I share Dave Byrne's concerns about recent BBC coverage - although on
this occasion I disagree with him. I thought that Michael Marmot
effectively demolished the Adam Smith Institute speaker - wasn't it
Eamonn Butler? Admittedly Marmot did not use any of his killer
quotes, ‘social injustice is killing on a grand scale’ or 'social
justice is a matter of life and death', but he left no doubt that
inequality was a very important issue, and not one to be left to
market correction under any circumstances. I also enjoyed the way
that Eddie Mair referred to them both at the end with the stress on
Marmot as the specialist - it quite surprised me.
I have been much more concerned by the astonishing Humphrys hour on
The Future State of Welfare on BBC2 at 9 on Oct 27. It was almost as
one-sided as his long piece in the Daily Mail earlier that week on
the way that Beveridge had led to a 'culture of entitlement' (and not
a word about bankers' 'guaranteed' bonuses). I stress the time of the
programme as the hour before on BBC1 was to be 'Britain on the
Fiddle'. The Radio Times said: 'with some £22bn of taxpayers' money
effectively stolen each year through fraud, Richard Bilton uses
undercover cameras in this Panorama Special to expose people,
allegedly on benefits, sailing yachts and driving Bentleys. He also
follows the work of fraud investigators tackling the growing number
of benefit cheats, using fake identities to steal millions.' So
clearly, although not actually said so, £22bn going on welfare
stealing, and growing ... Thankfully it was replaced by a story on
Dale Farm. But it was broadcast a week later. The listener could
easily be left thinking that all £22bn was welfare fraud, and I
gather the Daily Mirror later repeated £22bn on welfare abuse. The
Scotsman this week suggested that it was £38bn - the full total of
the National Fraud Authority estimate on public and private fraud
where benefits and tax welfare fraud was put at £1.6bn.
Humphrys has been critiqued by Declan Gaffney - http://
www.leftfootforward.org/2011/10/john-humphrys-is-wrong-on-social-
security/
There has also been a series of pieces by Ben Baumberg on the
Inequalities blogs. The link to the first is
http://inequalitiesblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/23/the-deservingness-of-
benefit-claimants-i/
I would agree with Heejung Chung that Nick Robinson's pieces on
taxing and spending were also remarkably misleading. In the first he
stressed that governments could never deny old people anything with
constant references to the cost of the universal winter fuel
allowance and no mention of the change to the pension indexation that
will reduce pensions significantly over time.
Both Humphrys and Robinson are particularly important as known public
figures and I understand the BBC has guidelines about taking care not
to abuse their position as authority figures.
Perhaps there is a wider issue that should be linked to this. I have
felt in recent months that there have been increasing lapses by the
BBC and papers that one might expect to know better to reproduce what
we might dismiss, and tolerate in that we do not complain, as tabloid
coverage. I recently heard a chief editorial writer, not from The
Guardian, complain about the enormous difficulty of getting stories
alternative to the offical and conventional wisdom. She spoke at the
AGM of a poverty group and went out of her way to stress the need for
members to send her material. I recall that Polly Toynbee made the
same point when she spoke as President to the SPA conference a few
years ago.
And ministers are being allowed to get away with remarkable accounts
of life on low incomes. In the Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture Iain
Duncan-Smith in March this year spoke of those on benefits who 'have
seen their parents, their neighbours and their entire community sit
on benefits for life…’ This is not a slip, he repeats it: ‘The
Universal Credit is about understanding that people who have been out
of work all their lives…and have never seen a family or even a
community member in work…have to see the financial benefits from
taking up employment’. What evidence did he have for this? OK, it
can be quoted to provide a remarkable insight into thinking at the
‘highest’ levels in government, but in the last week he and others
appear to be building on this sort of line to dismiss existing
poverty measures because extra on benefits will only mean more on
drugs and alcohol rather than more on children.
Scottish poverty groups led by the Poverty Alliance have got so
annoyed by the badmouthing of those on low incomes and particularly
on benefits that they got the leaders of the political parties to
sign up before the last election to a 'Stick Your Labels Campaign':
'The Commitment to Challenge the Stigma of People Living in Poverty
in Scotland'. I have reproduced it at the end.
Is there something as a social policy community that we can do?
Sharing our frustrations here is one important step forward but can
it be lifted out of our narrow group? Is this something where the
SPA or the Academy of the Social Sciences could give a lead? Or
should we all deluge the BBC and others with our complaints?
Best wishes, yours, Adrian
‘The Commitment to Challenge the Stigma of People Living in Poverty
in Scotland states:
People experiencing poverty are often judged and blamed for their
poverty. This can undermine their self-confidence, insults their
dignity, perpetuates misunderstanding and creates barriers to
escaping poverty.
Individuals who experience poverty face additional obstacles which
make it harder for them to make the best of opportunities which most
of us take for granted, but the efforts they make to support
themselves and their families are often ignored.
People cope as best they can with very scarce resources, despite
prejudices and stereotypes that paint them as lazy and undeserving.
Stigmatising people experiencing poverty is not just cruel: it erodes
understanding, is socially divisive, and inhibits effective policy
responses.
There is an urgent need to raise awareness about the negative effects
of the stigmatization of people in poverty in Scotland, and challenge
prejudiced attitudes. This is essential for tackling poverty and
ensuring dignity for everyone.
I join all those who care about the sustainability of our communities
in calling for concerted action from all sections of society to end
the stigmatization of people in poverty in Scotland.’
On 8 Dec 2011, at 10:39, Heejung Chung wrote:
> Hello all,
> First of all, I am happy that David started this discussion - it
> was long overdue.
> I will be more than happy to contribute my share in forming that
> complaint, especially because I think the recently aired BBC show
> on taxes and spending "Your money and how they spend it" was also
> ludicrous conservative propaganda. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/
> b017vd5m
>
> I've been wanting to write something using the recent OECD data and
> perhaps some other income trend data myself anyhow.
>
> In terms of alternatives I found the recent Paul Krugman articles
> quite interesting
> About an alternative path: http://tinyurl.com/65ge8rj
> Welfare state and recession: http://tinyurl.com/cjo5fj2
> What to tax: http://tinyurl.com/c8raew9
>
> Best,
>
> Heejung Chung
>
> Lecturer in Sociology and Social Policy
> School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research
> University of Kent
>
> http://www.heejungchung.com
> http://www.kent.ac.uk/sspssr/
> ________________________________________
> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists
> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Rowlingson
> [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 08 December 2011 09:40
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: BBC coverage of this report RE: New OECD report:
> Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising - via www.oecd.org/
> els/social/inequality
>
> There is also a 'Plan C' doing the rounds. Polly Toynbee discussed
> this in the Guardian recently ...
>
> 'So try plan C, from Glasgow University's Professor Greg Philo: a
> one-off windfall taking 20% of the accrued wealth of the richest
> 10% would solve the debt problem overnight. Graduated so the top 1%
> pay most, taking a fifth of the £4tn they own would only push back
> downwards the money hoovered upwards in the last decade. They can
> pay it after death if they prefer. Yougov found 74% support for the
> idea'
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/10/public-sector-
> workers-plan-c
>
>
> All the best
>
> Karen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Taylor-Gooby
> Sent: 08 December 2011 09:26
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: BBC coverage of this report RE: New OECD report:
> Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising - via www.oecd.org/
> els/social/inequality
>
> Hi
>
> Of course the real issue is devising a credible and progressive
> response to this trend, something which Left parties haven't been
> very successful at doing (so far). The only attempt which tries to
> include politics, economy and social issues I know of is Plan B
> http://clients.squareeye.net/uploads/compass/documents/
> Compass_Plan_B_web.pdf
> and that needs a lot of development.
>
> Is there anything else?
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Harriet Clarke
> Sent: 07 December 2011 23:45
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: BBC coverage of this report RE: New OECD report:
> Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising - via www.oecd.org/
> els/social/inequality
>
> Indeed.
> ... Though Inside Job did reiterate the who pays the piper point
> somewhat!
> Harriet
>
>
>
> On 7 Dec 2011, at 20:31, "Stephen McKay" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> BBC2 is showing "Inside Job" at 9pm tonight, a film about the 2008
>> global financial crisis. Not a ringing endorsement of free
>> markets, nor of economics.
>>
>> SD McKay
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists
>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Ashton
>> [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 07 December 2011 20:07
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: BBC coverage of this report RE: New OECD report: Divided
>> We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising - via
>> www.oecd.org/els/social/inequality
>>
>> Ad hominems -- way to go! Especially not for a Director of
>> Postgraduate Studies.
>>
>> --- On Wed, 7/12/11, BYRNE D.S. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> From: BYRNE D.S. <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: BBC coverage of this report RE: New OECD report: Divided We
>> Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising - via
>> www.oecd.org/els/social/inequality
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Date: Wednesday, 7 December, 2011, 16:39
>>
>>
>>
>> I was particularly disgusted by BBC Radio Four PM's coverage of
>> this material. They put Michal Marmot, an academic of I am afraid
>> at least on this instance mild disposition, up against a hack and
>> lackey (who pays his wages?) from the Adam Smith institute. Taking
>> that kind of hired gob of the rich seriously on such matters is
>> not appropriate. He argued of course that increasing inequality is
>> no bad thing. Perhaps we might consider the following statement:
>>
>> THE AFFLUENCE OF THE RICH SUPPOSES THE INDIGENCE OF THE MANY: ADAM
>> SMITH!
>>
>> Can these clowns read and if so have they ever actually read Adam
>> Smith?
>>
>> I doubt he would, if reincarnated, make water upon them were they
>> spontaneously to ignite.
>>
>> Ire out of the way - who would be up for a formal social policy /
>> statistics complaint to the BBC against taking opinion from think
>> tanks which do not disclose their funding arrangements so we can
>> see just who is paying the piper and thereby calling the tune.
>>
>> David Byrne
Adrian Sinfield
[log in to unmask]
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
|