I am a mature student and I had a summer job where it was trendy for a lot of middle class younger student types to get summer jobs, because they were a lot of arty things happening. I'm going to sound like an old woman now, but some of these kids don't know they're born. They were lazy, clumsy, rude to customers, had a shocking work ethic. If they were working class and not at uni, in their first job after leaving school, society would definitely call them skivers. But because mummy and daddy are putting them through uni, paying their rent, giving them an allowance they are strivers?

I have worked in a variety of settings in my time. I may be generalising, but often the hardest working people I have come across have been young and working class, often working for a pittance, and that will probably never change.

I sometimes wonder if social mobility really exists in this country. You are pretty much born with your lot I reckon. I kind of broke the mould in that I am a working class girl who started medical school as a mature student and have had dd since starting, so some might call me a striver, but now the fees ave gone sky high since this government there is no way I could have done it if I started a few years later. Plus I have had to have a lot of government help, childcare grants etc, so dies that then make me a skiver?

P.s. I definitely think that merrymouse's scyther's vs hivers sounds more fun!

Worked for 30 years as a nurse and midwife = striver
Had a mortgage = striver
Gave up work to care for autistic son= skiver
Live in social housing and claim housing benefit = skiver

This Government and their simplistic bollocks = scumbags of the highest order.

In response to those who disagree with me;

"Edam"; Was I a "paper-shuffler" ? If it makes you feel better to belittle that job, go ahead. Less acceptable is the idea that I have no idea about disability.
I'd wager I have far more experience than many people, but that's not really the issue. As for meetings claimants, you're wrong. I spent over 12 months making home visits to people of all ages claiming DLA. Many were genuine, many weren't. It often transpired that the claims were filled in by welfare rights advisors, and then handed to the claimant for their signature. I call the claims dubious as they were often disallowed, following lack of medical evidence from GP's or hospitals. What word would you use?

"JakeBullet"; If having my own viewpoint is enough for you to call me thick, I guess it's the end of the line. Not sure why you think I'd make up a story about where I used to work, but it takes all sorts I suppose.

Anyway, I gave my view based on my experience both in and out of work.

If you don't like or agree with that, I won't be losing any sleep over it.

That's me done on this subject!!

If the claims were disallowed then I don't know what your beef is with the benefit. Eczema can be severe, mental health issues can be severe.....did you actually read what my friend went through as a child. It makes me angry that anyone would sit in judgement on her.

You dealt with genuine cases and those where perhaps the evidence was not strong enough and they were declined. So by that argument the system works then.....makes me wonder why you want to see it changed.

"That's me done on this subject" = "I am wrong and I know it"

We all know the country is stuffed with the idle who are making up claims. The NE had a massive number of supposed disabled who had just been advised to claim for that as it was more cash and less attention than other benefits. I doubt the new system will cut the sums paid to skivers down and I rhink £500 a week for maximum benefits including housing benefits is really erally massive and a total insult to people who claim nothing £26k a year - £35,000 a year of taxed income! We need a benefits cap which is much much lower to get people back into work.

The Government is not whipping up public opinion on this. It has always been there, been there since the poor laws, work house and all the schemes over many years to try to ensure we care for the poor but that work pays. It is a very difficult issue to solve.
One solution which I favour is give every adult over 18 £200 a week, nothing more and nothing less whether you work or not and abolish all benefits. The if you have 10 children or want to rent a £1m house in London you might have to think again and you will cut your cloth according to your means. A universal payment to everyone 18 or over, old or young in place of all benefits and pensions and whether you work or not. It would also keep housewives happy too in the bargain and ensure working on the sly whilst claiming benefits which is a massive problem rarely addressed is pointless at one stroke.

Xenia that sounds almost like the green partys plan to scrap benefits and pay everyone 15k a year. Quite a good idea if the cost of living can remain the same.

Before I go off and bang my head against a wall, could someone please explain to me how giving impoverished people even less to live on is going to magically create jobs? If you want to get people back into work, one of the basic requirements is available jobs. The government's own figures show there simply aren't enough available for everyone currently lacking one. What is the mechanism by which reducing benefits creates jobs?

Inneed, I've always liked that idea as it means you don't need anyone scrutinising who does what. Of course it rewards the utterly idle but as it's just £10,400 a year and the benefits cap alone is £26,000 (when it comes in if they ever enforce) it does incentivise you to work and/or live with your sisters or friends or mother or boyfriend to share costs/expenses.

You keep it whether or not you work 50 weeks a year full time as I do or whether you sit at home thinking about God or your next fag. We could then abolish all the jobs of checking and means testing but we would need to ensure it is not available to everyone on the planet who chooses to come here I suppose.

It would also force those who who don't work and live in very expensive places to slum it where the workers live.

Before we go any further can I jist point out for those talking of "supposed disabled" that DLA is NOT an out of work benefit. Some claim it to keep themselves IN work. So suggesting people were or are advised to claim it in order to avoid work is a load of rubbish.

Goodness me Xenia, do you know lots of idle jobless living in expensive areas then? Most of the jobless people I have met live in crappy housing in poor areas unless they have lost jobs

I think the debate is not helped by the tendency of both sides to obfuscate it by confusing DLA with other benefits related to incapacity and illness. DLA is very difficult to claim, the forms are ridiculous, and the Government's own figures show fraud is very very low. I still cannot see what the legitimate case is for eforming this benefit (unless to make it easier to claim; I know some people with quite significant impairments who have been denied it. Certain other benefits - incapacity benefit as was, now ESA or whatever they call it this week - are quite widely abused, is my anecdotal impression. Put it this way, I'm fairly convinced the people I used to represent fopr burglary, shoplifting et al who were all IB were abusing it! Never quite worked out how your depression prevented you going to work, but didn't stop you burgling old ladies' houses....

Can't believe I agree with Xenia on this.

I just left west of Scotland and Glasgow where something like a quarter of people of working age are on DLA mostly signed off in the 80s/90s and still on it. Creates an odd culture but does ensure people vote labour!

I don't disagree with benefits particularly as there is a Lot of money very poorly spent/wasted in other govt departments, not including all the issues about individual and corporate tax evasion.

What I HATE is the industry around benefits- the bossy social workers and community liaison officers that fester in local authorities, the job center industry, the people making money through ATOS. All this creates a benefits infrastructure which I find grim. In that way I'd rather come up with a solution that required less govt and a more libertarian approach.

I don't think we should be talking 'strivers' vs 'skivers' rather thinking about how little govt intervention we have in our lives because in my experience people need to have less of a cradle to grave mentality. Working for a council, getting help from the council and getting housing from the council?!! I mean seriously!!!

DLA IS NOT AN OUT OF WORK BENEFIT.

HOW MANY MORE TIMES?

I take the point about IB or ESA as I know little about how theae benefits work but DLA is difficult to get and requires masses of written medical evidence.

William, yyou suggest 25% of the population in Glasgow are on DLA. Do you have figures to prove this?

I did not say DLA and of course it is clear I referred to incapacity benefit as it was and it was an utter scam for some (but of course not for all).

I drove today to my daughter's (further into London than I can afford to live) and there are absolutely masses of people on benefits living right there in the centre where the workers cannot afford to live and where young people in work are struggling to rent or buy a house because of in part all the competition from those who don't work for homes in places where they don't need to be. Many of us in work have moved hundreds of miles from family as i did to get work. I have just paid my tax about 5 minutes ago so it is not the best time for me to be writing about this topic or perhaps it is the very very best of times. I hope the fact I work 50 weeks a year is hugely appreciated by those who never work and whose food and housing is entirely due to the workers of this nation.

The industry around benefits would go if everyone in work or out got a universal payment. If we are going to give those with 35 years national insurance £140 a week without means testing when they reach 66 years old we could extend that principle downwards although I suppose all the work on the universal credit thing for the low paid is a more complex version of that but nothing like as simple and with large marginal tax rate increases once you work at various levels. They never ever seem to achieve simplicity.

It's a tricky one because of course there are genuine cases out there and not everyone on benefits is the sterotypical lay about. But on the other hand there are a lot of people who are.
There is no doubt that the benefits system needs a good shake up and fast its not sustainable the way it is right now and when you see families that have several generations in the home who have never worked it makes me despair.
Especially when they keep on having children (because they know that the state will support)
dadwithtwokids.wordpress.com/

Sorry all in my last post I meant to say 'incapacity benefit' not DLA.

Re request for clarifying stats: I worked for Glasgow council for many years and had access to figures/stats when putting together funding bids. Also worked for Univ of Glasgow. Anecdotally I remember my director mentioning a 1/3 figure of working-age adults on incapacity benefit in Glasgow but I couldn't believe that was right. A lot of people were signed on to IB when the shipyards closed....

This is a useful site for stats about Glasgow. A lot of deprivation, not so much Scotland with Style. I love Glasgow so not trying to be critical.

www.understandingglasgow.com/indicators/poverty/overview

that's sad. Whole generation being written off .

Yup it's rubbish. A lot of the deprivation is in places like Easterhouse that are on the outskirts and not visible to the 'tourist' community and west-endies. But Glasgow can be very divided - I've met people from Bearsden and Milngavie who have never been to the east end or even to the Barras! sigh.

For goodness sake, how many governments and doo gooders, would be politicians have tried numerous strategies to stop the VERY FEW families who live on benefits, refusing to work and passing this life style to the next generation?
They will and have always existed, cutting welfare and benefits to people who really need them is not going to help.
The answer to what do we do about them is nothing, let them be. Is there honestly anybody here who would like to swop lifestyle with them? I have seen regeneration and increased efforts to provide education and services to increase social mobility for the next generation and it didn't work, well not for the majority. However, I believe that if one family managed to get out of the trap the strategies were helpful.
I really don't see how so many people can hold their heads up when all they do is persecute the under class.

There are also lots of communities there with 3rd generation unemployment, what they now refer to as worklessness. But, trust me, these aren't people to be jealous of or irate about. It's just sad.

I've been touting the possibility of a Universal benefit for years. i am gobsmacked to find Xenia doing the same.

Where are all the people who usually tell me what bollocks the idea is?

(Xenia, do you know what? If I got £200 a week, that would double my income in one fell swoop. It would be a hell of a lot easier for me to -eventually -get work then.)