Brits - Who are you voting for in the European Elections?

I see Darra's point completely, what he's saying is 'it costs £x to buy 4 loaves of bread, 6 pints of milk, blah, blah, etc; if you earn less than y% more than this then you are living in poverty.' Under the current model a third of the population will ALWAYS be living in poverty, all you do is change who is and who isn't.

Materially, the poorest in society now are richer (after taking inflation into account) than they were in whenever, but relatively they are not, and they die younger, go to prison more, suffer mental and physical illness etc etc

The evidence is pretty clear that above a certain level of income, relative poverty is more relevant than absolute poverty in terms of these outcomes.

Now you could measure that by wealth or by income, but it's still the relevant stat.

And it's much harder to achieve. Had they set a target based on prices, as incomes have risen by more than prices, they would have got nearer much quicker.

Really, I gotta go. Sorry to derail thread slightly.

but explain to me what you're going to achieve by expressing poverty on average income, as opposed to the actual spending power of a person't income?

Well, theoretically basing the definition on the average helps keep things fairer, as opposed to stopping you being "poor" as soon as you've got an inside toilet. (Not that New Labour ever seemed to give that much of a shit about fairness from where I've been sitting, but hey.)

Under the current model a third of the population will ALWAYS be living in poverty, all you do is change who is and who isn't

Well, yes. There are problems with labelling etc here, but ultimately I think it's no bad thing to work with a model that stresses the difference between the haves and have-lesses, however that difference might be measured.

Plus more accurate reporting of the gap between the extremes of the income scale, or even between upper and lower quartiles, rather than using the median as an endlessly escaping floating poverty line

Very good point.

The evidence is pretty clear that above a certain level of income, relative poverty is more relevant than absolute poverty in terms of these outcomes.

obviously, i'm not au fait with the research, but 'relative' to what? an average, or the top of the scale?

GF, i'd need to know what you mean by 'fairer' before i could respond to that. I don't think it's a bad thing to try to guarantee a minimum level of actual living standards (yr inside toilet, if you like) before you start looking at where you are relative to everyone else, depending on where those standards are set.

anyway,

FOOD VOUCHERS

― U2 raped goat (darraghmac), Monday, 8 June 2009 13:22 (35 minutes ago) Permalink

is clearly the most right wing post on this thread so far.

GF, i'd need to know what you mean by 'fairer' before i could respond to that. I don't think it's a bad thing to try to guarantee a minimum level of actual living standards (yr inside toilet, if you like) before you start looking at where you are relative to everyone else, depending on where those standards are set

Aye, that's a given. But what I'm getting at is that it's the size of the gap between the richest and the poorest that really matters: ie even if dudes at the bottom of the pile are well-off enough to enjoy, say, tellies and PlayStations, they're still going to feel aggrieved if there are cunts sloshing around at the top of the pile with, literally, millions and millions of pounds to play with.

That, of course, is going to be the situation in any capitalist society: I can't really see a way around that. But at least by having a floating poverty point (if you like) you're at least paying lip service to this concept of fairness -- ie trying to make sure the gap between what different people have isn't too great -- rather than just saying: "OK, the proles have got their inside bogs: we can ignore them now."

I'm at work so I've not got time to look, but there's some interesting psycho-/sociological research that suggests it's the notion of perceived fairness that causes the biggest problems in society: ie a richer society with a bigger gap between richest and poorest is going to be more unsettled than a society that's poorer overall but has less space between richest and poorest.

(Sorry, that's not very elegantly phrased but, like I say, I should be working!)

That Tom Ewing article linked above is pretty decent. Generally think extremist parties getting elected provides a great 'welcome to big school' moment but MEPs having no profile and some power reduces that and I was surprised how put out by them getting in here&annoyed my vote should have probably gone to Labour.

Politics doesn't need more participants but smarter ones w/better debate. Don't think Cameron or whoever could make a strong case for the most basic tenets of the current political system to a sceptic, let alone try and persuade someone there are better solutions to their problems than voting BNP, so being disgusted at ppl for not taking part in mainstream politics seems a little off.

...i was surprised how put out i was by them... obv

ok, GF, i'm with you comprehension wise so far anyway, but i'd maybe be getting off here:

But what I'm getting at is that it's the size of the gap between the richest and the poorest that really matters:

i think it's more important to reach an actual minimum standard of living for even the poorest in a society than it is to deal with people's envy issues about what those 'c*nts at the top have that i don't'.

And yes, I wouldn't disagree with you there. But by bare-minimum standards, the UK ain't doing too badly at all. And those "envy issues" are, unfortunately, a very salient facet of a society's psychosocial make-up so there's no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't be considered.

"Politics of envy," Tories call it. "Politics of reality," I prefer.

once 'bare minimum' is met, then maybe political capital is more effectively spent making sure everyone has the opportunity to be one of those super rich c*nts than actually trying to decrease the gap.

A lot of it is more inadequacy than envy, and perceptions of worthlessness, just like school.

part of the problem is that the people engaged in doing the redistributing (and in deciding on how much you're 'worth' as a member of the deserving poor) are resented, maybe as much or more as the rich.

once 'bare minimum' is met, then maybe political capital is more effectively spent making sure everyone has the opportunity to be one of those super rich c*nts than actually trying to decrease the gap.

This is about as Thatcherite as you can get by the way.

i actually deleted the words and this bare minimum doesn't have to be based on thatcherite notions from the post, as it seemed a little 'methinks the poster protesteth overmuch'.

clearly not.

'envy issues' I don't like as a concept, partly because I don't care much about people's feelings, but more importantly because it trivialises the issue. There really are big downsides to inequality, because of the human tendency to band together - you get property surges, gated developments, placements-as-routes-into-employment, etc once part of society gets comparatively rich enough to make it all worthwhile, hence sink estates and declining social mobility

Yes. And as the planet's resources are squeezed it will be harder to justify the necessity of the super-rich. Probably harder to be super-rich. The Greens at the moment I see as well-meaning idiots but future leftist thinking is going to have to take into account sustainable economics and Labour as a party of simple redistribution or (hurray!) amelioration isn't really gonna cut it there either.

as the planets resources are squeezed, it will be harder to justify democracy to the super rich.

maybe political capital is more effectively spent making sure everyone has the opportunity to be one of those super rich c*nts than actually trying to decrease the gap

Umm. No, I couldn't disagree more. Not only does that ignore the basic statistical realities that are at least addressed by the moving-average approach (start with the concept that 50% always have to be below the mean and think it through from there), it also ignores the sociological ones: ie rapacious greed that might benefit a few lucky bastards might not be the best way forward (which in turn takes me back to the concept of unfairness as bad for a society's psychological wellbeing).

Everyone can be a rich cunt if only they're vicious and amoral enough: yeh, that was Thatcherism, wasn't it?

(Ismael Klata and Noodle Vague OTM in all manner of ways while I was writing that, btw.)

as the planets resources are squeezed, it will be harder to justify democracy to the super rich.

It'd be interesting to see how that played out. My reading of Roman history is that it usually sucked to be the Emperor.

Depends if you were taking a long- or short-term view, I guess :)

my point was more that removing perceived/real unfair barriers to success among the working classes or disadvantaged would be much more useful than just attempting to remove the super rich as a group, which i think may not be clear.

name me a politician that takes a long term view, or is even afforded the luxury of doing so.

xpost

OK, I'll settle for a pincer movement that deals with both extremities.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RAISING TAXES YOU BASTARD

politics is hard :(

1. Raise taxes
2. Shoot everyone who moans, in the face, repeatedly
3. ???
4. A better society for everyone!

(Note to policy wonks: this needs a bit of work. Can we put a positive spin on number 2?)

positive spin on 1, 2 is only a small step from the met's current modus operandi, 3 can be left on the long finger until after the election, but 4 isn't going to sit well with the media. needs work.

I've suddenly realised that the reason I can't take Nigel Farage at all seriously is because he looks like one of those South Park dudes with the heads that flip right open.

GF this book basically backs up what you're saying. I'm a little surprised it research hasn't been coopted by Labour as it's pretty darn convincing.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21KM%2BOMW42L._SL500_AA180_.jpg

More on their findings here http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/

metaphor here somewhere

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8089498.stm

Alison Pratt, from the National Farmers' Union, gave the following advice to others should they find themselves in a similar position.

"The best thing to do is to let the dog off the lead so it can run away because obviously a dog can run faster than you," she said.

now, i might be missing something here, but can anyone think of why this mightn't have been a great option?

xxpost to myself

Actually thinking about it I'm not too surprised that it hasn't gained greater traction in the mainstream yet, as it's obviously something which wouldn't fit with the rights worldview and is very damning about the total failure in this regard by the Labour government.

'uness you are blind, in which case, um,...' (xpost)

GF this book basically backs up what you're saying

Yes: superb. Couldn't remember where I'd seen this stuff but I'm pretty sure it was pegged to that book (and indeed website: I'll check some of that out later on). Awesome: thanks, Billy.

Equality Trust might wanna not consider not using Radiohead quotes as headlines on their front page. Or maybe throw a "Snakes on a Plane!" in there or something.

I haven't followed either of these particularly closely so may have got this wrong, but is there not an overlap with IDS's stuff on the broken society?

http://twitter.com/realnickgriffin

^^^See Woody Allen above.

Andrew Brons: the genteel face of neo-fascism

Jesus, this fucker eh?

Whew.

I ponder this both as a psychology student and a bemused citizen: could such lifelong dedication to such a discredited, antisocial and basically stupid cause be symptomatic of some form of personality disorder?

My guess: yes.

If it wears a suit and rosette, how could it possibly be delusional?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8089142.stm

^ its funny how all the BNP voters in that article are deluding themselves that that they are not racist.

One if the people from that link who voted BNP. He even has his pic on the page http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8089142.stm

BBC News website readers have been telling us why they decided to vote for the party.
MARK DAY, TEIGNMOUTH

I've never voted in the past, but I wanted to vote now.

I decided to vote for the BNP because I like what they are saying. They have an opinion and I want them to be heard.

Mark Day
I don't like the way the country has been run to date. I have seen British culture being eroded in the past few years, and British people being made to feel like second class citizens in their own country.

I must stress that I am not racist, but I do believe that when in Rome, do as the Romans do. I have no problem with skilled immigrants who come here and add to our economy and more importantly fit in with our way of life.

I do have a problem with so called 'no go zones' for whites. Some of my family are from Luton, and they will all tell you of the racial tension there. It simply doesn't work when you have mass uncontrolled immigration with no regard for the views of the native British people.

The BNP want to deport all criminal and illegal immigrants. What on earth is wrong with that? Do we want other countries' criminals here?

The BNP's view on foreign affairs is also good. It means no more illegal and immoral wars. No more invading other countries for 'peace keeping' missions. We will trade with other countries when it benefits us. Isn't that what trade is supposed to be about?

I'm totally sick to death of our country being run by out of touch politicians

The BNP will raise speed limits on the motorway! Hooray! Why on earth is the limit 70 miles-per-hour? Cars of today are far more advanced than cars of 30-40 years ago. Yet the speed limit hasn't changed.

The BNP will also stop persecuting motorists. This will be a welcome move, as I'm sick to death of the government using speed cameras, roadside traps and parking tickets as a source of revenue. If the BNP were in power the police would actually be fighting crime rather than hassling innocent people.

People think the BNP is racist. Is it racist to want to look after your country? I certainly don't think so. And I'm totally sick to death of our country being run by out of touch politicians who have everyone else but the native British peoples interests at heart.