 |
 |
This relates to an email discussion on the Social Policy Mail list as to whether there is any evidence at all for multi-generational families with no experience of work or for communities with no experience of work. The general conclusion is that this is an absurd myth. Ruth Lister got a list of parliamentary constituencies with a measure of % of households containing an adult who had never worked and I want to relate that to other key stats but can't find the promised list of key stats anywhere in ONS. Any ideas? Thanks David Byrne I have poked around in the new and not so lovely ONS website but can't actually find the promised set of key statistics for parliamentary statistics so that this variable can be related to other characteristics of the constituency. Any tips on how to find it. I will also ask Radstats. ________________________________ From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists on behalf of Ruth Lister Sent: Wed 14/12/2011 11:36 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: current postings on wealth, worklessness, alternative strategies For what it's worth I'm attaching the data put in the HoC library. Apologies for the attachment but it's not something that can easily be pasted into an email. best wishes Ruth Professor the Baroness (Ruth) Lister of Burtersett Emeritus Professor of Social Policy Department of Social Sciences Loughborough University Loughborough Leicestershire LE11 3TU [log in to unmask] http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/staff/lister.html I can be contacted at the House of Lords on 020 7219 8984 (where a voicemail message can be left) or urgent messages can be left via 020 7219 5353 ******************************************************** ________________________________________ From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen McKay [[log in to unmask]] Sent: 14 December 2011 07:02 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: current postings on wealth, worklessness, alternative strategies DWP ad hoc analysis from 2010 also covers this topic at the level of the UK population http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/adhoc_analysis/2010/Households_who_have_never_worked.pdf http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd1/adhoc_analysis/2010/Individuals_who_have_never_worked.pdf 1.7% of households contain no-one who have ever worked, of which three-quarters are single people or lone parents. [Note that part (b) of Field's question went unanswered owing to small sample sizes.] Steve ________________________________________ 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: 13 December 2011 23:57 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: current postings on wealth, worklessness, alternative strategies I don't take the same line as most who have posted on this thread but as one who is nevertheless interested in the subject I would draw posters attention to some statistics that have just be made available. In response to a PQ from Frank Field a detailed reply has been made available on what proportion of households in each parliamentary constituency has a) any adult and b) all adults who have never worked. The statistics were not given in Hansard, only the letter from the DG of the ONS, but the table(s) 'will be placed in the Library of the House.' See Hansard for 12 December, Column 523W. Paul Ashton --- On Fri, 9/12/11, Adrian Sinfield <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Adrian Sinfield <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: current postings on wealth, worklessness, alternative strategies To: [log in to unmask] Date: Friday, 9 December, 2011, 16:58 I would strongly support all these proposals. It is important to get the message out - to papers such as The Guardian to encourage those already likely to agree with us who welcome the latest evidence or analysis to challenge others. But we also need to get it out to other media to make sure that they are aware that there is an alternative view and to get a debate going. If only we could also find a good satirist or cartoonist to take the issue up - and get that out there. It would be very good to see all the contributions pulled together. I have been very glad to see the discussions of what evidence there is on generations out of work and similar claims. The return of this example of the otherness is significant. It is of course not new. Interviewing men out of work in upstate New York in 1964-5 Dorothy and I were often told by the rest of the community that many or most of these men's fathers had been out of work ... as if the recession of the 1930s had not had anything to do with it. In the UK, even though the pathologising 'problem families' was still being taught on many social work and other courses, I don't recall the same frequency of generational claims when interviewing men out of work in North Shields on Tyneside tin 1963-4. However, that particular discounting of need and hardship was already growing, and was vigorous in the 1970s with the encouragement of Iain Duncan Smith's predecessor in so many ways, Sir Keith Joseph - see, for example, John Welshman's and John Macnicol's writings on and around that topic. However, I hope any pulling together of the contributions so far will note that my original reference to persisting idleness went much further than generations. I am not just being pedantic. I believe that the actual words used by Iain Duncan Smith need closer attention as they provide an indication of how far the presentation of 'benefit dependency' has gone at the 'highest' levels of government. In the Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture in March this year the Secretary of State responsible for welfare reform 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'. I think that descriptions such as 'out of work all their lives...and have never seen a family or even a community member in work' and their repetition takes myth-selling a stage further. They raise questions about the ways in which policy issues are being reframed to ensure acceptance. The pathological construction of others as them the poor, if not paupers, in contrast to us as hard-working taxpayers pushes them away into a separate underclass in the worst Down with the Poor and earlier traditions. Before his death Anthony Sampson remarked on the similarities in Britain of the first decade of this century with the first decade of the last. He was mainly writing about the distribution of power, wealth and respect. Perhaps we need to go back to the presentations of pauperism in the late 19th century - see, for example, Peter Keating's editing of Into Unknown England, 1866-1913. I wish that I had paid more attention to GDH Cole's comment of 1955 ''The welfare state is only a way of redistributing some income without interfering with the causes of its maldistribution'. At the very least I should stop just pointing out that basic unemployment benefit/JSA has fallen by some 50% against average pay in the last 40 years but should add some other comparators such as the 1000% increase for FTSE CEOs over the same period. In fact the latest High Pay Commission report would put that rise even higher. - and yet it is the unemployed who, we are constantly told, need financial incentives to do better. I thought that I had escaped 'the professional ideology of social pathologists' that C. Wright Mills criticised - but I have much more to do. Adrian On 9 Dec 2011, at 15:52, Aaron Barbour wrote: and... i'd say that rather than just one website (though this would be useful) to collate all of this rich discussion and information that everyone puts a condensed version / summary of these up on their own websites / blogs etc... that will build 'link' capital (as they say in the trade) and so increase readership. We could also approach some of the blogs like 'comment is free', left foot forward, tuc's touchstone blog etc... to post a piece that encapsulates these postings into one. You might also be interested in a short piece we published earlier in October examining the impact of language stigmatising people claiming benefits: http://www.community-links.org/linksuk/?p=2820 A Aaron Barbour Head of linksUK Community Links tel: 020 7473 9666 email: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]> blog: www.community-links.org/linksuk<http://www.community-links.org/linksuk> ________________________________ From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Caroline Glendinning Sent: 09 December 2011 14:56 To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]> Subject: current postings on wealth, worklessness, alternative strategies Ruth has highlighted the really interesting postings over the past few days. As SPA Chair, I will endeavour to bring together the postings and put them on the website. We will also pick up the specific issue of BBC coverage and write to the Director General about this (something that Ruth and Fran Bennett had advocated immediately after the Humphreys' programme). However, it's deeply ironic that we are posting these insightful messages to each other when we are all concerned at the current dominance of anti-welfare discourses and the lack of any serious challenge to these. Therefore PLEASE can I urge contributors to edit their posting into the form of a letter to the Guardian newspaper. Not all will get published but there's a chance that at least some will, particularly if the volume is high enough. You can email letters [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>; please make sure you include a postal address and daytime telephone number. To remind you, the OECD report, BBC coverage and the latest Social Attitudes survey are all recent 'news' items that have prompted postings and could be referred to in a letter. And if you are able to mention the SPA as well, so much the better. Please get writing! Best wishes Caroline From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Ruth Lister Sent: 09 December 2011 12:48 To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: BBC coverage of this report -- the meaning of work This has been a really interesting and useful thread, which exemplifies how valuable the mailbase can be. I'm sorry I don't have time to contribute as totally preoccupied by Welfare Reform Bill which moves to report stage on Monday. But did want to second John VW's suggestion for the contributions to be brought together somewhere. It could be a very useful source to point people to in responding to the demonisation of people on benefit. Would someone be able to do this and perhaps put it on the SPA website?? best Ruth Professor the Baroness (Ruth) Lister of Burtersett Emeritus Professor of Social Policy Department of Social Sciences Loughborough University Loughborough Leicestershire LE11 3TU [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]> http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ss/staff/lister.html I can be contacted at the House of Lords on 020 7219 8984 (where a voicemail message can be left) or urgent messages can be left via 020 7219 5353 ******************************************************** ________________________________ From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of John Veit-Wilson [[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] Sent: 09 December 2011 12:29 To: [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: BBC coverage of this report -- the meaning of work This raises the question of what is work for these purposes. My well-worn facetious example is the members of the monarchy -- do they work? Have any of them ever worked? If in this discussion it means selling labour power to earn money needed for living expenses, then any of the capitalist class whose income from invested capital [flows from executive pensions and the like, not just final stock locations like shares and land] is sufficient to give them an overabundant level of living, do not work in this sense but [to put it crudely] indulge in hobby activity. We all know the discourse of work is far more complex than that [don't even start on the gendered aspects]. "The Historical Meanings of Work" ed P Joyce [CUP 1987] has some interesting papers. << [The Independent Labour Party's] ... objective is to build up an industrial commonwealth in which none will suffer want because of the over-abundance of others.[1]<https://email.lboro.ac.uk/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx> What is an 'overabundance' of income? There is no value-free way of choosing a definition of fair high pay. Even the choice of an arbitrary percentile on the income distribution is laden with assumptions about the meanings of that percentile and not another. A major problem in evaluating what is fair pay is the issue of the social and economic position of the observer making the evaluation. ________________________________ [1]<https://email.lboro.ac.uk/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx> James Keir Hardie writing in March 1893 soon after the foundation of the ILP, forerunner of the Labour Party. Quoted in B Holman, Keir Hardie: Labour's Greatest Hero? Lion Hudson, Oxford, 2010; p 77; emphasis added. >> So as Dave Byrne suggests, it's better to stick to what this current political argument is really about, which is the demonisation not of those who don't work but of those who do claim their entitlement to insurance benefits or social assistance for income deficiency during periods of deficient labour market demand for their marginal profitability to employers, or periods of sickness etc conditions which make them unacceptable to employers. From that perspective, research into national insurance claiming patterns and credits over generations might be fruitful, if the generational identifications could be made and the records still exist in DWP. John VW PS -- there are such a lot of interesting contributions to this discussion that I wonder if they could be edited together into a website page on 'what the experts say on the topic'. There'd be a lot of scope for using that sort of thing, to augment the usual mythbusting pages, which themselves need to be much more promoted to the media workers to use before they air their readers'/listeners' prejudices. ------------------------------------------------------------ From Professor John Veit-Wilson Newcastle University GPS -- Sociology Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, England. Telephone: +44[0]191-222 7498 email [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]> www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/j.veit-wilson<http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/j.veit-wilson>/ ________________________________ From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Kevin Sheridan Sent: 09 December 2011 11:26 To: [log in to unmask]<[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 Does anyone have any data on numbers of the "idle rich", those that live on inherited wealth, over generations? Kevin Sheridan Kevin Sheridan Director of Community Engagement Institute for Health and Human Development Suite UH250 University of East London Stratford Campus Water Lane London E15 4LZ T: 0751 519 9454 [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]> Please visit the Institute's website at: http://www.uel.ac.uk/IHHD For Map: http://www.uel.ac.uk/ihhd/documents/HowtogettoIHHD.PDF The world's leading epidemiologists conclude that an estimated 5.4 million people died from conflict-related causes in Congo since 1998 (http://www.theirc.org/special-reports/congo-forgotten-crisis) From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of BYRNE D.S. Sent: 09 December 2011 09:33 To: [log in to unmask]<[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 It is certainly the case that there is an inter-generational pattern of experiencing spells of worklessness which in effect indicates the exposure of poorer people across generations to the disadvantages of flexible labour markets and poor work. That is not the same however as inter-generational total benefit dependency which implies no real connection with work generation on generation. The Macmillan study identified below is quite interesting although I think the regression techniques deployed are in fact fairly useless for exploring complex causality. Far more important is what I regard as the misuse of the word worklessness since this is operationalized not in terms of real data describing life course but rather on the basis of observations of father's employment status at a set of time points, usually just two. In other words we do not have information on life course but just snapshots. Likewise son's worklessness is defined in terms of experiencing a period of long term unemployment, not in terms of no connection with the labour force. Always look at how something is defined. And that said there is a really rather odd tendency in the paper to assign substantive significance when there is no statistical significance. Worth reading and lots of interesting information, but not a support for the myth of multiple generations with no connection with the labour force. David Byrne ________________________________ From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists on behalf of Peter Whiteford Sent: Fri 09/12/2011 06:06 To: [log in to unmask]<[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 If one is interested in large scale statistical studies, there is a fairly comprehensive OECD working paper reviewing the literature on intergenerational mobility in many dimensions (including welfare receipt) that can be found at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/28/38335410.pdf The discussion of welfare receipt is at pages 34 to 36. A more focused Australian review can be found at http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/research/austsocialpolicy/Documents/austsocpolicy_2006/downloads.htm Interestingly, neither review refers to any UK literature. There is a recent UK study of multi-generation joblessness by Lindsey Macmillan at http://www.bris.ac.uk/cmpo/publications/papers/2010/wp231.pdf "The results indicate that there is a large correlation in workless experiences between fathers' and sons' in the UK. Son's from both cohorts are over twice as likely to experience workless spells themselves if they come from a family where the father was not observed in work throughout childhood compared to a father observed as employed at either 11(10) or 16. ... Controlling for observable characteristics accounts for 30% of the intergenerational correlation in the two cohorts and the use of more intensive workless measures of the father increases this percentage to 42% and 48% in the NCDS and BCS respectively." An Australian study referred to in the first two links finds a fairly similar level of association between parent's and children's' patterns of welfare receipt, but it worth noting that these are increased probabilities, not certainties. For example, while children whose parents received welfare when they were young were more than twice as likely (as children whose parents did not receive welfare payments) to receive welfare themselves before the age of 25, about two-thirds of this group (living in families receiving welfare during their childhood) did not receive welfare themselves. As the quote above suggests, identifying causal factors is also complex, although levels of educational attainment appears to be crucial. There is also the issue that ideally one should compare parents and children at the same age, and once they have had sufficient time to enter the workforce and become established (say by the time they are in their 30s). I doubt that there is any large scale study that looks at three generation welfare receipt, since if you wanted to look even at people currently in their early 20s you would need studies that cover the past 40 years or more to work out what their grandparents were experiencing at the same age. From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of MacDonald, Rob Sent: Friday, 9 December 2011 7:40 AM To: [log in to unmask]<[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 Intergenerational Worklessness? Hunting the Yeti Yes, we identify ourselves! Thanks to John VW for the plug. Led by Tracy Shildrick and with Andy Furlong, Johann Roden and myself, we're conducting a qualitative study (and review of the literature) for JRF on 'intergenerational cultures of worklessness'. In essence, this is dogged 'shoe leather ethnography' and interviewing over 9 months in particularly deprived locales of Teesside and Glasgow, searching out, in the first instance, 'three generations of families were no-one has ever worked' (to hold interviews at each generation level). Our strategy, if unsuccessful in filling our sample quota of 20 such families, was to move to 'two generations of families were no-one has ever worked' and then, if still struggling to find recruits, to 'extensive worklessness' in two generations (e.g. a very long-term workless father and an unemployed seventeen year old son). We're writing the draft report now, probably to be launched/ published by JRF in early-mid 2012. We're still finalising what we say amongst ourselves and JRF haven't seen it so can't really say much more - apart from, suffice to say, that we had to deploy the whole recruitment strategy (above), the Yeti proves very elusive and that we look forward to sharing our findings in the near future. Also see Gaffney, D (2010) The myth of the intergenerational workless household, http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/09/the-myth-of-the-intergenerational-workless-household/ Rob Prof. Robert MacDonald AcSS Professor of Sociology/ Deputy Director - Social Futures Institute School of Social Sciences and Law Teesside University Middlesbrough UK TS1 3BA email. [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]> tel. 01642 342351 (direct) fax. 01642 342399 http://www.tees.ac.uk/sections/research/social_futures/staff_profile_details.cfm?staffprofileid=U0000948 ________________________________ From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of John Veit-Wilson [[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] Sent: 08 December 2011 14:37 To: [log in to unmask]<[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 Multi-generational unemployment -- I was recently told there is already an ongoing research project trying to find the 3rd generation unemployed in a couple of industrial cities, but so far without success [the researchers can identify themselves if they want to -- I shan't as the work hasn't been published]. Apparently it's like the yeti -- impossible to disprove. Hypothetically, if 3 generations worked in for example a coal mine which closed, all 3 could then be simultaneously signing on [synchronic]. But that is very different from the myth of entire successions of lives [diachronic], even though at the level of myth creation they might be related. However, the myth needs to be challenged very time it is uttered. What have IDS's officials produced in evidence? If any single 'family' [do they mean household of unrelated people?] could be found, what does this say about the profitability of its members to local employers and the capability of the local jobcentre staff to do their boasted job of helping people into work they are meant to do? His department and its contractors are incompetent? There are also unemployed people whose disabilities are not outwardly visible [psychological and personality conditions] -- these too are subject to mythology about living on the dole or malingering [John Humphrys referred to one in prejudiced terms in Splott when he was young]. At a time when even the visibly incapacitated are publicly abused, the situation of the non-visible may be even worse in terms of prejudiced discriminations of the mythological kind government ministers and their acolytes purvey. John VW. ------------------------------------------------------------ From Professor John Veit-Wilson Newcastle University GPS -- Sociology Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, England. Telephone: +44[0]191-222 7498 email [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]> www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/j.veit-wilson<http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/j.veit-wilson>/ ________________________________ From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of BYRNE D.S. Sent: 08 December 2011 13:52 To: [log in to unmask]<[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 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]<[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:///> <https://stone.tees.ac.uk/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx> 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.heejungchung.com/> <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]<[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Karen Rowlingson > [[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] > Sent: 08 December 2011 09:40 > To: [log in to unmask]<[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<http://www.oecd.org <http://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]<[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<http://www.oecd.org <http://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<http://web.pdf <http://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]<[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<http://www.oecd.org <http://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]<[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]<[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Paul Ashton >> [[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>] >> Sent: 07 December 2011 20:07 >> To: [log in to unmask]<[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<http://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]<[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> From: BYRNE D.S. <[log in to unmask]<[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<http://www.oecd.org/els/social/inequality> >> To: [log in to unmask]<[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]<[log in to unmask]> -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. This message has been scanned by the UEL anti-spam filters hosted by Websense<http://www.websense.com/content/MessagingSecurity.aspx> Report this email as spam.<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/HnCzN5UvchHTndxI%21oX7Ur5iz8OzEQ5mujfT78Eio1Y%216Sj4pV3SkiBxjAcRHBf73y0Wgd5FmiAeaPLWGci2%21g==> Adrian Sinfield [log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. ****************************************************** Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk. *******************************************************