Social Mobility Tsar declares "Working parents in Britain simply do not earn enough to escape poverty"

[HorryIsUpduffed]

BBC story here

He suggests means testing certain benefits available to pensioners (eg winter fuel allowance), and raising minimum wage to "living wage" of at least £7.50/h.

I'm surprised that he seems to be saying a lot of things that would be very unpopular with the party he belongs to, but that many MNers have been saying for years.

A particular damning statistic that stood out from the report:

Two thirds of children officially deemed as being poor now came from a family where at least one parent was working - and in three out of four of those cases, at least one of their parents was working full time, the report found.

Which kind of kicks the government's "poor people just aren't trying hard enough" message up the arse, doesn't it?

I think it would be sensible to have a mimimum wage that is higher for london than the rest of the country. If you were in a job where you earned minimum wage and thay role existed in the UK as a whole, eg an office cleaner, then it would be silly to have a job in London given high commuting costs.

"Which kind of kicks the government's "poor people just aren't trying hard enough" message up the arse, doesn't it?"

No it doesn't. The government has been giving us the message that work should pay and that benefits should not match what workers get. So work is currently not paying enough, but they I doubt they will believe in Marxist dictats to employers to increase wages, so there will probably be more pressure on benefits.

Milburn is an ex-Labour Minister. I think he was a Blairite and was once tipped to take over from Blair. This is what he says

"These are the people frankly who do all the right things, they go out to work, they stand on their own two feet, they look after their families - they're the strivers not the shirkers - and yet they're all too often the forgotten people of Britain and I think they desperately need a new deal."

That is pretty similar to the strivers and shirkers message of the Tories.

Cameron has pledged to maintain pensioners' benefits for this praliament, so he won't change anything now, but I suspect they want to soften pensioners up and prepare the pensioners for cuts in their benefits next parliament. I think that Lbour brought some of those pensioner benefits in, but the media story will now probably switch to wealthy pensioners getting too much of a good deal.

"He suggested older people could provide part of the solution.

Many pensioners were asking, "shouldn't there be a fairer sharing of the burden?", he insisted."

Yeah right, "pensioners were asking".

It is pretty clear what the aim is for the next parliament and the election message that pensioners must have benefits cut to help hardworking families. They probably think it will win some votes with struggling, hardworking families. But it will lose votes with pensioners.

With ex-Labour bigwigs supporting it, the Tories probably think it will be plain sailing.

But this is what the "Social Mobility Tsar" says, but let's wait and see what Dacre and the Daily Mail say about it. That may prove far more persuasive.

let's wait and see what Dacre and the Daily Mail say about it. That may prove far more persuasive.

Alas yes.

I see your point that it further pushes the "shirkers and workers" thing, but it does have a different feel from the current general message which I get as "Just Get A Job And Everything Will Be Great" which as we know is rubbish.

Also what UKIP say about it may be important too.

"Just Get A Job And Everything Will Be Great" which as we know is rubbish.

Yes you are right. It is total rubbish and it has been for years and this terrible low wage high living cost situation has existed for years including under New Labour. They are not tackling the real problem which is creating more productive jobs in manufacturing and industry so that we eventually get a labour shortage which would necessarily push wages up.

They are moving deckchairs on the Titanic, robbing Peter to pay Paul instead of addressing the real issue which is investment in growth and stimulating the economy and reversing some of the damage that globalisation has done to our wealth creating industrial and manufacturing sector.

All the tsars and all the spin doctors won't put Humpty back together again. They need to address the real issues and take real measures instead of taking with one hand and giving with the other and playing with divide and rule and what some have termed "the intergenerational divide".

How much public money was spent on this report by the government's "Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission" and how long did it take to reach the conclusion that all of us already knew that child poverty is 'no longer problem of the workless and work-shy'.

Tell us something new and do something real about it.

"child poverty is 'no longer problem of the workless and work-shy'"

And is the problem of child poverty for the strivers more important than the poverty of children who are 'workless and work-shy'?

children whose families are 'workless and work-shy'

They claim they want to increase the 'living wage' of the strivers (but we know they will really cut the benefits of some pensioners) to ease child poverty, but will they also raise the benefits of the 'workless and work-shy' in order to ease child poverty for their families or aren't their children as deserving?

It's a pity that these children of working parents who are living in poverty aren't eligible for free school meals.
That at least would be a help.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, this time in capitals just so I get the crux of my message across in the simplest possible way... STOP TAXING THE POOR.

50% of this country's wealth is confiscated by the government. Poor working people will, in all likelihood, be paying Income Tax, National Insurance, VAT and Council Tax, as well as other 'luxury' taxes such as the Road Fund Licence and Fuel Excise Duty. On top of that, there are taxes where the tax incidence (i.e. which poor bugger ends up out of pocket at the end of the day) falls on the worker. The most obvious of these are the employers contribution for National Insurance, but equally Corporation Tax reduces an employees pay packet.

Part 2 of the JudgeyPants manifesto is that property prices are too high - build enough new homes to affect the supply / demand pricing balance and you will transform our economy, especially for the poor.

Agree with both of those. This is an urgent problem and we need some real action, no more tsarist tinkering.

'let's wait and see what Dacre and the Daily Mail say about it. That may prove far more persuasive.'

The Mail is on the case. Here is today's great Mail article. Mail readers are fuming in the Comment section.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2465604/Elderly-share-pain-cuts-benefits-bankrupt-welfare-state-says-Alan-Milburn.html

The Mail tells us about the Tsar's consultancy work and his houses. The Mail shows us some of the terminology used - typical of the vocabulay so often used by spinners.

"It said ministers had allowed an ‘inter-generational injustice’ "

and there's even the good old global warming one - "sustainable".

‘We do not believe that favouring pensioners over their children and grandchildren will be a sustainable position over the long-term if a meaningful dent is to be made in the UK’s high levels of child poverty and low levels of social mobility,’ it added.

And the last line of the Mail article tells us that the Tsar said

'‘That is the reason why Middle England is feeling uncomfortable about the prospects for the next generation.’

Since when did Labour, the Labourites and the Blairites care about 'Middle England'?

And what is the Nitty Party doing having former Blairites advising them?
Is there not a single Tory or LibDem capable of being a 'Social Mobility Tsar'?

No wonder many Tory voters are switching to UKIP, and I imagine a few more pensioners will now be joining them.

'social mobility tsar'?
Is this a joke?
There'll soon be an arse wiping tsar.
Yet again, one wonders what is achieved by adding yet another layer to the alreadly largely pointless public sector hierarchy.

Exactly right moondog

'one wonders what is achieved by adding yet another layer to the alreadly largely pointless public sector hierarchy'

Jobs for the boys, more perks?