Perception of poverty and persecution

I have just seen an article about Fergus Wilson in Kent. He is the man who bought loads of buy to let and was going to sell last year.
He couldn't find anyone to buy his portfolio, but now he is renting out to East European migrants, putting the rents up from £900 to £1200.
He is giving all the people who are paying £900 a section 13 notice to quit or pay the higher rent.
This should be illegal.

The report follows on what Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson were saying in the Spirit Level doesn't it Jen.

The title "Poverty in the EU is not an issue of scarcity, it is an issue of sharing" could very much apply to this country except I would head one on the UK "It's not an issue of austerity, it is an issue of sharing". I cannot believe people are still having the wool pulled over their eyes re austerity but I suppose we all draw different conclusions.

A report on poverty in the EU by Oxfam.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/09/09/poverty-in-the-eu-is-not-an-issue-of-scarcity-it-is-an-issue-of-sharing/

There's a link to the actual report in the article.

Yes, Gracesgran, it sounded like the workhouse to me, but Yarl's Wood is even worse.
I was going to say that at least in the workhouse they were in the same country, but I do not think that mattered, as you could not see over the high walls into each others' exercise yards.

Separating families - isn't that what they did when people went into the workhouse.

They were talking about this on, I think, Today Jen.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/09/09/how-immigration-policy-brutalises-british-children

An interesting article about families with a British parent, as well as other immigrants, and how they have been treated since 2012.
It's to do with poverty as well.

Interesting to see in the National Pensioner's Campaign's latest bulletin is rooting for a living pension. They are suggesting a basic pension of 70% of the living wage (outside London) which would give a full pension of £10,000 rather than the current full pension of £6029 a year.

It points out that the current pension is 36th out of 37 OECD countries.

It happens so often trisher. Perhaps those wishing to discuss it would like to start a new thread - does anyone ever do that when a thread goes off theme? I wish they would because the subject is interesting to discuss in its own right - it just have nothing to do with the perception of poverty or persecution which are also important

How did a debate about poverty get to the super-rich and well off. Of course the children of rich families will always do better. Why or how is irrelevant. The poorest in society are not necessarily the badly educated or the ignorant. I recently watched a programme about homelessness and what struck me was how events set someone on the downward spiral and regardless of what they had been they became homeless. Supporting these vulnerable people and giving the weakest a decent lifestyle should be the mark of a civilised society.

There is an artlcle* comparing twelve countries, Germany, Japan, USA, Ireland, Brazil, Australia, France, India, S. Africa, Japan, UK and Russia to see which the best countries are to grow old in.

Under Relative Mental Wellbeing the UK comes in the tranche they call Worst. Under Old Age Poverty Rate we come in the Middle tranche and Social Connection the UK is in the Best tranche.

You can see more details and compare pensions, etc here

Then what of examples like the Tory winter ball jingle , when parents can bid for internships for their children ? Getting financial backing these days is not easy.

Not necessarily your own fault if you are poor. But, sometimes.

There are all kinds of ways to get financial backing for projects these days. You don't have to have rich parents.

jingl Of course there are people who have an extensive range of valuable qualities "at the top". There are also plenty of people "at the top" because of who they are i.e. family connection, and, often, financial backing. There are plenty of bright, industrious people on or near "the bottom". The theory of meritocracy is in itself pernicious because of the implication that it is your own fault if you are poor, unemployed, unable to work, etc.

"if public school" can also mean quite simply, that you've had a better education.

Industrious - definitely yes! (more often than not)

Jingle I agree with brighter , a person with a low IQ will never earn the same as a doctor. Education , depends, if state school educated yes, if public school it can also mean you get further up the ladder through the right contacts. Industrious ? no.

Gracegran, to be able to put food on the table and not hold back on two meals to have the third . To be warm in your own home, have decent shoes and warm clothes in winter , cool in summer, to be able to switch on a light without having to check the meter , a tv and I would add a telephone as a necessity because now they are. A little spare cash for a treat because your worth it.

absent, don't you think that it's a fact that the people "at the top" are there because they are, "brighter, better educated, more industrious"?

We are not all born equal.

I think the housing problem has to be considered separately trisher - unless they build more houses I think it is just too complex. Even if they did it would take a while to be a "normal" problem rather than an extreme one.

I wonder if there would be that much difference between the rural poor and the city poor. I think the problems would be different but the costs may not be.

I wonder Gracesgran if there is also a difference in poverty or the ability to cope on small incomes in different parts of the country. London of course is somewhere it is virtually impossible to live on a small income or benefits. Accommodation is unaffordable. Would a living pension have to take account of these differences? What about the rural poor and the city poor?
I agree that some people think anyone on benefits should be made to suffer and shouldn't have things like cars. I think the Victorian values of the deserving and undeserving poor and the idea that people receiving benefits should be made to suffer and undergo vigorous scrutiny remain in many people. The welfare state and the commitment of a civilized society to take care of the weakest and most vulnerable have very delicate easily disturbed roots.

You are right Margaret - it is no one's businesses about a particular person but I go back to my original question. What do we think is "poor enough" to be helped and what should that help provide.

It is contentious as some use stats - a proportion of the mean income - and some use a list of necessities, and some use a mixture of both.

I also wonder what people would see as "enough" for a living pension, i.e., one on which you could reasonably live, with no extra benefits (you always have to leave housing benefit out of this as that is another can of worms ) and no other pension.

I am dwelling on pensions here but the same applies to out of work benefits. What does someone need and for what period (if you treat it like an insurance) in order not to claim any other benefits (excepting housing again) for that period?

they are thick… not there are thick.

I suspect much of this attitude dates back to the idea of meritocracy embraced by one Mr Blair. His interpretation of this idea, which was never intended to be aspirational, is that those at the top deserve to be there – and stay there – because they are brighter, better educated, more industrious and all together better people. The, usually unspoken, converse is that those at the bottom deserve to be there because there are thick, uneducated, lazy and all together second rate. Back, as previously mentioned to the deserving and undeserving poor – mostly these days, the latter apparently.

I know a few pensioners who have a small car. Many have downsized and bought the car with the cash in hand. Then they don't drive much just to the supermarket or out at night if they visit friends.
Cars last so much longer than when we were young. There are cars going well which are 14 years old and actually worth nothing if sold.

It is not the business of onlookers to decide what a pensioner or person on benefits does with their money. A lot smoke and drink and with that money you could easliy keep a car in petrol.

I know Jen. It didn't get much of a hearing at the last election, sadly.

Green Party policy, Gracesgran. They call it the living pension.