The disadvantage of benefits

I couldn't see the fuss about the so-called 'bedroom tax'.  It wasn't a tax as far as I was concerned, it was just a way of balancing out home sizes for people in socially funded accommodation, nothing was being taken away from people, they were merely being given less if they didn't 'need' the bedrooms.  Having recently been on benefits, I also found that it irked that I got so little, having paid tax all my working life, 29 years, and yet those who have never contributed to the system were seemingly being given more than the average national wage in benefits. I think like that, and I don't even read the Daily Mail.  It bothers me that I think like that, and it bothers me that I was so willing to accept that cutting benefits without thought is, was or could be acceptable.

A friend who works in housing and who is also far more compassionate than I am explained it to me in more detail.  The benefit is cut where the local authority deem a tenant has more bedrooms than they need.  The person or family in that accommodation has to find the money AND if they can't pay in the long-term should 'plan ahead' by finding a smaller property.  But it is the tenants themselves who have to find a smaller property that will accept them, that isn't done for them.  The government is not saying 'we think you don't need a house that size, we have a smaller property for you', they are being 'encouraged' to either move, pay more or, if they can't pay, get into debt.

Even more cruelly, if tenants cannot pay the extra sum and end up in debt over housing costs, they cannot be transferred by their local authority.  The rules state that housing debt is not taken with you to a new tenancy if you move /are moved.  It is the responsibility of the relevant housing provider to pursue arrears.  This seems to result in a tacit policy of 'don't move those who owe'.  Most housing providers won't consider moving tenants if they have arrears and a new landlord generally won't consider accepting tenants who have arrears.  The exception is if a household is considered vulnerable - in this case the housing provider would have to evict them for arrears, and then they would immediately be picked up by the local authority and put back on the cycle of being homeless, housed in temporary accommodation (usually very unsuitable) and then eventually rehoused.  The result is huge stress for the household, a costly legal process for the housing provider and the local authority has the expense of housing them anyway - this has a threefold impact on the taxpayer ... you and I, the people who are meant to be better off and happier by putting people through this stress.  Households who are not considered to be vulnerable will be evicted onto the street.

Are politicians really saying that putting people on the street is a saving for taxpayers?  Are they really saying 'this will win votes?  Have they learned nothing from Spain's example?   For many it will be be a particularly vicious catch 22 - they can't transfer to somewhere else if they can't pay the extra money, and yet they can't pay the money if they have no extra income to make up the shortfall.  There is a shortage in social housing, so where are they expected to move to?  Many private landlords are loathe to lend to social tenants because the social services do not pay the rent directly to landlords, they pay it to the tenants.  Social tenants are deemed feckless and untrustworthy.

Calling it 'bedroom tax' or call it 'housing benefit reform' makes little difference.  To the right it was a presumed vote winner under the guise of 'not taking money from hardworking taxpayers'  To the left it is now a gift of a vote winner because it is a reform that has been so badly thought out.  It shouldn't be about votes, it should be about treating people fairly.  Create jobs, create opportunities, build affordable homes, give everyone a better standard of living, then start looking at taking away benefits.  The country is so badly in debt, what is another billion when the alternative is making people homeless through no actual fault of their own?  The government appears to be dabbling in the business of becoming a slum landlord.

It may seem unfair that some people on benefits are being paid more than those in employment, but how is evicting people a way of redressing the balance?   The benefits system is there to provide a safety net.  From experience I know that it does not provide enough to live on.  Where households receive more in benefits than those in work, it is because they have been assessed as in need.  It is more of a reflection on low wages than on over-generous benefits.  Cost cutting policies during a recession should not hit those most in need and it should definitely not hit them the hardest.  I don't see how making the poor even poorer will help us out of a recession.

(Huge thank you to friend who provided the insight into local authority housing)

It's not spin if you're on their side

This week I had a short lesson in the power of spin, albeit on a very minor level.  I enjoy watching the occasional politics show on the television, but I am beginning to suspect that what I enjoy the most about it is objecting to everything that is said by everyone who is saying it.  I can only sustain interest in any one show for a limited period of time.  After a few months the presenters' smug certainty that they don’t just report on politics, they determine it, begins to grates on my nerves.  It is very possible that they have a point, however could they rub our noses in it a little less?  I therefore frequently give up on politics shows for months at a time before returning to the fold.  The weather affects me too, I am a foul weather political spectator, it is a sport far better suited to winter. 

Over recent weeks I have been in the habit of watching Question Time whilst reading the Extra Guest's comments about it on Twitter, and exchanging banter with a couple of friends.  These ‘friends’ are actual friends, people I know and like, not virtual acquaintances.  We are coming to the conclusion that you can’t watch Question Time, read Twitter and write tweets all at the same time.  In that we are all of reasonable intelligence, it could be said that we should have reached this conclusion the very first time we indulged in the activity.  However, when you live alone, virtual chat about what is on telly is almost sociable.  Twitter is playing too much of a role in my social activity, and I seriously need to cut down, some days I am up to 40 a day, I definitely need to try and quit.  

Last Thursday the intention was to focus on Question Time and not on Question Twitter.  Unfortunately, I gave in and started reading Twitter whilst I watched.  One of my Question Time tweeting friends insists that the BBC rarely choose an Extra Guest from the right, so he texted me triumphantly that a blue moon event was occurring.   I thought I might as well read what the Extra Guest said.  

All went well until the debate turned to the question of politics as a safe career for women.  This was on the agenda because of allegations against a Liberal Democrat peer.  The Labour MP, Angela Eagle, addressed the question first and commented, very sensibly, that such behaviour should not be tolerated in any workplace.  She also noted that women were referred to in derogatory or patronising terms.  Ms Eagle said that a change of culture is required, with which I agree, yet she then entreated women to ‘get to work’ and change the culture.  I would have thought that everyone should ‘get to work’ for any changes to be effective and accepted. 

A follow up question asked how she would go about this.  David Dimbleby invited the Conservative MP, Claire Perry, to answer this.  As an aside to her main answer on the point, Ms Perry started with a comment that it was interesting to note that if the peer were a woman, there would be endless media speculation and comment on her age, weight and appearance, being a man he wasn’t subject to this, even though he “is not a looker”.   Angela Eagle had made also made the point that media focus on women was often not for their politics.  Claire Perry had a valid point, but I suspect that, had she not followed up with the personal comment, her argument would have been the better for it.  But  it is true that women are too often judged on their appearance as well as and sometimes instead of, being judged on their ability to do their job.   

A few minutes later, Ken Loach, the socialist film director, spoke about the same subject, quite rightly saying it was an abuse of power, which it is.  He then said that the peer’s appearance has nothing to do with the issue, telling Perry that her comment of ‘no looker’ was a cheap shot.  Perry’s aside was about media treatment of women, not about the allegations.  To me, Loach’s aside was a cheap shot at Perry, but better aimed than her comment, and it went down very well with the BBC’s carefully selected audience. 

I wouldn’t have paid this point much heed, had it not been for the BBC Extra Guest, who then tweeted (interestingly after Loach’s point, not after Perry’s)  that it was “Utterly insulting” for Perry to “suggest that this case would be any less serious if he was a “looker””.  I am not sure he could even have heard what was said, to have put this interpretation on it. I challenged him on it, accusing him of spinning to discredit Perry.   Why I bother with such things is beyond me.  I don’t personally know Perry, she seems very capable of defending herself.  But no, being me, I had to jump in and say he was wrong and was guilty of spin.   The Extra Guest claimed that it couldn’t be spin, because it was his opinion, and anyway, he is in the same party as Perry.  This makes me feel very sorry for women in politics,  when even your own party are spinning and plotting against you, you have to fight just to stand still, let alone move forward.  To my mind, by my definition of spin, it was spin.  I even looked up ‘spin’ in the Oxford English Dictionary.  My version didn’t have a definition which matched mine, so very remiss of them.  I then looked it up on Wikipedia, the font of all knowledge.  Much to my relief, they aligned with my thinking.  Spin was defined as manipulative and a ‘form of propaganda’ resulting from an interpretation designed to persuade public opinion for or against something or someone, e.g. public figures.  Mr Extra Guest either didn’t hear what Perry had said, but somehow thought he had better jump on Loach’s bandwagon, egging the mixture along the way, or did hear what Perry had said and was quite happy to twist her words and stab her in the back.  He was very certain that she did suggest it would be less serious, even tweeting afterwards from his own twitter account, so I do believe he genuinely thought she had said what he accused her of.  I can't help but suspect that Loach's comments carried more weight with the Extra Guest's processing of Perry's comments, than had her actual words.  It was a very cleverly aimed jibe, a minute or so later, when the actual comments would have left spectators' echoic memory, placing an entirely different interpretation of Perry's comments in people's minds.  

In the meantime by daring to defend a right wing politician, I had made myself fair game for the left to come after me – and they did.  I was informed, by women, that Perry’s comments were ‘outrageous’, ‘insulting and sexist’ and the most pretentious comment tweeted to me, that Perry had used the words ‘no looker’ to “desensitise the allegation”.  This last, most vociferous tweeter is a proclaimed socialist, proud to be part of a feminist movement.  I looked with interest at some of her other tweets – she called Perry a ‘bitch’ several times and expressed her desire to smack Perry in the face and 'lamp' her.   Good thing she is so feminist and anti-fascist, because she was sounding very much like a boot boy advocating violence against a woman.   I was quite relieved that such ire was saved for Perry and not directed at me.  I was also taken aback that the interpretation of her comments was so different from what I had actually heard.  Loach put one spin on it, the Extra Guest followed that with another and that was becoming the accepted version.  Spin is part of our culture and is endemic throughout politics from all parties, but I always thought of it as large campaigns, not small comments carefully placed to undermine people at every level.  

Does any of this really matter?  No.  I only blog about it because they were all so insistent that the Extra Guest interpretation was right and I was wrong, that I actually began to doubt myself and ended up watching the whole thing again on iPlayer to check I had heard correctly.  Does it change my view of women in politics?  Yes.  If this is the kind of misleading crap they have to put up with, even from those allegedly on 'their side' I have even more respect for all of them, whatever their party.  Does it change my view of Perry?  I admire her for her thick skin.  I also suspect if I were to enter politics, I would be scarily similar, i.e. quite loud, quite bossy and far too prone to say what comes into my head without editing it to appeal to a very left-wing, ‘everything the Tories say is wrong’ BBC audience.   Perry’s main point, which her detractors chose to ignore, was that more women should get involved in politics.  The way to make your voice heard is to speak up.  I think she is right, I am just not sure I personally would have the courage to do it.  Neither could I toe a party line well, nor be so thick-skinned against such propaganda.  However, going forward I will pay far more attention to the way I perceive all politicians and to what they actually do say and far less to what the media and other detractors like to tell us has been said and done.    

Claire Perry’s actual words, transcribed from BBC iPlayer “ I think the fascinating thing in all this coverage is if this had been a female of any note, there would have been lots of commentary about her appearance, her age, whether she’d lost weight, but this chap is not a looker, let’s be clear and nobody has mentioned that”.