The latest stats from the British Social Attitudes Survey offer little comfort here. This is a short overview from The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/dec/08/child-benefit-benefits?CMP=twt_fd

The percentage changes from 1999 to 2010 suggest that successive New Labour governments have plenty to answer for on this.

Some of you probably already know that there is a new campaign group within Labour, 'Labour Left', working to generate policy proposals for Labour's 2015 election manifesto which should challenge the Thatcherite basis of the New Labour project: http://www.labourleft.co.uk/ 
They have just published a collection of essays attempting to encapsulate an 'ethical socialist' diagnosis of current socio-economic conditions and their vision for the future, which they have (like it or loathe it) titled their 'Red Book'. I've yet to read it myself, but I am encouraged by its emergence, and by any other such work, including discussions like this current one on our list here. A summary of its contents, with online links to purchase a hard copy is here: http://www.searchingfinance.com/products/soon-to-be-published/the-red-book.html I've got PDF which I can email to anyone interested- I can't remember whereabouts online I found it. (Though I suppose they'd appreciate those who can afford it making a contribution in cash for their efforts.)

As for the BBC, I'm a PhD student, but I know there are plenty among my cohort who would wholeheartedly support the mounting of a formal, collective (media-savvy) 'response' to their recent and ongoing performance. Utterly dismayed.

Beth Carley

Centre for Census and Survey Research/ Mitchell Centre for Social Network Analysis
Humanities Bridgeford Street
Kantorovich Building
University of Manchester
Manchester
M13 9PL


________________________________________
From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Morag C Treanor [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 08 December 2011 15:50
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

My research with Barnardo's (Below the Breadline) was an in-depth
longitudinal qualitative study of 16 families living in poverty and my
results mirrored those of Nicki below. One of the common denominators
across all the families was a low level of education and most of them
came from 2-parent families who worked.

I'm disgusted by the BBC's driving the propaganda machine for the
government, we are being bombarded with negative assaults on people on
benefits, and these attitudes are spreading and taking hold. We
definitely should do something.




Quoting Dr Nicki Senior <[log in to unmask]> on Thu, 8 Dec
2011 14:05:01 +0000:

> For what it's worth my own research involving lone parents refuted this
> assumption of multi-generational benefit dependency.Of the sample of thirty
> lone parents 55% were brought up in a household where both parents worked
> and a further 34% said that one parent had worked. Only 10% of the entire
> sample was bought up in a household where none of the adults with care were
> in employment. Forty-five percent of the sample had been brought up in a
> lone parent household. Of these, 46% involved the main carer working full
> time.
>
>
>
> The prevailing commonality between the people I interviewed was their level
> of education. Educational achievement was low with only 14% having left
> school with five GCSEs at grade A*-C (or equivalent) and 38% having gained
> no educational qualifications at all.
>
> N :-)
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 1:52 PM, BYRNE D.S. <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>  I very much agree with Adrian's general comments but I suppose that on
>> reflection what worries me is the failure to have a voice in action which
>> manages to deal with reality as it is *and* to support a programme of
>> redistributive (by which I mean challenging exploitation in the classic
>> sense) social democracy. My quarrel with Marmot and say 'The Spirit Level'
>> is that that work, good though it is (despite some reservations about the
>> spirit level's modes of statistical reasoning) just posits equality as a
>> general good without recognizing the hard reality of completing interests
>> and in particular, to be clear, competing class interests. There is a US
>> literature which tries to make people there realize that the great majority
>> of them are working class in terms of economic relations. Here we used to
>> know something like that because of the class foundation of politics but
>> since New Labour the whole sensibility seems to have gone by the board. The
>> equation of working class with poor or chav is part of this programme and
>> the ability to be divisive in relation to benefits is reinforced by that
>> tendency.
>>
>> By the way has anybody anywhere any evidence that there are really
>> significant numbers of families / households with multi-generational
>> experience of benefit dependency through life? I very much doubt it mostly
>> because of the nature of reality and historical experience, but also by the
>> way because our longitudinal data sets are really badly deficient in
>> general in documenting the life trajectories of the poorest. The big thing
>> is that this bullshit is a myth. The little thing is that our tools
>> couldn't find it even it it wasn't a myth.
>>
>> David Byrne
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists on
>> behalf of Adrian Sinfield
>> *Sent:* Thu 08/12/2011 12:49
>> *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
>>
>>  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:// <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] <[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] <[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.
>>
>



Morag Treanor
School of Social Policy / Centre for Research on Families and Relationships
University of Edinburgh

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.