In many parts of the country, you can live very well with 26,000 £.

There is no right or entitlement for every British citizen or resident to live in (admittedly expensive) London.

I think you need to be able to say something about ridiculously high rents to talk about this properly. Because these 100,000 children or 20,000 potentially homeless don’t see the cash, it flows off to landlords. So if Labour were in a position to say – London rents are too high, but there is no point in punishing those who lose their jobs by making them homeless. We believe that the answer is to get London prices under control by getting some proper social housing built , not evict the unemployed – something like that ? It would mean Labour’s leadership would need a positive plan about housebuilding – something they sadly spent a decade avoiding .

Because these 100,000 children or 20,000 potentially homeless don’t see the cash, it flows off to landlords.

*Clap, clap*. At least some of us get this. Housing benefit (as it stands) doesn’t go near the bank accounts of the claimant (which is another reason why IDS’ presentation of it as income is so weaselly). The issue then is rent inflation by the recipient landlords.

@1 – No, you can’t. Not when you’re disabled and have additional costs. Because that’s who it’ll hit. And it’ll make families separate. Costing the taxpayer MORE.

The out-of-control portion of it is rent. And of course we can’t have rent caps, no. That might SOLVE problems. Might prevent social cleansing.

@2 – Building houses is too long term to be useful right now.

@Andreas Moser #1:

<blockquote.There is no right or entitlement for every British citizen or resident to live in (admittedly expensive) London.

Not even those already resident in London? You’re obviously not worried about the human cost to those affected, but what is the cost to society – both finanial and in terms of dislocation – of the exodus from London that this cap seems destined to bring about? Even Eric Pickles reckons that the changes will render 20,000 people homeless.

If I am rendered homeless from the area in which my family has lived for years, and apply for housing in one of those fabled areas where housing is to be had for a groat a week, I will find that the local housing authority will refer me straight back whence I came (for lack of local connection) – after having spent money housing me pendign its decision.

If I do find housing there, I will have no family or friends around me. If I fall ill and require hospitalisation, I will bed-block because I have no support network locally.

In general, the effect of the changes will be to break up those communities on which the Government relies for the realisation of its “Big Society”; to increase social dislocation and thereby both crime and the potential for a repeat of last summer. And all in the name of increasing the welfare bill through the financial costs of the measure.

The answer seems to be: don’t fight the Tories on their preferred ground. Lead with the child poverty figure instead. After all, that’s why you care about fighting the bill.

“Government to Push 100,000 Kids Below Poverty Line” just doesn’t give the policy the same populist ring, does it?

AM @ 1

In many parts of the country, you can live very well with 26,000

Not if you are in the position where you qualify for that type of benefit, you cannot.

To be honest, I sort of see why the Tories have been driven to this, but they really need to look at the bigger picture.

How did we get here?

One of the many issues I have with British politics is the often cynical ways the Tories in particular (though the labour Party can do this) operate.

Look, we used to have two mechanisms to control housing costs in this Country. First we had council housing (millions of houses built by decent Tories, BTW), secondly we had rent control.

During the eighties we did away with the first and then we dropped the second. ‘What about the low paid, I hear you say’, well we introduced housing benefit to protect people from being driven to homelessness.

Now we have all (or most of us) forgotten the reason we have housing benefit in the first place and those people who we used to protect are now able to be thrown to the wolves. This happens time and time again. They solve a problem that they create and when no one is looking they re-introduce the self same problem when we have all got complacent. Of course we have not built council houses, nor have we re-introduced rent control either, so given that there are no houses and no bar on rents what are these people to do?

Listen, in the past the Tories have been able to solve this problem, they built quarter of a million council houses a year not all that long ago, but they now seem to be constrained via an alien political ideology, imported from the Republican Party of America.

“But let’s just look at the facts here. The government’s own figures indicate that 100,000 children will be pushed below poverty line on account of these changes.

Even communities secretary Eric Pickles privately admits that 20,000 will be made homeless by the proposals. Far from saving any money, local government will actually end up out of pocket.”

The actual changes that will lead to this are not the cap of 26k a year which will effect few people (mainly large families in central london), but the more technical changes such as move to the 30th decile when calculating LHA, changes to entitlement for single people, increased means testing, removal of childcare components of tax credits etc etc.

Dave, you’ve fallen for the standard media trap – you are focusing on the one part of the proposals that will effect hardly anybody (and thus isn’t the bit that will cause homelessness) and are ignoring the technical changes that will really do the harm here. It suggests you haven’t paid any attention to the detail here. the cap is irrelevant, and focusing on it is falling for the tory trap.

IDS wants to portray his opponents as people who think the benefits system should pay over 26k to people because he knows that is an argument he will win. It seems many of them are too thick to realise it.

There are issues already mentioned such as the high rental costs in some areas, the human costs and the social cleansing, but how about the practical implications – it is not even as simple as just moving.

You need to begin by understanding that people on benefits often have exhausted any savings they may have had.

So firstly when considering a move, looking for accomodation in a different area costs money – train fares, bus fares, petrol.

Secondly, once you find a place you usually have to pay a fee to the landlord or agent for admin and credit reference agency searches – this can be several hundred pounds.

Thirdly, many will have debt problems and will fail this search, or the landlord refuses to accept those on benefits – in order to secure accomodation, these people will be forced to pay either a higher deposit or up to 6 months rent in advance if they are unable to find a guarantor. Even if they can find a guarantor then a new fee has to paid to do the admin and searches on the guarantor.

Fouthly, any deposit has be paid up front, and can be from one month to three months rent in normal circumstances, with no guarantee that you will get your current deposit back.

Fifthly, there are moving costs to pay, for instance for a removal van, or furniture if moving from a furnished to unfurnished property.

Lastly there are other costs, for instance new school uniforms due to the change in school.

This is why many will be unable to move and unable to afford the rent, and therefore will eventually be evicted and homeless.

On a personal note, the various Tory cuts have impacted us quite badly, but my brother in law (who is a high rate taxpayer) not at all. Both myself and my husband are disabled, my husband was made redundant from his public sector job last year, and is now self employed, but no profits as yet. I face losing contribution based ESA in April, (unless I can get a better assessment this time and be placed in the support group) and who knows how the PIP’s will affect us. We moved into a rented property that had one more bedroom than is considered necessary, and now are unable to move due the costs mentioned above. We never dreamed that I woud become disabled and unable to work when our joint income was over £40,000 a year. We now live a life of austerity, facing homelessness once the ESA stops. The cuts have and still are eroding away our income, until I’m sure we’ll end up in a carbboard box if the Tories have their way.

We both woud rather be working and earning our own money, but my disability prevents me being employed, and my husband is trying hard to make self employment work, so we are not dependant on the state. Up until 2 years ago I had been employed since university, and my husband, now in his 50′s has been employed since school, yet now we’re (and other claimants) described as ‘scroungers’ and ‘fakers’ by the press. Disgusting.

Well said!

I find myself in the bizarre position of opposing the welfare reform bill, because there isn’t a politician in the country with the balls to do the right thing, rather than the politically astute thing.

Doesn’t matter who will suffer or how many. Doesn’t matter if they’ll be made homeless or even die – because opposing it would be political suicide!!!

Makes ya proud don’t it?

“Why should they live in London when I can’t?” “Why should they have children – I can’t afford them” “Why should my tax money pay for feckless layabouts” “Why should they have TVs/new shoes/cars when I can’t?”

The politics of jealousy. The politics of division and demonisation.

It’s a slippery slope and has only ever led to terrible things since the world began.

Can we call the private landlords welfare scroungers?

The tory creation of the buy to let market,and the use of bed and breakfasts created an army of private welfare scroungers all relying on govt handouts. Trouble is, they are mostly idle tory supporters. So they are called business people, or visionaries, or some such claptrap.

Never mind, when all the coloured people move out of London to live in the tory shires Iam sure their voters will be delighted.

@Planshift #8:

The actual changes that will lead to this are not the cap of 26k a year which will effect few people (mainly large families in central london)…

You might be surprised at quite how many people would be affected by the overall cap. I would agree though that it is the entirety of the reforms (including, importantly, the drive to push up social housing rents to market levels) that will cause the problems.

The UK’s post tax median household income is about £20k.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom

Would some lefties arguing against a cap please answer the following questions:

1. Why would capping benefits above the UK’s median household income suddenly push people into poverty? Or are those people earning UK median wages living in poverty?

2. Is it fair that taxpayers earning the median wage or less should be contributing so much of their earnings to others on benefits, who are not contributing and potentially recieving more? It requires ALL the tax paid by 5 households on median income to pay for one family’s benefits capped at £26k.

3. Is it morally right, both for the recipient and for those taxpayers funding the benefits, that the welfare state can trap people in benefits dependency as those people can’t find a job which would pay them more, and therefore are better off on benefits?

4. Do you think the welfare state in it’s current form is sustainable, given that real terms spending on welfare almost double under Labour, and now accounts for 50% of all government revenues and 40% of spending (the difference thanks to our massive budget deficit). Is it sensible that spending on welfare under the last government increase dmuch faster than GDP growth, and did so during a period of economic boom?

Who gives a shit anymore? Don’t get me wrong, a benefits cap is both morally and economically stupid, but its very popular with the populace at large. Why? Because the majority of people in this country (at least England) are selfish, venal, bitter and reactionary cunts who want so see anyone and everyone they hate suffer and die.

If the Conservatives want to win the next election at a canter, all they need to offer is a bullet in the face of every brown person, homosexuals to be strung up by the balls and the unemployed should be forced to work in factories that slowly fill up with poisonous gas. So they work when they die.

The big problem for the Left is how to counter such a groundswell of people who will willingly cut of their noses to stab their neighbours’ faces.

“I would agree though that it is the entirety of the reforms ”

Yes. Although I think there is one thing worth pointing out here; the principle of universal credit plus introducing a taper rate is a worthwhile reform. It isn’t the revolutionary reform IDS thinks it is (actually given the incompetence of DWP at being able to do anything it pretty much is – just not in the way IDS thinks it is) but it is a worthwhile reform for 2 reasons; (1) it vastly simplified the process of claiming benefits into one set of forms* with a monthly reporting requirment, (2) for people without childcare costs** the introduction of a taper rate offers a big improvement particularly for people doing temping/agency/infrequent work.

The problem is the nasty stuff getting done now means that when UC gets introduced people will already have suffered major reductions, and the consequences will have happened. It is these technical changes that need to be opposed***.

* One of the ironies of this is that due to the complexity of the system many benefits have been unclaimed. Simplifying it means that these unclaimed benefits will now form part of the calculation of what a person will recieve in his/her monthly UC payment – the irony being some people may end up with more money.

** – The changes to how childcare is calculated, and removal of tax credits for people in work means the incentive to work for people with children has now gone. Not that any of the right wingers who’ve spent a decade complaining about incentives in the system seem to care.

*** – One of the dangers is that once UC is in place, a future politician can simply cut the level by announcing an overall reduction of – say 10% – without making any calculations. However at least doing so would be more transparent than what they are doing now.

Yepp! And therein lies the actual problem – 60%+ of the population are Daily Mail readers (at heart) and sadly, the inevitable consequence is that this is happening. Next immigrants will be chucked out head first; then the EU membership will be at the very least watered down; one hoped for consequence being to be able to send home all East Europeans that ‘have taken our jobs’, etc. etc. The cosy feeling before of politicians being slightly more intellectual and caring than your average Daily Mail editor and reader is gone – now these (their) ideas are set in practise on a large scale and you are going to have to live with it unless you emigrate…

“. Is it fair that taxpayers earning the median wage or less should be contributing so much of their earnings to others on benefits”

Tyler, I’m in favour of the cap (qualified support) and support the principle of UC. (its the technical changes that are happening before UC that I oppose). However there are a couple of points here that you need to accept;

(1) the main reason behind the growth of benefit levels was rent inflation – money that goes straight to landlords.
(2) Most reciepients of housing benefit also work and pay tax on their income.

So if you are serious about reducing the welfare bill you need to start from these facts and aim to reduce rent levels/subsidy to landlords.

Planeshift – Er, what’s good about a higher taper rate being introduced?

Moreover, it’s about slapping conditionality onto more people and cutting the bill (and hence will pay less).

@13 – Oh yea, within a few years there’s going to be council housing where housing benefit won’t cover the bills. It’s ridiculous.

@14 – It is morally right to break up families because of the failings of the government’s housing policy?

Spending on it will SOAR thanks to the unemployed. And of course people like you will use as an excuse to write off millions more people. It’s not like they’re Human, they’re poor after all.

Absolutely dead right! the only reason for this policy is for \Osborne to score points at Party Conference, and neither he nor IDS has the intellectual firepower to think of anything else to do. welfare to work only works when there is work for people to do.

@ 15

“The big problem for the Left is how to counter such a groundswell of people who will willingly cut of their noses to stab their neighbours’ faces.”

I’d say the left should be focusing on real problems, not ridiculously melodramatic scenarios like the one you just offered. Is an angry rant really so enjoyable that it doesn’t matter whether or not you’re ranting about something real?

I’m opening myself up to accusations of ‘concern trolling’ here, so let me state for the record that I don’t think a policy that pushes children into poverty can possibly be the best solution to any problem.

That being said: can someone who understands the ins and outs of the HB system please confirm whether it is or isn’t the case that that system enables some workless families to live in areas where typical working families can’t afford to live? And if so, does that mean some workless families are at risk of losing their homes if they find work (and so lose their entitlement to HB)?

If that’s right, that situation does look pretty intolerable. But maybe this is just a distortion that the Tories can get away with because many people don’t seem to understand that working people can claim HB too.

Sue Marsh @ 11

Why should I pay for them to live in London when I can’t afford to?

Why should I pay for their TVs/new shoes/cars when I can’t afford such things?

Of course you might argue that the above questions represent the politics of jealousy, division and demonisation, but I think most working taxpayers would consider them to be perfectly reasonable.

@ 18 Planeshfit

I’m not arguing your point on rent/housing, which clearly has some merit. That said, the median income of £20k INCLUDES benefits payments. So my questions still stand…

Though it has become clear that a lot of social housing (20% ish, from that independent report) of the 3.8m units in the UK are being sub-let or their tennants don’t really require subsidised council rents. Solving this problem would clearly be the quickest and most effective way of clearing much of the social housing backlog.

@ 23 Pagar…..and Sue Marsh

Normally the politics of jealousy works the other way around. It’s normally the left complaining about “the rich”, how they don’t pay their fair share and demonising them for their comfortable, yet earned, lifestyles.

@ Planeshift

So if you are serious about reducing the welfare bill you need to start from these facts and aim to reduce rent levels/subsidy to landlords.</i?

Is the thinking that people poor enough to need that kind of help cannot be trusted to use the money responsibly and, given the chance, would spend it all on Stella and home delivered pizza?

CM @ 15:

“Because the majority of people in this country (at least England) are selfish, venal, bitter and reactionary cunts who want so see anyone and everyone they hate suffer and die. If the Conservatives want to win the next election at a canter, all they need to offer is a bullet in the face of every brown person, homosexuals to be strung up by the balls and the unemployed should be forced to work in factories that slowly fill up with poisonous gas”

Oh grow up! As CG says at 21: “Is an angry rant really so enjoyable that it doesn’t matter whether or not you’re ranting about something real?”

The people of UK are some of the most decent, tolerant and civilised in the world. Which is why so many people from other countries would like to come to live here! Having travelled widely, I would not live permanently anywhere else, except possibly the Netherlands or Denmark.

@12 – Sally

Amazingly I find myself in agreement with Sally here.

I have always hated the way the Labour government dramatically increased the amounts that greedy landlords were paid from working class taxpayers – still do.

I never liked Peter Mandelson saying Labour were happy to see people get “Filthy Rich” whilst they rewarded the bankers like no government in history and Blair swanned around the world making £millions.

I’m glad this coalition government is clamping down on Labour unfairness and despite the minority opinion this author espouses, if Labour continue to mess about and advocate supporting unfairness it will drive the working man to support minority nut job parties – the kind the likes of Leon Wolfson support and Labour will be whacked big time at the next election.

Chickens coming home to roost I feel. After watching the squirm fest of Chuka Umunna being roasted by Andrew Neil on the politics show yesterday I can see why Ed Miliband is keeping his head down…

1. Yes, Housing Benefit is a subsidy to landlords. So cutting it will lead to a reduction in many rents in many areas, unless landlords can let their properties to people who can pay the rents without HB.

2. Housing Benefit and social housing are riddled with fraud:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9030127/Fifth-of-council-house-tenancies-found-to-have-indications-of-fraud.html

@29 Most landlords refuse to let to people on benefits. I’m sure they’ll find enough people not on benefits to let to that they won’t need to lower rents.

No-one seems to be making the point that a family forced to move out of their house because of the cap will struggle to find a new place to rent as most landlords won’t let to people on benefits. This isn’t just in London but across the UK. Where should they go?

With apologies to Dave (who presumably didn’t chose it):

Headline: Welfare Reform Bill: why won’t anybody say it’s just plain wrong?

Answer: The opinion polls (if anybody is restricted to politicians).

What this may or may not tell us about politicians of parties that claim to represent the constituencies that are affected by these reforms but then stay quiet (other than Lord Ashdown and his ilk) is interesting. But perhaps it might also tell us something about the great tension in the current left-wing political movement, which is based on the votes (mainly) of the ‘working class’ areas, but which focuses its attention on ‘liberal’ policies, and which does not necessarily seem able to marry the two problems.

Pagar @ 25

Get rid of these two components and market rents would fall considerably.

I am not too sure about the latter and will concede you may have a point here, for now. But you could not be more wrong if you went to special wrongness lessons when it comes to the former. Social housing vastly decreased during the eighties as it was sold off at knock down prices and as a result rents shot up.

What we need to bring private rents well as the outrageous housing benefit bill down is a vast increase in publicly owned housing administered via local councils and most importantly, exempted from ‘Right to buy’.

@8 is pretty much spot on. The £500 a week cap is by far the least objectionable of the changes but is being focused on because it seems shocking that anyone can claim so much. In reality few people can but people on much lower rates of benefit are also facing big cuts.

Richard @ 29:

But, by your own reasoning, if a private landlord lets to an HB claimant, that is because he cannot find a non-claimant, because you hold that “Most landlords refuse to let to people on benefits”. So what is your evidence for claiming that “they’ll find enough people not on benefits to let to that they won’t need to lower rents” (sic)?

The landlord has two choices: either he lowers the rent to within the HB cap (so retaining his claimant tenants) or he tries to find non-claimant tenants even though he failed to find one previously. I know which I think is more likely…

@11. Sue Marsh: The politics of envy doesn’t really come into the equation, as nobody is actually saying don’t have a big family or don’t live in an expensive area, they are actually saying don’t expect someone else to pay if you make those lifestyle choices, and that’s rather different. The Welfare state isn’t, and never was, intended as a mechanism to allow some people to have a big family or live in an expensive house and then conveniently pass on the costs to the rest of society. If people want a public funded institution that is designed to pass the cost of big families or expenisve houses on to society then they should stop skirting round the edges of the argument and actually argue for such a thing to be created by design.

Surely it’s about how many people that £26,000 has to be shared between?

Why not push for a smaller cap (say £20,000) but per person rather than per household.

@1: “In many parts of the country, you can live very well with 26,000 £”. Exactly. The state’s obligation is to preventing people from suffering from exposure, hunger or disease; not keep them in the style to which you have become accustomed in London or the Home Counties. Why should the taxpayer pay to save people the inconvenience of moving for the next decade?

@2: “there is no point in punishing those who lose their jobs by making them homeless”. Not making them homeless; just re-homing them somewhere cheaper. I’m a landlord who rents out a perfectly acceptable 5 bedroom house in the East Midlands for £600/mth, where the equivalent house in London would be £600/wk or more. Location is irrelevant if the adults in the household are unemployed and likely to be so for the foreseeable future. Children can, and will, survive changing schools.

@3: “The issue then is rent inflation by the recipient landlords”. Driven in a large part by never-ending government-funded demand from the social sector.

@5: “you’re obviously not worried about the human cost to those affected”. Not to the tune of >£26k/family/year, I’m not. I’m 28 and have moved 22 times so far, everywhere from West Mids to Norfolk to Derbyshire to Yorkshire to Lincolnshire to Dorset to Fife to Buckinghamshire to London. Not done me any harm, and not a penny of benefits or tax credits claimed in the process. People should go where the work is, and where they can live within their means.

@ Jim

But you could not be more wrong if you went to special wrongness lessons when it comes to the former. Social housing vastly decreased during the eighties as it was sold off at knock down prices and as a result rents shot up.

As usual, I don’t think I am wrong at all though, if I am, I am happy to be corrected (but only by Tim Worstall).

Surely, if the subsidy for social housing tenants did not exist, those properties would be available for rent at the real market rates. I am not proposing a sell off to tenants at below their value.

The increase in supply of property to rent at market rates would tend to reduce the level of market rents overall. Admittedly, it might mean that social housing tenants would have to pay more, because they would no longer be enjoying the subsidy, but, in my view, an end to the ridiculous system of rationing, with all its concomitant distortions, would be welcome.

And the social housing tenants would no longer have any incentive to cheat the system by letting their taxpayer subsidised properties out at market prices.

@10 Sue Marsh

Can you tell us what the ‘right thing’ is? i.e. do you want to leave things as they are, have a different level of cap, no cap or ??

Pagar @ 37

The increase in supply of property to rent at market rates would tend to reduce the level of market rents overall.

No, but that is not we are seeing, though is it? What we have seen is ‘buy to let’ explosion not ‘build to rent’. The number of houses in circulation has not changed per se by putting houses out to rent, all that has happened is that people have bought up houses and put them out to rent while simultaneously removing them from the owner/occupier market.

Clearly, people a buying houses specifically to rent because it is possible to rent out a house at a profit, above what the mortgage alone costs. People who cannot afford or get a mortgage are forced into renting at exorbitant rates. The buy to let market would not exist without a captive proportion of the populace who are unable to get on the housing ladder. Buying houses to let actually exacerbates the housing shortage, because it pushes up the prices of available houses and has the knock on effect of pushing the deposit and the mortgage required to buy a house. Thus effectively barring lower income people from the housing market and forcing them into an already overcrowded renting sector.

The irony is that many people forced into private rented housing are forced into it because they have the skill sets that lack the ability to secure steady income and face bout of unemployment. When they become unemployed, WE pick up the rent for them, thus making a return into work more difficult.

What we need is housing built for the specific purpose of renting, thus giving people on low incomes a way out of the private renting nightmare and saving the taxpayers billions of quid into the bargin. That is a win, win for everybody.

Could the bbc have given a more biased account of what was happening in the welfare bill. They gave the governments perspective and must have searched hard to find someone who the public would have less sympaty with. Using the quote ‘why should I lose my comfortable lifestyle’

With the disability debate when they finally reported it they only commented on the 2 billion that they claimed the defeat would cost. There discussion was about how it would be payed for. I believe they should have quoted 1.8 billion over 5 years.

I assume Nick Robinson and the rest of the news editors really hate benefit claiments.

@ Tyler

“Would some lefties arguing against a cap please answer the following questions:”

OK.

“1. Why would capping benefits above the UK’s median household income suddenly push people into poverty? Or are those people earning UK median wages living in poverty?”

The figure you quote is, I think, the equivalised median household income for a couple with no children. The idea is that if you’re in a couple on 20k, 50% of people are better off than you and 50% are worse off – taking household composition into account. So a single person on 15k might be better off and a family of six on 30k worse off. No doubt some families on 20k *are* living in poverty – that is, they’re worse off than a childless couple on 12k (= 60% of median income for that ‘benchmark’ household type).

“2. Is it fair that taxpayers earning the median wage or less should be contributing so much of their earnings to others on benefits, who are not contributing and potentially recieving more? It requires ALL the tax paid by 5 households on median income to pay for one family’s benefits capped at £26k.”

Over their lifetimes, taxpayers earning the median wage or less typically get more back in services and benefits – healthcare, pensions, education, tax credits, child benefit etc. – than they pay in taxes. They are heavily subsidised by the 10% of earners who pay 50% of tax, so they’re getting a good deal. Is it fair that the same top 10% of earners also contribute enough to ensure that children in workless households aren’t raised in poverty? Yes.

“3. Is it morally right, both for the recipient and for those taxpayers funding the benefits, that the welfare state can trap people in benefits dependency as those people can’t find a job which would pay them more, and therefore are better off on benefits? ”

No. But the answer is to make working families better off, not to drive workless families into poverty.

“4. Do you think the welfare state in it’s current form is sustainable, given that real terms spending on welfare almost double under Labour, and now accounts for 50% of all government revenues and 40% of spending (the difference thanks to our massive budget deficit). Is it sensible that spending on welfare under the last government increase dmuch faster than GDP growth, and did so during a period of economic boom?”

I don’t know where you got ‘almost doubled’ from. Welfare spending rose by around 40% between 2000 and 2010, which is modest by historical standards. Rises of 70% every decade were the norm from the 60s to the 80s. See here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11443372

Are such rises sustainable? Pretty much, so long as we keep unemployment under control and don’t create expensive crises (e.g. forcing thousands of families out of their homes). Though the ageing population is a real issue; pensions account for the bulk of welfare spending, after all.

So, the Lords have holed the benefit cap under the waterline. The ConDems will really need to scramble out a bit to get this cap into shape for it to have any meaningful result. So far, I have seen no indication of what revenge these bastards have in store, but we can rest assured that it is not going to be pretty.

One thing though. My cast iron belief in an elected second chamber has been severely rattled, albeit temporally, I am well aware that we have a huge hostage to fortune because the government of the day can impose who they want into the Lords.

Of course, I will happily see every heredity peer against a wall (metaphorically), but there is a lot to be said for having people scrutinise bills who are not politicians, but broadly speaking, experts or visionaries who are not intimated by the baying mob of fuckwits. The trick is picking out Statesmen rather than Party hacks and nutters, but, well that is the whole point I suppose. The Lib Dems lost somebody special when ‘Paddy’ Ashdown left front bench politics. I assume he was attached to the only set of testicles the Party had.

A special hat tip to the bishops, BTW; I am not too up on the Christianity thing, but if they are able to find it in their collective hearts to stop people being driven in to poverty, I suppose Jesus may not have been such a bad stick after all. I wonder if Jesus would have washed the feet of the disabled or tried to steal their wheelchair.

@ Jim

Pagar @ 37

No, but that is not we are seeing, though is it?

No it isn’t!!!

Because we’ve still got social housing.

Try and engage with an argument for once rather than spouting your pre-determined diatribes!!!!

@ 36 Tim B

“I’m 28 and have moved 22 times so far, everywhere from West Mids to Norfolk to Derbyshire to Yorkshire to Lincolnshire to Dorset to Fife to Buckinghamshire to London. Not done me any harm, and not a penny of benefits or tax credits claimed in the process.”

What about kids, though? I don’t know how your moves were distributed, but they work out at not a lot less than one move per year. If the family in question have children, that would be hugely disruptive to their children’s schooling, plus I suspect it wouldn’t be great for their emotional development to lose their whole group of friends every 15 months or so (although I admit that this is conjecture on my part, not Proper Science).

Depends on the child, obviously, some might handle that sort of thing well or even benefit. But in general I imagine it wouldn’t be great for them.

The friends issue is relevant to adults too: moving to another part of the country doesn’t just mean finding a new flat and hiring a van, it means leaving a lot of your life behind. I’m not saying we should subsidise everyone who can’t afford to live near their social group, but we should at least take this sort of thing into account when discussing policy.

My hope is that his temporary defeat gives the Left pause to reflect on what the Lords have actually achieved. If the Left use this to re-invigorate the debate and to attempt to connect with the electorate, if we try and get across the people who will actually be hurt by this; people with severely disabled children, couples who find themselves unemployed through no fault of their own.

Let us challenge at every opportunity the Right Wing myths about twenty six grand families claimants out earning an equivalent ‘working’ family. We need to get out there and tackle these false assertions and downright lies that appear everywhere, including here regarding how much a family would need to earn to break even.

We see so much downright ignorance about this on so many levels and we see so many assumptions that go completely unchallenged, is it any wonder that we lose the debate so many times, even among our natural supporters, if we never get in the face of our political opponents? If we allow them to set the agenda and dictate the terms of the debate, then we are letting down every decent person in this Country by allowing the Right to character assassinate them.

If we sit silently while the Daily Hate dig up an decidedly unappealing family as poster people for the next round of propaganda, don’t be surprised if we lose again.

Do you know how much anger there should be at the wilful misrepresentation of these families? Imagine Mitt Romney or Ron Paul has misrepresented Black American families the same way that IDS has done in this Country. Now that is the anger and passion you should feel as the Daily Mail blacken some innocent person whose only crime is they have two severely disabled children.

Who will live in London, pay extortionate rents and fares to clean up after and care for those rich enough to live there now?

Pagar @ 43

Because we’ve still got social housing.

Social housing is vastly over subscribed, there are waiting lists miles and years long to get into social housing.

In fact, a common accusation is that the only way to get social housing is to get pregnant. I have often heard it said that single people and married, but childless couples will never get into social housing. I don’t know it that is actually true or not, but people are not getting into social housing right now.

Surely to Christ you can look outside your window at the real World? It is not as scary as you think, Pagar.

Given that the low paid will soon need to start living collectively in order get by, will the conservative party begin revisiting laws against polygamy? That should help more people get married and to pay their way in the capital!

@ 41 G.O.

Thanks for answering….A for effort, F for content though.

1. You simply haven’t answered the question. Why would capping benefits at £26k suddenly drive people into poverty (crudely defined level at £12k).

The quick answer is, it won’t. The cap is proportionally very generous already, allowing for a work-free income of MORE than the median household income.

2. Again, you haven’t truly answered my question. Lower rate taxpayers do indeed do well out of higher rate taxpayers…but there are only a few hudred thousand 50% taxpayers. There are millions of people who pay basic tax rates – and indeed this is where the bulk of all income tax comes from.

Why should these people pay so much of their income so others can earn more, for doing nothing? Is it logically or morally fair?

3. Well at least you’ve sort of answered the question this time. Again though you use the hyperbolic lefty “driving people into poverty” line – which isn’t really going to happen, and you didn’t answer in question 1.

It would be lovely for everyone to earn more money as well, but that isn’t going to come about through government intervention, and in the UK people really are comparitively well off.

4. I got my data from;

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/budget_ukgs.php

Admittedly i did use total welfare spending, including pensions and protection. The data I found for this, from the above link had spending increasing 70% in real terms. The exact figure isn’t the point though – sustainability is.

Regardless, again, please try answering the question. Welfare spending of all kinds in now 50% of all government revenue, and as you say is increasing. In fact, welfare spending is, and has been rising faster than GDP growth for a long time. The UK has a ~10% budget deficit.

Is this in any way sustainable?

@ Jim

Pagar says

Surely, if the subsidy for social housing tenants did not exist, those properties would be available for rent at the real market rates. I am not proposing a sell off to tenants at below their value.

The increase in supply of property to rent at market rates would tend to reduce the level of market rents overall. Admittedly, it might mean that social housing tenants would have to pay more, because they would no longer be enjoying the subsidy, but, in my view, an end to the ridiculous system of rationing, with all its concomitant distortions, would be welcome.

Jim says

Social housing is vastly over subscribed, there are waiting lists miles and years long to get into social housing.

We all know this.

I give up trying to engage with you in meaningful debate. It is clearly beyond you.

You lefties won’t win this argument. There are too many people working hard and getting paid less than £26K.

It isn’t fair that someone who isn’t working could end up with more money than someone who is – we need to acknowledge that fact. However, the whole point of child benefit is to insulate children from parents who make bad decisions – also unfair. If you can’t afford a massive family, you probably shouldn’t have one, but on the grounds of not punishing children for parental stupidity – CB should be exempt from the cap.

Both choices are unfair to someone, but on the whole I think we should err on the side of being unfair to the person with the job.

If you can’t afford a massive family, you probably shouldn’t have one, but on the grounds of not punishing children for parental stupidity – CB should be exempt from the cap.

You’re absolutely right pre-hyphen. But CB is irrelevant: the point is, to avoid children in such families growing up in poverty, CB *and* HB *and* IS are all required.

There are only three alternatives here: 1) don’t cap benefits; 2) force children from large low/no-income families to grow up in poverty; 3) sterilise the poor. As far as I can, anyone who doesn’t choose option 1 is a bit of a scumbag.

@51 – Right. So breaking up families and *increasing* the bill is JUST fine.

Thanks for your hatred of this country.

@37 – Quite. You may only be corrected by the ideologically correct, after all.

@36 – Moving EVERY YEAR for the next decade, you mean, as HB values plummet. Ensures those people can’t work as well, of course.

@51

Yeah, well we won’t “win the argument” with the likes of you, will we, you ignorant cunt. I’ve been unemployed now for, ooh, three months now. Had to pretty much cancel Christmas and I’ve had to give up smoking because I can’t afford it. I am looking for work, but there is nothing available that tallies with my previous experience. But I’m not going to apply for any old job. I’ll tell you this: I will remain unemployed and on (pitiful) benefits until a job that suits me is offered. I’m not moving round the country to do shit work, when the only location that offers the jobs I do is in London. And if I’m ‘offered’ Workfare, I’ll refuse. All the while, I shall be happy as I console myself with the fact that worthless, jumped-up, faux-libertarians such as yourself are paying for me not working. So fuck you. Live with it or kill yourself. Actually just kill yourself, if only for the comedy value.

(P.S. Check out his blog—it’s like an autistic courgette’s shat pixels on the screen…)

I am looking for work, but there is nothing available that tallies with my previous experience. But I’m not going to apply for any old job. I’ll tell you this: I will remain unemployed and on (pitiful) benefits until a job that suits me is offered. I’m not moving round the country to do shit work, when the only location that offers the jobs I do is in London. And if I’m ‘offered’ Workfare, I’ll refuse.

Sorry to hear your story, Cheesy Monkey, and I know giving up smoking does tend to make people irritable. But just as a matter of interest, what would you do if you didn’t get any pitiful benefits?

Work or starve?

@Tyler #24:

<blockquote.That said, the median income of £20k INCLUDES benefits payments.

Two comments on this, which might or might not colour your views – after all, I don’t know whether when the facts change, your opinion changes.

Firstly, the ASHE figure for median earnings for 2010 was £26k per annum (nearasdammit – £499 per week); not £20k (link on this page: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-of-hours-and-earnings/2010-results/index.html).

Secondly, that figure is “earnings”; it comes from HMRC figures and does not include benefits.

For a family of, let’s say, two adults plus 5 children, there’s another £3,842 in Child Benefit alone; plus Working (a little clue here) Tax Credit which would add another £2k (two parents under 65, income evenly split adding up to £26,000, 5 children under 16).

If living in London in a 5-bed property rented at say £400 per week (not unlikely) they’d probably be getting HB as well – after all, there is a widely-quoted figure of 80% of HB claimants being in work.

@Trooper Thompson #51:

You lefties won’t win this argument. There are too many people working hard and getting paid less than £26K.

Oddly, only 50% of earners earn less than the median income in this country – funny, that.

@myself, Tyler:

Sorry:

Firstly, the ASHE figure for median earnings for 2010 was £26k per annum (nearasdammit – £499 per week); not £20k

This is correct for full-time employees, but not all employees; the figure for all employees is the £20k you quote.

HOWEVER – this is not household income. A very significant proportion of couples both go out to work. The relevance of this is that benefits are assessed, and paid, as household income. The median household income of those couples with at least one earner will therefore necessarily be significantly more than the £20k you quote, even before CB and WTC are added in. A couple on £26k, evenly split, will receive as income over £31k (less tax) simply from the benefits payable for children.

55. Cheesy Monkey

I am looking for work, but there is nothing available that tallies with my previous experience. But I’m not going to apply for any old job. I’ll tell you this: I will remain unemployed and on (pitiful) benefits until a job that suits me is offered. I’m not moving round the country to do shit work, when the only location that offers the jobs I do is in London. And if I’m ‘offered’ Workfare, I’ll refuse. All the while, I shall be happy as I console myself with the fact that worthless, jumped-up, faux-libertarians such as yourself are paying for me not working. So fuck you. Live with it or kill yourself. Actually just kill yourself, if only for the comedy value.

So I take it you fully understand why people like me would not only vote for plans like this, but we might even vote for more extreme plans? After all, for the life of me I can’t see why you deserve a single penny of my money. And I have no intention of giving you any. I will happily vote for any party that made sure you got none of anyone else’s money at all. Not because I believe in starving the poor. Just self defence.

@ Tyler 49

Thanks for answering….A for effort, F for content though.

“1. You simply haven’t answered the question. Why would capping benefits at £26k suddenly drive people into poverty (crudely defined level at £12k). ”

Let me just quote from poverty.org.uk; this explains the relevance of housing costs (which I forgot to mention) as well as the point about household composition:

“The most commonly used threshold of low income is a household income that is 60% or less of the average (median) British household income in that year. For a discussion of why this is the most commonly used threshold, see the page on choices of low-income thresholds. The latest year for which household income data is available is 2008/09. In that year, the 60% threshold was worth: £119 per week for single adult with no dependent children; £206 per week for a couple with no dependent children; £202 per week for a single adult with two dependent children under 14; and £288 per week for a couple with two dependent children under 14. These sums of money are measured after income tax, council tax and housing costs have been deducted, where housing costs include rents, mortgage interest (but not the repayment of principal), buildings insurance and water charges. They therefore represent what the household has available to spend on everything else it needs, from food and heating to travel and entertainment.”

Obviously, then, a benefit cap can push a family into poverty if it pushes their income *after housing costs* below the poverty for a family of that size – c. £15,000 for a family of four, and considerably higher for larger families.

“2. Again, you haven’t truly answered my question. Lower rate taxpayers do indeed do well out of higher rate taxpayers…but there are only a few hudred thousand 50% taxpayers. There are millions of people who pay basic tax rates – and indeed this is where the bulk of all income tax comes from.

No, it’s not. The bulk of income tax – 53% – comes from the top 10% of earners. It follows from this pretty clearly that average earners are having their own benefits and services subsidised by higher earners, not subsidising benefits and services for the poor. If an average earner pays (say) £250,000 tax over their lifetime and receives services and benefits worth £260,000, it’s ridiculous to ask why they’re paying so much money for other people’s services and benefits. They’re not. They’re just covering the cost of a lifetime’s healthcare, education, tax credits, pension etc.

“3. Well at least you’ve sort of answered the question this time. Again though you use the hyperbolic lefty “driving people into poverty” line – which isn’t really going to happen, and you didn’t answer in question 1.

It would be lovely for everyone to earn more money as well, but that isn’t going to come about through government intervention”

Setting aside the question of whether government intervention can boost people’s *earnings*, it’s clearly the case that government intervention can boost people’s overall *incomes* so as to ‘make work pay’. Tax Credits did this and the Universal Credit aims to do so as well.

“Regardless, again, please try answering the question. Welfare spending of all kinds in now 50% of all government revenue, and as you say is increasing. In fact, welfare spending is, and has been rising faster than GDP growth for a long time. The UK has a ~10% budget deficit.

Is this in any way sustainable?”

Not without making changes to the pension age and perhaps gradually increasing the tax burden (especially NI?) over the long term. But this is largely a long-term issue to do with the ageing population; it’s not to do with any kind of explosion in people going ‘on the sick’, or anything like that. (Which is not to say we shouldn’t aim to reduce welfare dependency by doing wacky things like creating jobs and making workplaces accessible for disabled people.)

@60 – But of course you HAVE advocated starving the poor, so long as you got to keep a penny more. No, better that skilled people do 12k/year jobs for the rest of their career than they take a year to find a 60k/year position, which create 10-15 other jobs…

@56 – Then you get the American system of people taking jobs far below their previous earning levels. And staying there, causing a long-term massive loss of tax revenue and jobs.

Hatred for this country once more… the PITIFULLY LOW benefits in this country are no longer even going to keep people from starving due to the massive cuts which are going on.

How precisely do you even manage to claim that amount in benefits, and how exactly does the cap work? Is it a series of smaller caps on each of the various benefits that taken in total max out at £26k a year?

@55

My sympathies for you being out of work – there but for the grace of God and all that – and for being deprived of your fags. I would point out that this is due to the massive tax on tobacco, but then perhaps you approve of such redistributive measures. As for your crude insults and bad language, I surmise this is a product of your political opinions, which are based on conflict and hatred, unlike my own which are based on that old liberal thing about the harmony of interests which exists between us all.

@63 You need to have a lot of people in your household, which is why it is misleading to compare it to an average wage – which belongs to one person. That kind of sum in benefits is spread over a lot of people. Many people consider a cap in this way unfair and even counterproductive because it may just encourage large households to live separately to get around it.

That said, personally I am not against some kind of reasonable limit on how many children can be claimed, for and a restriction on having more children while already on benefits.

“Get rid of these two components and market rents would fall considerably.”

In the process we’d have landlords turfing people out who would spent a period of time rough sleeping whilst awaiting rents to return to equilibrium – most likely a return to slum landlords and estates. Even if we assumed rents returned to equilibrium instantly so there was not this period of chaos, you would also tank the financial system as mass default on buy to let mortgages filtered through the system in a sub prime mk 2, before a general collapse in houseprices was caused. The collatoral damage would be immense. The fact you can’t cite a single example of a government abolishing housing type benefits and social housing from a position of such schemes already existing (as opposed to simply not having them in the first place) means your proposals are filed under the ‘highly theoretical at best’. The risk isn’t worth it, and paying attention to the real world is a skill worth developing.

Its worth pointing out that homelessness carries a cost to the taxpayer even if you remove all obligations on local authorities to house people. Increased crime, policing costs and the cost to the local economy caused by the fact some areas become known as places where rough sleepers go mean any savings get wiped out, this is before you consider that a couple of months rough sleeping vastly reduces the chances of somebody every finding employment and paying taxes.

I accept there is the issue of how to deal with rent inflation and the fact HB has become a way for even the stupidest person to make money from buy to let (mrs planeshift’s father). I Totally accept there is a need to cut the HB bill, but this needs to be done in a way that minimises the cost to all.

The answer here is a cut off point where we treat new claims differently to old claims, and then a transitional period to move the old claims to the new system over a period of years. We can debate what the appropiate level of support and what safety net (how much you get if you lose your job etc) there should be elsewhere. It’s the transition I’m interested in, and would suggest the following as part of the solution;

(1) all landlords with existing tennents claiming HB sign a contract in which in exchange for a guarenteed level of rent over a period of years, they fix the level of rent and guarentee a secure tenancy. This would ending the churn of eviction before new tenancy on higher rent, and landlords would sign up to it knowing that the money was substantially higher than taking on a new tennant who was only able to claim a far lower amount.

(2) Local Authorities would then be allowed to build new suitable council housing (or contract it out) especially for those large families currently claiming £000s for renting private sector homes. The completion of these homes would co-incide with the transitional arrangement coming to an end and so remove the threat of homelessness as a result of the changes. Due to (1) there will also be good data on what is needed.

(3) The collection of data in (1) also enables the authorities to identify who the long term claimants are and what issues they have (skills, motivation, etc) and within the context of long-term housing security and reformed welfare providing a greater incentive to work, this means you can focus on returning these long term claimants into work.

Wow. Cheesy Monkey appears to be a right-wing strawman made flesh.

In case anyone was about to follow his lead, could I quickly point out that most (I hope) of us who generally favour the welfare state want to help those who genuinely need support, not pathetic spongers like him who think they’re too good to work and then brag about the fact that they’re a freeloader…

Come to think of it, I’m calling Poe’s Law on this.

@ 56 pagar

“But just as a matter of interest, what would you do if you didn’t get any pitiful benefits?

Work or starve?”

Sulk!

Yesterday was a significantly depressing day for the UK – although the Welfare Reform Bill was amended, it is clear that the Coalition will overturn the amendments in the Commons; Vince Cable’s proposals to curb executive pay excess are toothless, and the increase in the Tory lead in the polls has widened.

It is clear that the coalition’s legacy will be poverty and inequality.
Heaven help us!!!

Follow the link to read more of my analysis of the WRB: http://www.allthatsleft.co.uk/2012/01/the-coalition-bringing-poverty-and-inequality-to-a-town-near-you/

@56

There’s always theft, but things aren’t that bad yet. But you never know…

@67

Funnily enough, one of the things I enjoy most about being employed is paying tax. Now, what’s the point of me applying for non-skilled, low-paid temporary employment where: a) I’m highly likely not to be successful due to being “over-qualified”; and b) by getting said job, I’m denying someone else who may really want that job. The jobs I go for are in the region of £24–35k a year—jobs that will generate more in tax than the minimum wage job. I apply for around 4–6 jobs a day. The rest of my time is spent improving my existing skills or developing new ones. So, it really comes down to this: should I rather be in shit work today than better work tomorrow, even if by being in shit work today prevents me from better work tomorrow?

It might be worth pointing out that benefits are already capped. JSA is a certain amount and no more. DLA is a certain amount and no more. Etc. You would think that there was a bottomless pit of money being thrown to armies of ‘scroungers’, the way the Tories and their supporters are going on.

Even child benefit is a certain amount per child, and the only way you get more of it is to have more kids. You could say that poor people ‘shouldn’t’ have large families – but such moralising isn’t going to stop the kids being born and needing support. Creating financial disincentives (e.g. no benefit after the fourth child) to have large families is social engineering. It’ll have no consequence other than to increase child poverty.

Housing benefit is already capped according to what the LA thinks is an appropriate sized house/flat for your needs, and the average (or soon to be 30th percentile if it isn’t already) rent in your town/borough. The idea that people are living it up with loads of space in a pricey area at the expense of the state is a fantasy. If the LA think the house you’re claiming for is too big or too expensive they simply won’t give you the money for it.

In other words, people get the bare minimum of what they need, most of the time. If they happen to live in London, they get support for a house or flat in London. I don’t see what’s wrong with that. Every London resident reaps the rewards of taxation whether that’s schools, hospitals, infrastructure or welfare benefits. All of these things are more expensive to provide in the capital. Imagine the outcry if the govt said that schools in London were closing because they couldn’t afford to pay teachers London weighting. Then everyone said ‘tough luck parents, move somewhere else’.

Also: do people think there are *more* jobs available outside London than within?

The fact that so many people apparently support this cap just goes to show the success of Tory spin. Like Sue Marsh says, it’s the politics of division and jealousy.

Pagar @ 50

I give up trying to engage with you in meaningful debate. It is clearly beyond you.

Pagar, you Libertarians are all the same, once you have your ideology tested, it all falls apart at the seams. When you have that explained to you, you squeal like a stuck pig because we are not looking at the little parallel universe you invent for it all to work out the way you hope. We live in the real World.

You support an ideology that hates the poor, we all get that.
You support an ideology that hates any State intervention to help the poor, we get that.
Some of you have managed to become rather obsessed with this ‘anti government’, at every turn, under every circumstance. Moreover, we get that too.

However, that does mean simply bolting two non-sequiturs together and form an argument around it. Getting rid of social housing, would bring down rents, may sound good in your head, but even you must acknowledge that is a nonsense.

We all know what happens to people when social housing does not exist. Surprisingly enough no one attempts to fill in the gap in the market with decent homes, what happens is that slums, shanty towns and squatter camps around the edge of otherwise opulent cities. The poor get shunted out of the housing markets all over the World and in every major city in the World too.

Believe it or not, we did not invent social housing as a snub to the country’s socipaths, we invented social housing to eradicate a very real and pressing problem. I have said before the Tories were building a quarter of a million houses a year at one stage, not to tackle a non existent problem, but because we needed housing that people on modest incomes could afford.

Pagar, I realise this may be a bit forlorn, but why not actually look at the real World and form your ideology around it?

Serioisly, real life is far more interesting than you give it credit for.

Sue Marsh @ 10 & 11:

“Public sector net debt excluding financial interventions, such as bank bail-outs, rose to £1.004 trillion in December, the highest since records began in 1993.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9034964/UK-debt-passes-1-trillion-for-the-first-time.html

Violet @ 71:

“Like Sue Marsh says, it’s the politics of division and jealousy.”

No. It’s the politics of distributive justice.

While I want a welfare system, I also want a welfare system that does NOT discriminate against those in work, deters people from getting a job, subsidizes idleness and fecklessness…

Why should the poor but working subsidise the idle and feckless to have a higher standard of living?

@ 57 Robin Levitt

I used the data from wikipedia, which I link to….which is household income (so post tax inc benefits). ASHE counts PRE-TAX gross weekly earnings. As such, £26k pre-tax and £20k post are not that different really. Certainly not enough to drastically alter the basis of the argument.

@61 G.O.

1. Ah, the ever creeping boundary of poverty – now the (arbitrary) 60% level from median houshold income EXCLUDES housing costs does it?

Last time I checked (so as I write this) the definition of RELATIVE poverty used by the government as well as various poverty charities and groups still is still the simple 60% of median household income. No mention of housing costs.

http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/social%20exclusion.shtml

They make a good point there as well – this relative poverty measure is a totally arbitrary level, and does not measure absolute poverty. It is purely a measure of inequality.

You can’t change the parameters to suit the argument I’m afraid. Did you know though, that the recession is actually pulling people OUT of (relative) poverty, as incomes fall?

2. You are correct that high earners pay most tax, but thats not what I asked.

I asked is it fair to lower earners that so much of the tax THEY pay goes to other peoples benefits, making them similarly well off yet not working? Millions of lower earners might not agree with you.

3. I sort of agree with you here, but why use tax credits etc….why not just tax people less on the money they earn (which might mean spending less)? Surely that is the most efficient way to boost incomes? It doesn’t fit Labour’s faux-redistributive control-freakery though, as it favours those who actually work.

4. Agreed, a lot of extra welfare spending has come from demographics/pensions, and indeed some has come from the recession. But welfare alone, ex-pensions, was still massively increasing up until the recession. The tax burden is also very high already and increased ramatically under Labour. Simply put, there is no way you can raise taxes enough to find the money needed to cover the deficit, before accounting for increasing welfare and health costs. So, not really sustainable then, unless you cap or cut costs somewhere.

@ 72 Jim

The problem is you never test our ideology, or our arguments. You answer some off-topic question of your own devising, then start frothing and foaming at the mouth. Then you call everyone who doesn’t agree with you Nazis, vermin or scum.

Honestly, the internet is like a toilet stall door for you. You’d fall apart in any kind of live debate.

If the choice is between work or starve, then what happens when I start robbing pagar’s grandma and get sent to prison where I get housed and fed by pagar’s taxes?
Good result that.

@ 70 Cheesy Monkey

“Funnily enough, one of the things I enjoy most about being employed is paying tax. ”

Given that you actively get pleasure out of the fact that you’re living off of other people’s labour, I’m gonna assume this is just a lie.

“Now, what’s the point of me applying for non-skilled, low-paid temporary employment where: a) I’m highly likely not to be successful due to being “over-qualified”; and b) by getting said job, I’m denying someone else who may really want that job.”

Yes, yes, you are superbly generous in deliberately being a drain on the budget. And your chances of success are worst when you don’t bother to try in the first place, strangely enough.

“The jobs I go for are in the region of £24–35k a year—jobs that will generate more in tax than the minimum wage job.”

But you don’t know when you’ll get one of those jobs – in fact, you said they aren’t available. Your attempt to portray this as a noble attempt to maximise your tax output is fucking hilarious. It’s like a mugger claiming that they only mug people to maximise the number of jobs available in the police force.

From your own words (including your previous comment, which didn’t use as much spin as this one), you are either a) so far up yourself you think it’s fair for others to bankroll you so you don’t have to abase yourself by working for £13k, b) just making excuses for the fact that you can’t be arsed to work, or c) both.

“I apply for around 4–6 jobs a day.”

Given that you have access to the internet, that must take you all of half an hour. Or about three minutes if you’re registered on a recruitment site.

“The rest of my time is spent improving my existing skills or developing new ones. So, it really comes down to this: should I rather be in shit work today than better work tomorrow, even if by being in shit work today prevents me from better work tomorrow?”

Are you actually a sociopath, or are you pretending to be one because it suits your argument? How can you possibly claim that this issue “comes down to” what you prefer, as if the fact that other people are subsidising you is irrelevant?

Also, absolutely anyone could claim that they are refusing work because they’re waiting for an “acceptable” job offer. And they could do it indefinitely. In fairness, I don’t think three months (if true) is an unreasonable time to spend looking for a good job while on benefits. But given your apparent ability to twist any situation until you convince yourself you’re the hero, plus your incredibly smug and ungrateful attitude towards the people who work to pay your keep, something tells me that you’ll still be talking about refusing to work makes you an awesome person in a couple of years’ time, unless your dream job somehow falls into your lap.

@ 74 TONE

“While I want a welfare system, I also want a welfare system that does NOT discriminate against those in work, deters people from getting a job, subsidizes idleness and fecklessness”

I don’t think you do want a welfare system. I suspect that even a perfect welfare system (or one that was as close to perfect as humanly possible) could be accused of discriminating those in work and detering people from getting a job. After all, it will inevitably take money from those who work and give it to those who don’t, and starvation would give you a powerful incentive to keep job-hunting.

I think you’re setting your criteria so high that you’ll never accept a real-world welfare system.

Cylux @ 76

If the rest of the World is any measure, people ‘choose’ to starve because that is the only option many people have if they are unable to work. In fact millions of people both work and starve.

Tyler @ 75

The problem is that people like you are simply not worth the effort:

Okay, what is the term for someone who repeatedly lies in order to discredit the most vulnerable in society? What is the term for people who deliberately misrepresent scientific evidence to further their own greed?

People like you base your entire ideology on nothing more than bigotry. When anyone attempts to point out that your so called facts are wrong, you just make other facts up that fit in with what you want to believe.

In any live debate we would spend our time correcting yor lies.

““I apply for around 4–6 jobs a day.”

Given that you have access to the internet, that must take you all of half an hour. Or about three minutes if you’re registered on a recruitment site.”

Sorry Chaise, but it takes far longer to apply for a job correctly. The 25-35k jobs CM was on about usually involve application forms that – even with liberal use of copy and paste – would usually take about 2/3 hours. So 4/5 of those a day is pretty good going, particularly when JSA rules merely ask for 4/5 ‘actions’ a week.

@ 79 Jim

Ah yes, another Jimmy parable of what is right and wrong. Though this time, 69% of Labour voters are on my side. Are they all evil bigots as well?

Try giving sensible answers to sensible questions, and people might take you seriously. Just because you don’t like many of the facts, does not make them lies.

My guess is though, you will ignore the 4 questions I asked, and ignore the fact that most Labour voters agree with the benefits cap. You will then proceed to make another ad hominem attack, because actually trying to justify your position will tie you in knots.

@Tyler #75:

From the Wikipedia page you have relied upon:

(blockquote>In 2011, average individual earnings in Britain were £26,000, while the average income for working-age households was around £33,000.[7] That same year, the after-tax earnings of the median household was around £26,000 per annum[8] while average net household income (after tax) stood at £38,547.00.

So any way you slice it, £20k is low for a *household*. The £20k figure is an IFS figure from 2006…

TONE @ 74

The thing that deters people from getting jobs is the lack of jobs, not benefits. There are too many people chasing too few jobs. Why is that? Well there are many reasons, we have rehearsed them all, and that is a different thread.

On a practical level, we are all aware that if a company sticks a job vacancy in a window, more often than not there will be dozens of people applying for that job. We know that if a new supermarket opens up the jobs will be oversubscribed by at least ten to one. At that level, it doesn’t matter if there are lazy, feckless people in the system, if there are no jobs, then there is no practical way of segregating the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor. Once you have empty factories and failed shops because no-one want to work there, then we can look at the people who are too lazy to get a job.

Right now, welfare reform is an exercise in cruelty because there are just not enough jobs to take the genuinely unemployed. All we are doing is stigmatising people for political gain and that is never wise, in my book.

Robin,

So any way you slice it, £20k is low for a *household*. The £20k figure is an IFS figure from 2006…

It is low, but the question is surely is it too low?

If you really don’t want a welfare state, which happens to be my position, on the basis that we have an economic system which fails and a welfare state (at enormous cost) attempting to carry-out inefficient re-distributive justice,we need to amalgamate the two.
Instead of redistributing wealth, do it with work instead, and for those who are disabled, pay them the equivalent basic pay.also for parents who are full time carers of children or dependant adults, do the same. Because of the massive savings from supporting the inefficient welfare state, we would be able to pay pensions which represent their basic pay.

@80

The application side is fairly quick, but it’s the covering letters that take the time. I have about eight different versions with I can further mash up and edit, but the overall time is still between 2–4 hours a day. Plus, according to my partner, JSA rules have now changed so that claimants must now prove that they have been searching for work for at least two hours a day.

@77

No. I get pleasure out of the fact that arseholes such as yourself—who clearly think that anyone receiving any out of work benefit is an undeserving peasant who should be fed shit and say “thank you” after—hate the thought that people you hate receive your money. So according to you, I must spend my time going for the shit jobs (which I still may not get) rather than using the time away from work to improve my prospects and eventually getting a worthwhile job—you know, one which I would need no concurrent benefits. Well, that’s really fucking longsighted of you.

Oh, I’m a Socialist, so yes—I am perfectly happy paying taxes and I would like to pay more. Have you got a job for me?

@Tyler:

Following up on this; the IFS use the DWP’s Family Resources Survey for its data.

The latest FRS (http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/frs/2009_10/frs_2009_10_report.pdf) shows 2009-10 median household income of all households with children at £6-700 per week, or £30-35k per year. Median weekly household income of all households without children is £4-500 per week, or £20k-£25k per year.

@ 80 Planeshift

“Sorry Chaise, but it takes far longer to apply for a job correctly. The 25-35k jobs CM was on about usually involve application forms that – even with liberal use of copy and paste – would usually take about 2/3 hours. ”

Depends what you mean by “apply” really. If you’re on a recruitment site like Reed, with your CV saved and ready to use, the initial application can be done in a handful of minutes (a bit longer if you’re smart enough to tailor your CV to each job). If you apply that way, you won’t see those forms until the second stage, assuming you reach it (although if you contact the company directly, you’ll probably get the forms straight away).

@steveb #85:

You’re not a libertarian, then…but you do want to reduce the wages of those in work, so as to increase the incomes of those currently not in work. You want a system that will ensure that everyone gets a fair share of the work available.

Why was it you opposed the welfare state, again?

CG at 78:

“I think you’re setting your criteria so high that you’ll never accept a real-world welfare system.”

OK, can you settle for minimal fraud, no discrimination against those in work, no deterring of people from getting a job, no subsidisation of idleness and fecklessness…?

That seems very reasonable to me. If any welfare system (as you seem to suggest) cannot meet my criteria, then that’s an argument against bureaucratised welfare!

Fortunately, you are wrong (assuming I’ve read you correctly), as the two broad objectives can be achieved, and a welfare system can be preserved.

Beveridge wanted a welfare system that provided a safety net, but he also specified that it should discourage idleness. The Coalition is trying to restore Beveridge’s initial vision. Yes, some claimants will suffer; but a safety net will remain.

Given our increasingly limited national resources — particularly due to the last Labour government, which falsely imagined that unregulated financial services were a cash cow to fund social programmes — we must begin to accept that we are more poor and less able to fund ‘social’ demands.

That said, like any civilised person, I’m happy to pay my taxes to see the unfortunate helped; but I’m not happy to see the undeserving benefit in significant numbers. Any bureaucratised system of welfare will result in injustices — to funders and/or recipients. The crucial point is that too many claimants are perceived as getting more than they deserve, and this undermines electoral support for welfare in general! (Chorus: It’s the Daily Hate’s fault! — No, papers follow the public, more than the public follow papers…)

@ 86

“No. I get pleasure out of the fact that arseholes such as yourself—who clearly think that anyone receiving any out of work benefit is an undeserving peasant who should be fed shit and say “thank you” after—hate the thought that people you hate receive your money.”

Ah, so you’re simply wrong as a question of fact, then! I’ve already made it clear that I’m pro-welfare and think that it’s reasonable to spend quite a long time looking for ideal jobs before you start searching for anything that’s going.

But by all means keep arguing with an opponent who only exists in your own head. Straw men are so much easier to deal with, right?

(By the way, if that stuff about saying “thank you” comes from me calling you an ingrate, you’ve got the wrong end of the stick. I don’t think you should be overcome with gratitude. I just think that’s it’s not cool to fulfill the Daily Mail’s dreams by actually laughing at people because they’re paying your keep. People like you play right into the hands of tabloids who want to portray deserving claimants as selfish layabouts.)

“So according to you, I must spend my time going for the shit jobs (which I still may not get) rather than using the time away from work to improve my prospects and eventually getting a worthwhile job—you know, one which I would need no concurrent benefits. Well, that’s really fucking longsighted of you.”

First, what benefits would you need on the minimum wage?

Second, spending some time chasing good jobs, ones you could turn into a decent career, is indeed sensible and longsighted. I for one have no problem with someone doing this for a few months while being supported on benefits.

But you, no, you’re a different class of person, aren’t you? You think you’re entitled to stay on benefits INDEFINITELY unless the world hands you the job you want. All the while shouting “I’ve got your money, ha ha ha” at the people who pay to keep you alive.

“Oh, I’m a Socialist, so yes—I am perfectly happy paying taxes and I would like to pay more. Have you got a job for me?”

I’d have thought a socialist would feel guilty about diverting funds from more deserving cases just because they think they’re above bar work. But no matter – taxes are good and we shouldn’t mind paying them, that’s something we agree on at least.

I don’t have a job for you, as I’m not an employer. At this stage in the conversion I can’t imagine either of us would be inclined to employ the other one, anyway.

@TONE #74:

That said, like any civilised person, I’m happy to pay my taxes to see the unfortunate helped; but I’m not happy to see the undeserving benefit in significant numbers.

That sounds fine, but the problem is that you seem to see those without employment as being ipso facto undeserving…

@Chaise #91:

First, what benefits would you need on the minimum wage?

While not joining issue generally with you, you might want to rethink this comment; HB is the obvious benefit that springs to mind.

@ 90 TONE

“OK, can you settle for minimal fraud, no discrimination against those in work, no deterring of people from getting a job, no subsidisation of idleness and fecklessness…?”

Er, no. As I said, I think any unemployment welfare system could be accused of failing on points 2 and 3. Point 4 is absolute and thus probably undoable. Point 1 depends on what you mean by “minimal fraud”, and what you’re prepared to sacrifice to achieve it.

You say I’m wrong about this, which may very well be the case – I answered you on the fly. Can you, then, describe a unemployment welfare system that would be immune to accusations of discrimination against those in work or deterring people from getting a job?

“That seems very reasonable to me. If any welfare system (as you seem to suggest) cannot meet my criteria, then that’s an argument against bureaucratised welfare! ”

It’s only reasonable if (pending your answer to the above) you examine it without taking the consequences into account. In the other direction, giving everyone a giant house and all the things they could ever wish for sounds wonderful, but it obviously can’t happen. For something to be reasonable it has to have acceptable negatives. As far as I can tell, fulfilling your criteria would basically mean abandoning the jobless to homelessness and starvation, which is not reasonable to my mind. Again, I’m aware this may change based on your answer to my question.

Jim @83:

“The thing that deters people from getting jobs is the lack of jobs, not benefits.”

*sigh* If you subdise something (including economic inactivity), you will get more of it! …But if you reduce the subsidy, you will get less economic activity…So your claim is utterly false! QED

@ 82 Robin

Fair enough….it doesn’t really affect the general argument though does it?

£26k for a working household, and capping benefits at £26k for a household where no-one works?

Tyler @ 81

Though this time, 69% of Labour voters are on my side. Are they all evil bigots as well?

Sure a lot of them are bigoted scumbags. Some are just miss informed, but some are petty minded bigots. I have no problem calling Labour voters bigots or just plain ignorant. Labour voters are not plaster saints in my book, they are not gods to be worshipped. I call a bigot a bigot wherever he puts his cross.

As recently as the early sixties, Labour Party branches were passing motions to exclude black people from joining. These people where not ‘misguided’ they are wrong and bigoted.

Anyway, no matter what percent of people support a given policy, does not mean that policy is right or wrong, nor does it mean that they have fully scrutinised the bill or even understand the full implications of it’s implantation. I am sure millions of people agreed with the persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany or the slave trade in colonial America, neither policy being fair.

You can quite legitimately say this is move is popular, but you cannot claim that its popularity makes it a well-constructed piece of legislation.

Here is a couple of things to ponder, there is much miss understanding about this cap, much of it deliberately engineered. Imagine a family of eight children and two adults getting twenty grand plus a year.

To suggest that they would require a job of say thirty grand a year to break even is a straightforward lie. Child benefit is universal (least it is for now) and finding a job does not mean you lose that benefit. Not only that, but when you take up a job over 16 hours a week, you are eligible for working family tax credits as well. So, even taking a modest job on the minimum wage will ensure almost all families better. There are some anomalies, if you have a severely disabled child for example, if you need specialist care then you may be worse of under certain circumstances.

The only real deterrents to people working are high council tax bills and exorbitant rents that private landlords charge for large houses. Things that could be fixed fairly simply and not really welfare issues.

However, almost every family in Country would be better of working than not. Yet, for some reason, people like you deliberately lie about that, why? Why do you bang on and on and on about the amount people would have to earn to break even when even a glance at the system would tell you that is rubbish.

I can come up with two answers, either:

1) You have no idea of the true position and you are speaking from a position of a combination of sheer fucking ignorance and malevolent bigotry.
2) You are all too aware of the position, but have an agenda in misrepresenting these people as scroungers.

Either way, that is a pretty disgusting attitude and no responsible political Party should be writing policy to appease cunts like you.

@ 93 Robin

“HB is the obvious benefit that springs to mind.”

I may have overlooked that. Where I live you wouldn’t struggle to pay rent on mimimum wage (assuming you have no dependents), but rent’s low around here.

@Tyler #96:

Fair enough….it doesn’t really affect the general argument though does it?

£26k for a working household, and capping benefits at £26k for a household where no-one works?

No, not £26k for a working household – on the figures on the Wikipedia page, £38k for a working household. And the cap applies to all sizes and types of household; from a single fully-able man, to a household with two disabled adults and 5 children, and beyond…

@91

Again, I’m not laughing at taxpayers per se; I’m sneering at the subset of taxpayers who resent the existence of a welfare state. But the way to deal with such Daily Mailite cunts is to repeatedly punch them in the face, instead of pussyfooting around them. Such prevarication is why Labour will lose the next election, but that’s for another thread. Now, stop keeping me from my job search and applications!

OK, off-topic this may be, but has anyone else here applied for a specific job advertised by an agency, only to find that vacancy has already been filled—perhaps weeks before you applied for it? Is this legal, as it appears that such phantom vacancies are advertised purely to get people to sign up with that agency?

‘TONE #95:

*sigh* If you subdise something (including economic inactivity), you will get more of it! …But if you reduce the subsidy, you will get less economic activity…So your claim is utterly false! QED

So let me get this straight: Unemployment doesn’t arise because there are no jobs for people to do; it arises because people choose not to do them. That would suggest that there must at this very moment be many hundreds of thousands of job vacancies remaining unfilled with no applicants, which would be filled if only the unemployed could be encouraged to get up off their collective backsides to fill them.

“All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing!”

@Watchman #84:

Robin,

So any way you slice it, £20k is low for a *household*. The £20k figure is an IFS figure from 2006…

It is low, but the question is surely is it too low?

As an estimate, which was what I was referring to, yes. The £20k is being compared to a £26k benefit cap; if the correct estimate is £26k (or more), then the argument that £26k is more than median household income is simply false.

CG @ 94:

Thanks for your intelligent and very civilised response. Much appreciated, as always.

Can we settle for welfare system that MINIMISES:
1 fraud?
2. discrimination against those in work?
3. subsidised joblessness ?

“Can you, then, describe a unemployment welfare system that would be immune to accusations of discrimination against those in work or deterring people from getting a job?”

No system with rules can always be fair: it’s a question of degree.

All I want is to do is prevent benefit dependency – and all the undesirable effects that flow from it.

TONE @ 95

*sigh* If you subdise something (including economic inactivity),

There is unemployment all over the World where there is little or no subsidy for the unemployed. We have people begging for food and children in prositution in various Countries. Between the wars we had mass unemployment, here and in America. There are places where the unemployed are forced to fight in the street for jobs.

We used to have that at dockyards, when hundreds of men would stand outside the gates in line hoping to get picked for a days work. Scuffles and ouright fights would break out and in some cases, foremen would set older, unfit men against young healthy boys with a job as prize, merely for sport. Those not chosen went home empty handed and with empty stomachs too.

Women would often pay the rent and other household bills ‘behind the door’ in order to survive.

This didn’t happen for a laugh, people where not getting punched and screwed because it was better than working, no-one was subsidising them ‘not to work’.

See, TONE, this is why I dislike the Tories so much. All too often, you people stick up some kind of ‘economic theory’ that bears little or no relation to the real world. Yet from our folk memory we remember the Jarrow marches, the Clydesiders, the lock out, Hoover vile, we have been on holiday and drove past the abject poverty and the shanty towns. We see mass unemployment in Egypt leading to revolutions, we see poverty-stricken people dumping children in orphanages. In a couple of generations, we have seen mass poverty all but disappear because of the Welfare State. We see people who are not forced to stand outside locked gates hoping for a days work or the casual prostitution and resulting back street abortions and you see a problem.

@Tyler #99, ,yself:

Sorry again:

No, not £26k for a working household – on the figures on the Wikipedia page, £38k for a working household. And the cap applies to all sizes and types of household; from a single fully-able man, to a household with two disabled adults and 5 children, and beyond…

That should read “fully-able couple”.

@ Tyler 75

“Last time I checked (so as I write this) the definition of RELATIVE poverty used by the government as well as various poverty charities and groups still is still the simple 60% of median household income. No mention of housing costs.

http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/social%20exclusion.shtml”

There’s no mention of housing costs on that page, but there is elsewhere on that website (which is where I got my quote from):

http://poverty.org.uk/summary/key%20facts.shtml

I can’t explain the inconsistency, but it would certainly make sense to exclude housing costs if we’re looking for a *national* measure of poverty (due to the wide variation in housing costs, and thus in the amount of money a family on a given income has to live on after putting a roof over their head).

“They make a good point there as well – this relative poverty measure is a totally arbitrary level”

They don’t make that point at all. Far from thinking it’s ‘totally artbitrary’, they think the 60%-of-median-income benchmark is a useful marker of the level below which people have “resources that are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities.”

“You can’t change the parameters to suit the argument I’m afraid.”

Quite so – so why ask a question about how the benefits cap can push people into poverty, and then dismiss the idea that you’re ‘in poverty’ if your income falls below a certain level?

“I asked is it fair to lower earners that so much of the tax THEY pay goes to other peoples benefits, making them similarly well off yet not working?”

And I answered, twice, that the tax low earners pay comes back to them in full in the form of benefits and services they themselves receive over the course of their lives. If someone pays £250 a month in tax and gets back £500 in child benefit and tax credits, it’s silly to suggest they’re making any contribution to other people’s benefits. The same principle applies over a whole lifetime – if the total value of services and benefits someone receives exceeds the total amount of tax they pay, they haven’t made any net contribution. And with relatively few exceptions – e.g. people who die early in retirement and so never receive much pension – low to middle earners are in that category. The net contributors are all higher up the income distribution.

“3. I sort of agree with you here, but why use tax credits etc….why not just tax people less on the money they earn (which might mean spending less)? Surely that is the most efficient way to boost incomes?”

It’s an efficient way to boost workers’ incomes by a smallish amount across the board, with higher earners seeing the biggest benefit in cash terms. But if you want to boost the incomes of a particular group, it’s far more efficient to target them with cash benefits (or ‘tax rebates’, if you prefer).

The tax credits system costs about the same as it would cost to raise the tax threshold to £12,500 – c. £24bn – but whereas the latter approach might only boost a low-earning family’s income by £1000 or so, the former might boost it by £5000 or more. That’s because the ‘tax cuts’ option means taxes get cut for *everyone*, including higher earners, people without children, etc. Which is fine if that’s your aim, but terribly inefficient if your aim is to help low-income families.

“4. Agreed, a lot of extra welfare spending has come from demographics/pensions, and indeed some has come from the recession. But welfare alone, ex-pensions, was still massively increasing up until the recession. The tax burden is also very high already and increased ramatically under Labour”

The tax burden is high now because of the deficit, but it didn’t increase dramatically under Labour prior to the crash. On average, I think it was about 1% higher than it had been under Major – roughly 38% of GDP vs 37%.

“Simply put, there is no way you can raise taxes enough to find the money needed to cover the deficit, before accounting for increasing welfare and health costs. So, not really sustainable then, unless you cap or cut costs somewhere.”

…or, of course, reduce the need for welfare spending by getting people into work and earning decent wages.

@ 100 Cheesy Monkey

“Again, I’m not laughing at taxpayers per se; I’m sneering at the subset of taxpayers who resent the existence of a welfare state.”

That’s a little better, but antagonising these people is still detrimental to the welfare state. You’re stoking the fires of the opposition AND giving them a totally vaid reason to object to you in the process. Two valid reasons if we include your “I’m too good to work, give me free money” attitude.

“But the way to deal with such Daily Mailite cunts is to repeatedly punch them in the face, instead of pussyfooting around them.”

Actually, it’s to the Mail’s credit that even it doesn’t go so far as to advocate winning political arguments by punching the other guy in the face. We have these things called “reason” and “debate”; they’re generally better at finding the right answer than mindless hate and violence.

@ 104 TONE

“Thanks for your intelligent and very civilised response. Much appreciated, as always.”

Likewise!

“Can we settle for welfare system that MINIMISES:
1 fraud?
2. discrimination against those in work?
3. subsidised joblessness ?”

Absolutely, with my previous caveat about taking consequences into account. You certainly wouldn’t want to allow those things for no reason.

“No system with rules can always be fair: it’s a question of degree.

All I want is to do is prevent benefit dependency – and all the undesirable effects that flow from it.”

How would you go about doing this? It’s a noble goal, but the devil is in the details.

TONE @ 104

All I want is to do is prevent benefit dependency – and all the undesirable effects that flow from it

Ah, then the answer is simple, look to our past. The Post War. The Governments of the day had full employment at the top of the agenda, which they managed with a couple of ways. Nationalised industries over staffed to the teeth and National Service.

In fact, that would solve everything else. If you have full employment, the price of labour would rise making anyone not willing to work far worse of and it would be easier to target those lazy people who are not willing to find work.

People with relatively minor illnesses would become attractive to employers as well, thus encouraging them to scour the ranks of the disabled and overcoming their barriers. Ramps and toliets fitted everywhere, for example. Single mother get free childcare to ensure employers have enough staff.
We could be sure then that those disabled people were TRULY unable to work if they are rejected by the free market.

You are now considering converting to Socialism now?

Or is the ‘cure’ actually worse than the disease?

RL @ 101

“So let me get this straight: Unemployment doesn’t arise because there are no jobs for people to do; it arises because people choose not to do them.That would suggest that there must at this very moment be many hundreds of thousands of job vacancies remaining unfilled with no applicants, which would be filled if only the unemployed could be encouraged to get up off their collective backsides to fill them.”

Reduce benefits, RL, and unemployment will fall: if you subsidise x, you will get more of x. GSCE economics….Why?? Because more people will move to find work and others will start their own businesses…

“it arises because people choose not to do them.That would suggest that there must at this very moment be many hundreds of thousands of job vacancies remaining unfilled with no applicants, ”

They should change their views as to what is an acceptable job! And financial incentives will encourage them. (Btw, I’ve been a cleaner and an excecutive in a charity; and now I’m not choosy.)

I think job applicants should be less choosy! Particularly, when wealth creation is moving eastwards and our debt and deficit are almost out of control!

@66 – And we see massive waves of evictions because Landlords refuse to sign the contracts.

@75 – Of course we do. You just don’t like the answers you’re given as to what the consequences are – higher costs and dead people.

@97 – Indeed. The real problem there is that a single person gets very little for a part-time job. You don’t even get WTC.

@104 – Well then, study the Nordic countries. Low unemployment, higher tax, higher welfare, flexible market with many people changing jobs and very short unemployment periods.

@110 – “Reduce benefits, RL, and unemployment will fall”

In good part due to crime and people *dying*. UK benefits are already EXTREMELY low. Moving is *expensive*.

“I think job applicants should be less choosy!”

So you have even MORE people applying for the SAME NUMBER OF JOBS.

@TONE #110:

Reduce benefits, RL, and unemployment will fall: if you subsidise x, you will get more of x. GSCE economics….Why?? Because more people will move to find work and others will start their own businesses…

I never formally learned economics; but I do know something about elasticity of markets. Subsidies will only increase the supply of something if there is an elastic demand for it. If reducing the price of something doesn’t affect the demand, then the seller simply makes less profit. I believe that was taught as part of O-level economics.

If there is no work to be had, then moving to somewhere else that has no work won’t help. In this connection, bear in mind that cheap places to live are generally cheap because economic activity is flat or worse; whereas the expensive places to live – eg London – are expensive because of the level of economic activity. The Benefit Cap will therefore operate to move those affected toward the areas where there are fewer jobs. Some might consider that perverse.

And in the current economic climate, how will the unemployed start enough businesses to make a difference? The banks aren’t lending to established companies, so unemployed individuals with no track-record have no chance.

“it arises because people choose not to do them.That would suggest that there must at this very moment be many hundreds of thousands of job vacancies remaining unfilled with no applicants, ”

They should change their views as to what is an acceptable job! And financial incentives will encourage them. (Btw, I’ve been a cleaner and an excecutive in a charity; and now I’m not choosy.)

I think job applicants should be less choosy! Particularly, when wealth creation is moving eastwards and our debt and deficit are almost out of control!

So where is the evidence of these hundreds of thousands of jobs with no applicants, remaining unfilled because the unemployed refuse to apply for them? Do you have any?

It is priceless reading all the fake libertarians lecturing about fake free markets. They live in a fantasy world. Take the housing market. Try building millions of new houses. You can’t because of the planning restrictions.

I know, srap the planning system, and have a free for all. Let them concrete all over the South East. Good luck with that. Just look at the so called libertarian free market tory MPs and voters reaction to building the fast train line to Birmingham. Squealing like the fat pigs they are.

I repeat again (getting tired of saying it) there is no free market. Neger has been and never will be. What the tories preach is selfish greed bolted on to NIMBYism.

It was like all those tory freeloaders in Lloyd’s of London. The free market was fine when they were getting shit loads off moneyevery year. Yet the minute it collapsed, they were screaming for compensation.

Libertarians are just selfishhypocritical arsewipes.

@ Robin

Allowing for the fact that both unemployed families and working households both have varying numbers of people in them….and there are a lot more working families….

You still don’t answer the crux of my argument which is why you can get £26k for not working, when a working family would have to take home £35k pre-tax to take home the same amount.

@ Jim

Pretty much what I expected from you – another diatribe.

“As recently as the early sixties”

Seriously??

There are just as many large working families as unemployed ones. Unless you are saying large families are the sole preserve of the unemployed?

Do you understand tax incidence? Part of the problem is that many families have no incentive to work, as their effective tax rate is too high. They are better off on benefits, because the amount they would earn working would be too low. 90% or higher marginal tax rates. So they do the rational thing and not work. Which is hardly something we should be encouraging.

“The Governments of the day had full employment at the top of the agenda, which they managed with a couple of ways. Nationalised industries over staffed to the teeth and National Service.”

That worked ever so well didn’t it? Communist style control economies either went bust, or had living standards outstripped by what western capitalist market economies could provide – especially in the area of welfare. That and the nationalised industries were hugely expensive, inefficient and mostly ineffective – outcompeted at every turn. Let’s go back to making rubbish cars and all that, shall we?

“You are now considering converting to Socialism now?”

Only if I was considering impoverishing everyone and bankrupting the country.

@ 114 Robin

There is an elasticity in benefits as well – make them easier to get and very generous, with high marginal tax rates and many people won’t go looking for jobs as they would likely earn less.

Sally,

I repeat again (getting tired of saying it) there is no free market.

Correct – but there is always the possibility of creating a better, freer, market, which works better. We may never achieve ultimate perfection, but we can improve. The state is not so blessed as an option.

Incidentally, libertarian does not equal Conservative, or Conservative voter (left-wing liberatrians exist for a start). So you cannot criticise libertarians (which I am not sure if anyone on this thread would classify themselves as anyway…) because of the actions of others. That’s like using the actions of Alex Salmond to criticise UK Uncut – a non-sequiteur. I may have mentioned this to you before.

Sally @115, you appear to be confusing ‘people who may or may not claim to be libertarians’ with ‘people who are in fact libertarians’.

@116 – “Only if I was considering impoverishing everyone and bankrupting the country.”

“Considering”?. Your party IS doing PRECISELY THAT.

@117 – Oh look, the Nordic nations disagree, in practice.

@118 – And the free market and capitalism are ENTIRELY different things.

No such thing as libertarians. They are all FAKE. The very fact you talk about left wing liberarians, and conservative libertarians makes my point.

What there are in spades are people who want the govt let them (and only them) do whatever they want. The problem is always when other people want to do things that effect them. Selfish Ninbys would be a more accurate. In fact it defines most tories.

Tyler @ 116

which is why you can get £26k for not working, when a working family would have to take home £35k pre-tax to take home the same amount.

THEY DON’T!!!!!! This why you are getting it wrong. A family who receive Twenty six grand in out of work benefits would have to earn no-where near thirty five grand to take home the same amount.

The second family would get working tax credit/housing benefit and child benefit if one of the parents has a job over sixteen hours a week. You can work for sixteen hours a week and you are eligible for child tax credits.

You see this is what is so infuriating when you deal with Tories. They are just too dumb to absorb simple concepts.

WHY ARE YOU SO FUCKING BLIND TO THIS?

You have had this explained to you repeatedly, and yet you appear incapable of accepting this simple fact. If the latter family has a working parent, they can earn as little as eight grand and the WTC will kick in and push there income up by a considerable amount.

CHILD BENEFIT IS PAID TO BOTH FAMILIES, IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR EARNINGS, UNLESS ONE ON THEM EARNS ENOUGH TO PAY TOP RATE TAX.

Try and grasp this simple point:

CHILD TAX CREDITS are paid to parents who work.

@Tyler #116:

You still don’t answer the crux of my argument which is why you can get £26k for not working, when a working family would have to take home £35k pre-tax to take home the same amount.

Partly because you’ve never so stated your argument – the figures on the Wikipedia page certainly don’t say that.

In fact, it isn’t true. Tax and NI together even on a single £35k income (still less two equal incomes of £17.5k) doesn’t (quite) amount to £9k. Income Tax is c£5.5k, and NI C£3.3k. The median income however is earned by two earners; so IT would be £4k, and NI c£2.5

Furthermore, the £38.5k average household income itself includes a substantial proportion of untaxable benefits; and finally that income is a net income…

#117:

There is an elasticity in benefits as well – make them easier to get and very generous, with high marginal tax rates and many people won’t go looking for jobs as they would likely earn less.

But in an economy where there is not full employment, the constraint isn’t supply of labour, it’s demand. If you reduce benefits so more people apply, then labour supply goes up relative to demand, resulting in a reduction in wages offered until labour supply (applications) reduces to match demand (available jobs), or until statutory minimum wage is reached. So, looking at it purely from an economic point of view, and assuming in your favour that reducing benefits increases the number of unemployed who will then look for work, the sole effect of reducing benefits is to depress wages for those in work.

@122 – Because it suits them. The ideology says, and they follow. As Robin notes, wages will go down – considerably – as a result of punishing the poor more for existing.

UKL @ 119

Gasp!

What could that mean? If I call myself a ‘libertarian’, who could gainsay that? Given that ‘libertarian’ can mean just about anyone, I could, and do, call myself a libertarian; I believe in freedom from starvation and poverty and everything further than that is pop corn, so who can call me not a true libertarian?

89
Nope, you didn’t read my post, redistributing work would surely put more people into work? yes.
Of course cost would go down, so if you earned only £10 per week, this wouldn’t matter if your rent was say £1 per week.
90
The Welfare State was created to function within a particular economic system, take away that system and the whole starts to disfunction. Full employment meant just that, therefore, being idle through choice, was not to be encouraged. And Beveridge never intended the Welfare State to encourage employers to pay less on the basis that those recipients could be topped-up by welfare payments. As you correctly state @95, if you subsidize something you will get more of it.

Leon,

@118 – And the free market and capitalism are ENTIRELY different things.

Yes, they are. Capitalism is not a free market (hence my dislike of it as a system).

Sally,

No such thing as libertarians. They are all FAKE. The very fact you talk about left wing liberarians, and conservative libertarians makes my point.

Erm, so everything can be placed and defined on a single continium then? Your political views can easily be described by one label. Effectively you just sign up to a package of views? Idiotic comment there – people think, and some people may believe in a strong state in a libetarian society (not a contradiction) whilst others may believe in a small state in a libertarian society, and also wish for strong traditional values. Exactly the same as socialists may or may not believe in nationalisation or liberals may or may not agree with the concept of hate crimes – things are far more complex than your screaming of labels.

What there are in spades are people who want the govt let them (and only them) do whatever they want. The problem is always when other people want to do things that effect them. Selfish Ninbys would be a more accurate. In fact it defines most tories.

Wierdly I agree with you here (although I think these people are in all political tendencies) – the ‘libertarian’ who believes we should be able to carry guns (a device purely of use for imposing your will on others (or hunting I suppose – but that can be arranged differently)) is a good example, as is the socialist who believes we should all give more money to help the unemployed. Incidentally though, a proper libertarian (and these seem to be fewer than those that claim the label) wants the government to let them do what they want, so long as it does not affect anyone else’s ability to do as they want – that is the only meaning of the term. There is no libertarian economic policy (how can there be?), or even policy on healthcare or defence because these are not libertarian issues.

Jim,

What could that mean? If I call myself a ‘libertarian’, who could gainsay that? Given that ‘libertarian’ can mean just about anyone, I could, and do, call myself a libertarian; I believe in freedom from starvation and poverty and everything further than that is pop corn, so who can call me not a true libertarian?

Because you are an idiot. I believe in the equality of all men and the need for the state to destroy vested interests, so why not call me a true socialist? Because the word has an actual political meaning – and I do not sign up to the requirement for state control that socialism involves. But I agree with the principles. You may agree with the principles of liberty, but libertarianism has acquired a set of specific (and much-abused) meanings, and your definition is not one of them. I’d say your beliefs make you a reasonable human being rather than ascribable to a political point of view.

@steveb #126:

Nope, you didn’t read my post, redistributing work would surely put more people into work? yes.

True, indeed almost by definition. But since you are only distributing available work, the total wage bill will remain the same; since you are splitting between more people, everyone on work gets less (on average) then those who were on work before introduction of your scheme. That is before taking account of the inefficiencies you are introducing with job-sharing.

Of course cost would go down, so if you earned only £10 per week, this wouldn’t matter if your rent was say £1 per week.

Why on earth would costs go down? Can you imagine the bureaucracy involved in making sure that everyone gets their fair share of the work available? And that employers didn’t try to fiddle the system to keep the workers they want and get rid of the workers they didn’t want and reduce their overall labour force back to where it was before introduction of the scheme.

@120 Leon

Ah yes, of course now the UK has a Tory led government its going to mean we all live in penury. Problem is, that we have lots and lots of evidence socialism does indeed impoverish people. Eastern Europe tried it, and the Labour party in the UK has never managed anything other than leaving the country and its people in more debt.

The Nordic nations are busy liberalising their economies and cutting state/welfare spending. Traditionally they have had higher income tax rates, but these days not by much. They also tend to have fairly low corporate tax rates.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/0/43214648.pdf

@ 122 Jim

It’s called ” median household income”. Which is AFTER tax and INCLUDES all benefits. So INCLUDES any benefits a working family might recieve.

So, once again, you are totally fucking wrong – mostly because you couldn’t be bothered to actually do any research and instead went off on how it works in Jimmy-land. Which unfortunately for you, is not the UK.

@ 123 Robin

I’m not trying to argue the exact figures…I am trying to use them as an example.

I understand what you are saying, but we also have free movement of Labour. If what you say is (entirely) true, unemployment and welfare costs would have fallen dramatically under Labour, during the boom years.

As we know though, whilst millions of jobs were indeed created, they were mostly filled by immigrants (can’t/less likely to access benefits) and jobless figures remained very stubborn. Welfare costs continued to climb at a rate comparable with recession years.

Why? Benefits are “elastic” as well, acting in the opposite direction to job availability.

Just think about it – by definition it has to be true. If benefits get higher, it makes less and less sense for more and more people to work. It’s the rational choice for them. As they get lower, it forces more people to look for work.

On a totally seperate note:

I do love the way lefties argue against people moving, and for effectively unlimited housing benefits…..yet are so happy to welcome immigrants into the UK to work. People who have upped-sticks and moved to a new country to better themselves. Surely then either they should be being paid benefits to enable them to stay in their communities, or lefties shouldn’t have such an aversion to people being forced to move for work/financial reasons. Totally binary logic.

@129 – MINOR adjustments do not mean that Nordic nations have the wrong idea. Moreover, they’ve always had very free markets. What they restrict is capitalism, NOT the free market!

The problem is trying to mix – instead, we should adopt a Nordic model.

Instead, you want us to become more like America, and punish the poor for existing.

Moreover, during many of the Labour years, employment was at 95%. THIS IS FULL EMPLOYMENT. You will *always* have a certain percentage of unemployed people, and indeed 100% employment is NOT good.

The reason benefit costs climbed was HOUSING BENEFIT. And do keep arguing that social cleansing is the same as voluntary movement, by the way.

“by definition it has to be true”

By the Tory One True State line, certainly. However, I’m going to go ahead and commit a thoughtcrime and point out that its nonsense. The Nordic countries completely disprove your theorem.

But of course ideology > reality

Your type of idioticy is crashing the economy.

TL @ 114(?):

“If there is no work to be had, then…*

There’s loads of work that needs doing – my shoes, my windows, my door brass, my house, all need cleaning! But the unemployed are not queueing at my door – because it’s more profitable to sponge off the state.

@131 – So where’s your advertised job?

128
The workers (not the state) would also own the means of production, no conflict of interests and, as wages would be the same, it would not be of any advantage to work more than the prescribed hours.
And, as the workforce actually owned their productive base, there would be more incentive to work harder.

Watchman @ 127

You are still evading the question though. Sally says that there are no such thing as libertarians, and UKL has suggested that there are two groups of people: those who merely call themselves libertarians and those who a‘actually’ are libertarians.

Well who gave you or UKL the franchise to decide who counts as a ‘libertarian’? The self-appointed arbitrators of Libertarianism? What kind of qualities does one need to be part of your gang? If anyone on the board calls themselves ‘libertarian’, then what gives you people the ability to deny them that title?

I believe that people have the right to choose abortion, so that makes me a libertarian, other people are against people having that chioce and they think they are libertarian, now we both cannot be right, so who gets to choose? Here is a clue, I don’t think it is either you or UKL.

@111. Tax Obesity, Not Enterprise

Reduce benefits, RL, and unemployment will fall: if you subsidise x, you will get more of x. GSCE economics….Why?? Because more people will move to find work and others will start their own businesses…

Great theory, unfortunately it is contradicted by all real world experience. Mass unemployment existed in the 1930s when there was barely any welfare state worth talking about. Try reading George Orwell’s ‘Road To Wigan Pier” and you will gain some idea of just how brutal life was for the unemployed in that era. With serious malnutrition, and people resorting to scrabbling for little bits of coal on slag heaps either to stay warm or to exchange for food. Hardly a life most sane people would willingly want if there was work available!

Conversely, the period of the 20th century with the lowest unemployment was from the 1940s to the 1970s. The period after the welfare state was introduced. If your theory was correct then this should have been the other way round. Clearly then, the hypothesis is wrong as the evidence contradicts it.

Unless of course the real cause of unemployment is lack of jobs. And if that is so then no amount of brutalising the unemployed will make a great deal of difference to the unemployment figures.

Tyler @ 122

It’s called ” median household income”. Which is AFTER tax and INCLUDES all benefits. So INCLUDES any benefits a working family might recieve.

Now, you are all over the place, because this is what you said earlier:

Tyler @ 116

You still don’t answer the crux of my argument which is why you can get £26k for not working, when a working family would have to take home £35k pre-tax to take home the same amount.

I can see you been forced to change what you were saying earlier, thats fine.

They would not need to take home £35K pre tax to match the family with no working parent. Child tax credit kicks in once the parent works for sixteen hours a week. I would suggest that 16 x £6.08 x 52 comes to a bit over five grand a year which is less than the tax threshold.

TONE @ 131

There’s loads of work that needs doing – my shoes, my windows, my door brass, my house, all need cleaning! But the unemployed are not queueing at my door – because it’s more profitable to sponge off the state.

What are you on about? There are plenty of people working as cleaners in this Country and window clears as well. In fact our windows are cleaned by a a self employed guy who earns more considerably more than he would on the dole. Same with domestic cleaners. You want your house cleaned:

http://www.gumtree.com/search?q=domestic+cleaners&search_location=United+Kingdom&category=jobs&search_scope=all

There you go, hope that helps.

@ Jim,

you are of course free to call yourself whatever you choose, but surely it is unwise for you to call yourself a libertarian if you are not one, as people will presume you to hold certain positions that you don’t. Those who call themselves libertarians rightly expose their position to being checked for consistency with libertarian principles, which are not hidden away as sacred scrolls, being essentially, especially in this country, the same as the original liberal principles, of individual liberty, property, peace and free trade. The non-aggression principle which underlies the above is central.

There are naturally differences of opinion amongst libertarians, such as over abortion as you mention, but if you don’t agree with the principles above, there’s probably a better label to apply to yourself than libertarian.

@131: I think it would be better if they lined up at your door to shoot you in the head.

@kamo: How about you stop breathing you cunt?

@Troofer Thompson aka England’s Freedom (possible EDL support site)

Go play in traffic.

TT @ 138

Who is to decide what ‘Libertarian’ principles actually are? I have seen plenty of loose definitions of Libertarianism that say things like (paraphrase)

‘I/We can do what you like, just as long as I/we do not affect other people with my/our behaviour’

That sounds great until you try to put it into practice. The smoking ban for example; I have read statements that, in my opinion, that changes the above to:

We can do what we like as long as we can convince ourselves that others will not be harmed, by our actions

Which is a very different thing. The person who thinks it cool to play music on his phone on the train for everyone else to listen to and the guy who believes that science has made a mistake regarding AGW and can create as much CO2 as he wants, may or may not consider themselves ‘libertarians’, but by no sensible rationale can that be true, if we accept the ‘do no harm’ principle.

@Chaise Guevara:

It’s not mindless hate – its directed at the right people

sub-human cunts like you.

@ Jim,

“Who is to decide what ‘Libertarian’ principles actually are?”

My dear chap, words must have agreed meanings, or else communication will break down. Don’t play the faux naif. If you see an advert for a libertarian group meeting in a pub somewhere, I am sure you have a pretty shrewd idea of the kind of things these people think about politics, and whether or not you would fit in with them.

“I/We can do what you like, just as long as I/we do not affect other people with my/our behaviour”

This is a rather vague rendering of the non-aggression principle, vague because you are using the term ‘affect other people’, rather than a more clear term such as ‘harm other people’, or better still ‘violate the property rights of other people’. The problem with vagueness, is that it serves poor use for resolving issues of where such a line lies. If I wanted, for instance, to sue you for damages, it is not enough to assert that your behaviour affected me. I would have to show that it had harmed me.

“That sounds great until you try to put it into practice. The smoking ban for example”

There is a distinct lack of evidence, more than compensated for by hysterical propaganda, about second-hand smoke. But that is a side-issue. The main libertarian argument against the smoking ban is that it is a violation of the property rights of the property owner. If he wishes to permit smoking on his premises, it is his business. It is also the case that the smoking prohibitionists have a puritanical streak a mile wide, and have an agenda of social engineering, also seen in the constant anti-drinking hype, that offends libertarians, who believe that, as free (adult) individuals, they should make their own decisions in such things. The libertarian view is to let the market provide. There never was anything stopping people from banning smoking on their premises.

As for the guy playing music on the train, he’s not doing it due to adherence to any political philosophy, he’s an unthinking or selfish idiot, and he’s no doubt violating the terms of agreement for his carriage on the train. As for CO2 destroying the planet, I must say I think it’s bollocks. Other forms of proper pollution are indeed most likely violations of somebody else’s property rights, and should be treated as such, where this is shown to be the case.

@141 “7″, keep at it, pal. A few more millennia, you never know, you may have opposable thumbs.

@144 – “As for CO2 destroying the planet, I must say I think it’s bollocks”

Ah, so science as well as statistics are excluded from your decision-making processes. Neat-o!

@144. Trooper Thompson: “@141 “7?, keep at it, pal. A few more millennia, you never know, you may have opposable thumbs.”

I am not having a serious dig at you, Trooper Thompson, because you were a target of several childish wind-ups by “7″. However the only disabled person to race in a Formula One World Championship Grand Prix, Archie Scott Brown, did not have opposable thumbs.

@ 147,

thank you for that interesting fact, Charlieman, but it does tend to detract from my attempt at a witty put-down. I suppose no good comes from troll-feeding.

@ 143

“It’s not mindless hate – its directed at the right people

sub-human cunts like you.”

Thanks for the tip!

I’m now idly wondering why exactly 7 thinks I’m such a scumbag? Is it because I support the welfare state? Because I don’t support the welfare state enough? Because I advocate a childish enthusiasm for resolving policy debates by methods other than repeated head-punching? What is it? WHAT IS IT??!! I need to learn so I can improve myself, stop being a subhuman cunt, and transform into a mature, edifying person like 7!

@149. Chaise Guevara: “I’m now idly wondering why exactly 7 thinks I’m such a scumbag?”

You probably stole two of his chips at the bus stop in 1979. Or “7″ was a random troll — s/he had a good go at covering posters from across the spectrum.

Kamo @34 got caught up in that nonsense. Kamo is a new name to me on LC so welcome to you, even though I disagree with your points above.

105. Jim

There is unemployment all over the World where there is little or no subsidy for the unemployed. We have people begging for food and children in prositution in various Countries. Between the wars we had mass unemployment, here and in America. There are places where the unemployed are forced to fight in the street for jobs.

There isn’t much unemployment all over the world where there are no benefits. There are just jobs you don’t like. Child prostitution tends to go with refusing to allow children to work in sweat shops. Actually. There was mass unemployment in the UK and US between the wars. In part because of government regulation.

This didn’t happen for a laugh, people where not getting punched and screwed because it was better than working, no-one was subsidising them ‘not to work’.

And yet the chances of this ever happening in the UK again is roughly zero. We have a lot of people with no skills, but we are importing millions of people with even fewer skills to do the jobs the British neets won’t. No matter how you slice it, the problem is not a lack of jobs, it is a lack of people willing to work.

In a couple of generations, we have seen mass poverty all but disappear because of the Welfare State.

No. We saw mass poverty all but disappear because of capitalism and the economic growth that it brought. We are seeing an ever-growing sector of society that is worse than merely poor because of the welfare state. It is not sustainable as long as it creates more problems than it solves. This is something we have to fix. We will simply run out of money otherwise.

“We are importing millions of people with even fewer skills to do the jobs the British neets won’t. No matter how you slice it, the problem is not a lack of jobs, it is a lack of people willing to work.”

SMFS… so immigration happens because British people are too lazy to work? Are you sure? If so how does it work? Do employers regularly advertise in other countries because they get zero applications here? Has the govt put out a plea for more foreign workers because British people are simply refusing to apply for the myriad of jobs that are available?

I grant you it does seem like a dire situation. But I guess until there is some proof that a) there are enough jobs for all the unemployed people in this country to do; and b) current job applicants are all non-British, it might be a little hard to believe.

TT @ 146

If you see an advert for a libertarian group meeting in a pub somewhere, I am sure you have a pretty shrewd idea of the kind of things these people think about politics, and whether or not you would fit in with them.

Yes and that is sort of the point. I suppose this is the equivalent of some old duffer complaining about being not allowed to be ‘gay’ any more. I am a libertarian, but I believe in ‘real’ liberty, not what you people call it.

If I wanted, for instance, to sue you for damages, it is not enough to assert that your behaviour affected me. I would have to show that it had harmed me.

Fair point, that weakness is mine. that is a far more accurate definition.

There is a distinct lack of evidence, more than compensated for by hysterical propaganda, about second-hand smoke.

You are entitled to believe that, but you don’t get to make that choice for the rest of us, though. That’s the issue here, I have no problem with you believing passive smoking is not true, but that does not give you the right to act as if it is not true.

As for CO2 destroying the planet, I must say I think it’s bollocks

Again, you despise science, that is an issue for you and your conscience, but that is not a green light for you to decide whether or not you have the right to destroy everybody else’s planet. If there was such a thing as ‘Trooper Thompson warming’ and you were the only person was affected, (Oh, all right harmed if you insist), fine, but you have to concede that is not the case, the science suggests (irrespective of what you believe or not) that your emissions cause other people to suffer. As a libertarian, that should tell you how to act.

Just because any given Libertarian is too stupid, too ignorant or just give not give a fuck about the likely outcomes of his action does not give him the right to ignore the consequences of those actions on the rest of the World Or other passengers on the train other car owners, his work mates, patrons in a pub, or his family or whatever. Be that drink driving, speeding, smoking, public masterbation or whatever.

And that is the crux of the matter for your big ‘L’s in that pub meeting you mention. I know EXACTLY the type of people who are in that meeting alright, but there are few libertarians as I recognise the term there. It is basically people who don’t want the rules we all live by to apply to them. Your pub group want the freedom, but whenever the responsibility part clashes with whatever lifestyle choices they want to take, they have the ‘get of out jail (responsibility) card tucked under the board. ‘The science is iffy’, ‘the data is skewed’, ‘the evidence if fabricated’, ‘I just do not believe it’ etc.

I am a libertarian at heart, I believe in the smoking ban AND I believe we need controls on people’s CO2 emissions for libertarian principles, not Left or Right wing liberty, but real liberty. Freedom is great but you cannot have freedom unless you have responsibilities, ‘science is bollocks’ is not part of any political ideology as I understand it. Liberty is one thing, but I think if those guys in that pub meeting think liberty gives them the right to stick their fingers in their ears and ‘la la la’ themselves out of their responsibility they are sadly mistaken as far as I can see.

152. Violet

SMFS… so immigration happens because British people are too lazy to work? Are you sure? If so how does it work? Do employers regularly advertise in other countries because they get zero applications here? Has the govt put out a plea for more foreign workers because British people are simply refusing to apply for the myriad of jobs that are available?

No, immigration happens because people want to come here, people here want to hire them and there are jobs for them to come to. But those jobs would be filled if British people were willing to work.

I grant you it does seem like a dire situation. But I guess until there is some proof that a) there are enough jobs for all the unemployed people in this country to do; and b) current job applicants are all non-British, it might be a little hard to believe.

Under Blair Britain added about 3.5 million jobs. They went to about 3.5 million immigrants. And the unemployment rolls hardly shifted. That there is proof of this situation is beyond being worth arguing.

153. Jim

Again, you despise science, that is an issue for you and your conscience, but that is not a green light for you to decide whether or not you have the right to destroy everybody else’s planet.

If the science wasn’t bollocks, you might have a point. But as the science is bollocks (or rather the alarmism built on the very different science) then whether or not TT emits CO2 he is not destroying everyone else on the planet. Even if the science wasn’t bollocks, he still wouldn’t be destroying anyone else as the worst sane prediction is that we will be mildly warmer. Which may actually be good for us. The chances of the planet even being inconvenienced is zero.

I am a libertarian at heart, I believe in the smoking ban AND I believe we need controls on people’s CO2 emissions for libertarian principles, not Left or Right wing liberty, but real liberty.

And Jim gets the Orwell Award for being able to argue liberty means the exact opposite of its general meaning. There is no libertarian case for banning smoking – nor a liberal one. It is a generally harmless habit that only contributes to the death of half of all smokers, over a very long period of time, and does no harm to anyone else at all.

Freedom is great but you cannot have freedom unless you have responsibilities

And now Jim is channeling Norman Tebbitt? Cool.

@ 136 Jim

You really are a moron.

You are arguing that working people get benefits. I then tell you that median household income INCLUDES all benefits people pay, and is after tax paid.

I.e. it is what the household takes home in total for the year.

The median level – £26k.

Which is where benefits are being capped at – benefits which you DO NOT have to work for.

Oh, and there is no way you are a libertarian. Quite the opposite in fact. You want to tell everybody how to live their lives through the dictum of the state.

@ 152 Violet

3 million jobs were created under Labour, of which 90% were filled by imigrants. Even today there are more jobs created than being lost (though currently not as fast as population growth, hence increasing unemployment).

Immigration isn’t because British people are too lazy to work, but that so many jobs were taken by immigrants suggests that British people have been outcompeted. Yet so many of these jobs were low skilled? So why haven’t more of these jobs gone to British people? Well, the likelihood is that because many of these jobs were low paid, British people were unwilling to work for low pay, or better off on benefits not to. So “lazy” if you like.

Tyler @ 155

I then tell you that median household income INCLUDES all benefits people pay, and is after tax paid.

Can I just check? So, what would someone have to EARN IN WAGES to match a benefit of £26k?

Are you now conceding that you where wrong to say:

3. Is it morally right, both for the recipient and for those taxpayers funding the benefits, that the welfare state can trap people in benefits dependency as those people can’t find a job which would pay them more, and therefore are better off on benefits?

Do you now accept that if you are getting £26k in out of work benefits you would be better earning even a modest amount, far less than the 35k in wages that has been banded about?

In your opinion what would someone need to earn IN WAGES to cover the benefit they would lose?

To receive 26k in benefits you would need to be in dire straits, with either a lot of children or have severely disabled children or adult living in that house. Under those conditions, having a working parent would mean your in work benefits would more than cover this cap. The types of families in those situations are very rare in relative terms. Nearly seventy thousand families is a lot of people, but relatively small amount when you look at the total number of families in Britain.

The most obvious way of getting round this will to split the family up with both parts of the family able to claim 26k albeit in different households.

The housing benefit cap of £500 quid a week will be easily bypassed if that family decant into two houses each costing £495 per week each, thus doubling the bill for that alone.

On the other hand, you could just as easy put the disabled child into care, thus costing the local authority around £700 a week.

3 million jobs were created under Labour, of which 90% were filled by imigrants. Even today there are more jobs created than being lost (though currently not as fast as population growth, hence increasing unemployment).

Immigration isn’t because British people are too lazy to work, but that so many jobs were taken by immigrants suggests that British people have been outcompeted. Yet so many of these jobs were low skilled? So why haven’t more of these jobs gone to British people? Well, the likelihood is that because many of these jobs were low paid, British people were unwilling to work for low pay, or better off on benefits not to. So “lazy” if you like.

Alternatively, in the words of Richard Seymour:
“Historically, systems of migrant and segregated labour work very similarly in that the costs of reproducing their labour power are reduced by the conditions of oppression. In pre-apartheid South Africa, for example, segregated and migratory labour were combined. African workers were imported from the rural economy, housed in cramped, collective living quarters, fed a standardised diet purchased in bulk, and transported collectively to the mineral mines (where they were admitted only to the most menial jobs on account of ‘colour bar’ policies). They may have had a family to support, but not in the city centre, and thus the remittance they needed to provide their family with was not elevated by city prices. All of this was much less expensive than the process of feeding, housing and transporting the white workers who lived in individual houses in the Witwatersrand core with high rents, ate in individualised units, had families to support and travelled individually. Hence, the politico-legal oppression of African workers meant that the cost of reproducing their labour was reduced, thus increasing profits.

What this means is that British workers could not, even if they were masochistic enough to want to, work in the same conditions that most migrant workers have to accept. To attempt it would be to attempt a perverse hoax in which one abandoned one’s status as a British citizen, fled with one’s family to a relatively poor country and gained citizenship there, accepted lower living standards, and then left one’s family behind to try to get into the UK, legally or otherwise. Oh, and one would have to forget almost everything one had ever learned, because the first sign that one was socialised in the UK might alert any handler or employer that there’s something awry. And the only thing that one would learn from such zaniness is that a worker’s position in the global labour market is socially produced, maintained by politico-legal institutions and social forces much larger than any individual worker. The cost of labour is determined by all of these factors, and unemployment is not voluntary.”

@ 153 Jim,

“I am a libertarian, but I believe in ‘real’ liberty, not what you people call it. ”

No, you can’t get away with that. The definition libertarians use is wholly consistent with that given by Locke, Jefferson, Cobden, Bastiat etc., etc. It is to be sovereign of your own body and your own property. If you wanted to take a theological position and argue that ‘real’ liberty was obedience to God, that would be one thing, but the liberty you seem to be seeking is something else again. Not a liberty of action, but some kind of Garden of Eden scenario, free from the problems of scarcity.

“You are entitled to believe that, but you don’t get to make that choice for the rest of us, though. That’s the issue here, I have no problem with you believing passive smoking is not true, but that does not give you the right to act as if it is not true. ”

You have ignored what I said was the main point, which was that whether smoking is or is not permitted in a particular place should be the decision of the property owner. You wish to make great play of my comment about the lack of evidence about the harm caused by passive smoking, because it fits with your pre-conceived notion, further evidenced when you write:

“you despise science”

Certainly not. What I have done is comment sceptically on the evidence basis for passive smoking and, as I put it, CO2 destroying the planet. This in no way indicates that I despise science. On this second point, even if I did believe the doom-sayers, I would still, as a libertarian, remain wholly sceptical with regard to the actions being taken by the various state powers to counter-act climate change. I would look at, for instance, the effects of subsidising bio-fuels, the efficiency of wind farms, the carbon trading markets etc., and I would conclude that, true to form, the state is causing more problems by its solutions.

Towards the end, as you descend into shallow and purile accusations, you say:

“Freedom is great but you cannot have freedom unless you have responsibilities”

Of course not, and no libertarian denies this. Indeed, it is because we insist upon it that we are so often accused of being heartless. In your case, you do not want to bear these responsibilities yourself. You prefer the state to take that job for you, and as heedless as you claim we are to the dangers of too much liberty, you pay no attention to the fact, testified to in almost every history book, that the state is incredibly dangerous. What was it that started a war and killed half a million Iraqis? Was it libertarians? No, it was the power structure people like you support. You like to trivialise individual liberty, which has always been in conflict with state power, and in doing so, you turn a blind eye to that state power.

TT @ 158

I understand what you say about the owner pub or his manager being the ultimate arbiter of who and what gets into his pub and it is not something I dismiss lightly. However, I believe that there is a far greater principle at stake here. One that goes to heart of freedom for everybody. I think the government has to right a wrong that has been in place for at least a couple of hundred years, regarding the rights of the smoker vs the rights of the non-smoker.

The smoker is the one who makes the decision to smoke or not. Imagine you are in a pub with around thirty to forty people. In my mind’s eye I am thinking of a certain pub in Rose street that often has live music. Now someone takes out a packet of fags, now all the non smokers in that pub are forced to compromise. We now have to decide if we stay in the pub or miss the night out, cancel the food we ordered, miss the band or simply put up with the guy and his Lambert & Butler. Thirty non-smokers in a pub and that pub is a de-facto non-smoker pub. One guy comes in and he decides for everyone else that pub becomes a smoking pub. We are at the mercy of his rationale for smoking. If HE decides the risk of passive smoking are ‘worth the risk’, if HE decides that the guy with asthma can put up with it, then it is safe to smoke.

I believe that people who make the choice should be made to compromise. The smoker chooses to smoke and he needs to decide whether he smokes, stays in or nips out for a quick fag in between songs.

Now, if we were starting today and smoking tobacco was a new craze despite the health risks, however we would have found them, then that would cause a problem for me because I do believe people have the right to smoke, just that they do not have the right to pollute other people’s air. Smoking has been an ingrained part of British culture, I think we needed something bold, not to stop smoking, but to stop smokers having tyranny over us non smokers.

I do fully understand that that the owner of the pub has had his property rights violated, but thousands of other people have had their property rights, and their freedom restored.

I have thought about this and I am biased in so far as I don’t smoke, though my partner does, but I cannot see another instance were I would allow someone to impose his social choices onto a roomful of people.

TT @ 158

This in no way indicates that I despise science.

Bad proof reading on my part, I had a different concept in mind when I wrote that, and did not delete it all correctly. You ‘disagree’ (for whatever reason) with the science. Some people despise science and therefore, it comes as no suprise that they also not not agree with AGW as well.

I do not see an issue with people disagreeing with the solutions to AGW as put forward by the States across the World. I am very much afraid that we stand shoulder to shoulder with regard to ‘carbon trading’ ‘bio fuels’ and the like. Wind Farms, I can take, but bio fuels? Good grief what a waste of arable land.

However, that does not mean we solve a problem with wilfully ignoring the science, merely because it happens to clash with our ideology. That is not Liberty; that is crass stupidity.

The fact is that AGW will only be tackled on a truly global scale.

I get the distinct impression that the reluctance of big ‘L’s like yourself to acknowledge the existence of AGW and the scientific consensus that underpins it is not to do with the science; it is entirely down to the fact that the ‘solutions’ are unpalatable.

@ 159 Jim,

“I do fully understand that that the owner of the pub has had his property rights violated, but thousands of other people have had their property rights, and their freedom restored.”

The question many times is; who decides? For a libertarian, the way to answer it is to look at where the property rights lie, and that is the answer. Thus, in the case of the pub, it is the owner’s property and his decision. The customers have no property right in the pub. They do have a property right in their own bodies, certainly. The fact that they are present on his property does not mean he can do anything to them. The issue is whether tobacco smoke constitutes a violation of their property, i.e., their person. I say it doesn’t, for the following reasons:

The customer enters at his own free will and can leave at his own free will. The customer has no right to enter, this being within the gift of the owner. If smoking is permitted there, this will be immediately apparent – especially to the sensitive nostrils of a non-smoker, and the customer is free to take his custom elsewhere. If the owner wishes to prohibit smoking, he can do so. There is no right to smoke on someone else’s property, if they prohibit it.

Although the principle of property rights is not respected by many non-libertarians, they do provide a ready way to decide disputes between individuals. It is certainly not the case that they are of service only to the rich, as we all have property – if nothing else, our own bodies.

@ 160, you may indeed be right that there is an inclination to deny the problem, because of hostility towards the supposed solutions being put forward. On the other side, I think there is an inclination to agree to any plan of action, no matter whether it is counter-productive, because, well, we’ve gotta do something!

The smoker is the one who makes the decision to smoke or not. Imagine you are in a pub with around thirty to forty people. In my mind’s eye I am thinking of a certain pub in Rose street that often has live music. Now someone takes out a packet of fags, now all the non smokers in that pub are forced to compromise. We now have to decide if we stay in the pub or miss the night out, cancel the food we ordered, miss the band or simply put up with the guy and his Lambert & Butler. Thirty non-smokers in a pub and that pub is a de-facto non-smoker pub. One guy comes in and he decides for everyone else that pub becomes a smoking pub. We are at the mercy of his rationale for smoking. If HE decides the risk of passive smoking are ‘worth the risk’, if HE decides that the guy with asthma can put up with it, then it is safe to smoke.

I’ve heard one definition of ‘libertarian’ that goes “A libertarian believes his right to swing his arms ends where his neighbor’s nose begins. Government’s sole function is to guard that relationship.”

I would add, it is incumbent on the person swinging their arms to not bash his neighbour’s nose, and not for the neighbour to have to dodge out of the way.

Then, the perhaps unwanted consequence of that is the smoker is making a choice that will affect (and or harm) others and he does not have to compromise his position, yet those who simply stick to the default (non smoking) have to decide what course of action to take when confronted by a smoker. Given that we deny property rights to the landlord regarding allowing children into his pub via some bylaws and we do not allow him to bar ethnic minorities etc, I don’t think the smoking ban is a game changer in that sense.

We deny him the commercial advantage and the right to piss annoying prigs, but that is about it, as far as I can see.

I will point out though; I am not anti smoking, per se. I would not deny someone a life saving operation just because they happen to smoke. Obviously if smoking was going to adversely affect the prognosis after treatment, then I would expect a decision based on clinical grounds. We all fuck up from time to time and we sometimes fuck up big time as well, nobody should be condemned purely because they take part in life. I am not going to stand over some bowel cancer sufferer waving rashers of bacon at the poor sod.

…Just as a matter of interest, no pressure or anything, just between you and me

Let us say that AGW proved real beyond any dispute.
Let us say that the most likely prognosis was as bleak as suggested.
Let us say that the reductions and timescales required are equally accurate.

Do you think there is a truly (big L) Libertarian solution?
Not that I am asking you what it is, but can you envisage it?

“it is incumbent on the person swinging their arms to not bash his neighbour’s nose, and not for the neighbour to have to dodge out of the way.”

Yes, but the neighbour cannot purposefully thrust his nose in the way of the fist and then complain.

Besides, there is no particular need to resort to such metaphors, especially as it’s not actually true. You are not allowed to swing your fist up to someone’s nose, even if you stop an inch away, unless you are in a boxing ring of course, when you are indeed free to punch them on the nose.

I was surprised when I logged on here today. Lots of articles discussing benefits. I was sure that Liberal Conspiracy had been one of the sites which didnt discuss benefits while the cuts of the past couple of years have gone through. I went through and had a look and it does seem to be that when some of the most draconian welfare cuts were going through, this site appears to have deliberately omitted discussion of them. Which is why this article is confusing. Liberal Conspiracy do seem to have deliberately ignored and deflected discussion away from welfare for quite a lot of the past couple of years, so it seems odd to be hosting articles asking why noone is pointing out how nonsensical this bill is. Why the sudden turnaround?

In fact, after Leveson yesterday, I think I would like to know the extent of Liberal Conspiracy’s relationship with the Labour Party. Have you ever made sure discussion of the worst benefit reforms in the welfare states history, didn’t get discussed on this site because it suited Labour? Because if you had it would be fairly disgusting.

I do like these paranoids that breeze through from time to time, wondering loudly if this site is a Labour front. Which given that Sunny the site owner publicly backed the lib Dems at the last general election must mean there’s a very deep, long game being played.

I think if you go back through, you’ll find that welfare reform dissapeared from this site right up untill the biggest reforms were safely through and Labour triangulated on disability. I don’t think is paranoia when is checkable. It was quite noticeable at the time, hence the surprise when I logged on today.

@ 162 Cylux

“I would add, it is incumbent on the person swinging their arms to not bash his neighbour’s nose, and not for the neighbour to have to dodge out of the way.”

I realise I’m contributing to a dreadfully extended metaphor here, but I’d say the smoking ban is more like the neighbour coming into my house when I want to do an exercise video, then standing right in front of me saying “if you swing your arms to do that exercise video, I’ll have you done for assault”.

Basically, the neighbour, like the anti-smoker, is entering someone else’s property then demanding that the owner stop what they’re doing. I’m not a fan of a total lift on the smoking ban, but the libertarians are right about the property issue. Smoking is selfish in some ways, but so is telling someone he can’t smoke on his own property just because you don’t like it.

It’s not paranoia when it’s checkable. I stopped using the site for that reason and a brief look at the times when welfare reform went through show that it was conspicuously absent from here. And lets face it Liberal Conspiracy has been best place to check how Labour are spinning any given issue for quite a while.

@ Jim

Given that we deny property rights to the landlord regarding allowing children into his pub via some bylaws and we do not allow him to bar ethnic minorities etc, I don’t think the smoking ban is a game changer in that sense.

Surely even someone suffering from your degree of myopia can see how ridiculous that is.

The ban on children and the requirement nor to bar ethnic minorities etc are equally wrong. If the line is not drawn where people can enjoy their own property free from state intrusion into what they do in it, we are all lost.

So when the government decide that we can only have one child and want to put CCTV into our bedrooms to check we are wearing a condom, we have already lost the argument regarding whether they have a right to do it or not.

That is why non smoking libertarians feel so strongly about the smoking ban.

Chaise @ 169

Basically, the neighbour, like the anti-smoker, is entering someone else’s property then demanding that the owner stop what they’re doing. I’m not a fan of a total lift on the smoking ban, but the libertarians are right about the property issue. Smoking is selfish in some ways, but so is telling someone he can’t smoke on his own property just because you don’t like it.

No Chaise, it is nothing like that. The ‘dispute’ between the smoker and the non smoker is not like that. These two people are entering a building open to the general public. That pub is operating as a de facto public space, It is the smoker who chooses whether or not to smoke and therefore potentialy damage the non smokers lungs/vision or whatever. No-one is going to hold the smoker down in the ground and pump him full of clean air.

The second a smoker lights up, everyone else in that pub is expected to then compromise. THEY, not the people who introduced the foreign agent into the atmosphere, are expected to decide if they need to leave or put up with it.

Your analogy breaks down because the guy in front of his Wii is in his home and the second man is intervening in that pursuit by making an effort to stand in front of him. In the pub, everyone is breathing air all the time. It is a passive act in sense that I can stand anywhere in that pub, but I cannot choose to breathe or not. If stand in front of the TV I can expected to be asked to move, but why should the person ‘breathing’ be expected to compromise? Surely the person who decides to add a pollution to the air is the one expected to compromise?

@169 Depends on if you’re confusing ‘house’ with ‘place of business’, which are very important distinctions when it comes to property. Last I checked you can smoke in your own home all you like, assuming you own said property and are not renting from a landlord who doesn’t want smoking going on in his/her property. Places of business however, especially those open to the general public, are another matter.

Depends on if you’re confusing ‘house’ with ‘place of business’, which are very important distinctions when it comes to property.

Why? They are both private property.

If the owner of the property wants to allow the public to freely enter it and set the rules they must follow when they do so that is between him and people entering.

It is no business of the government.

” want to put CCTV into our bedrooms to check we are wearing a condom”

Not quite at that level, but if you knowingly have an STD and have unprotected sex with someone and don’t tell them of that STD, you can be prosecuted for various forms of assualt.

Not sure what the libertarian position on that one is.

Pagar @ 174

Why? They are both private property.

The latter is open to the public, it is operating in the public domain, therefore under the relevant rules that commerce operates in. We have rules that are designed to smooth out the rules in which businesses act under. Preventing black people from entering is one of those rules and now, so it the smoking ban. It is a distinction most people make, Pagar.

We all benefit, one way or another from those rules. We measure the pint glasses to make sure we are not short measured and the kitchens are checked by the State to make sure we don’t get botulism. Fuck me Pagar, you are not saying that people not suffering serious illness is an invasion of property rights? Get a grip, man. No business in this Country works completely without regulation and if you manage to deregulate we will all end up in some third World marketplace.

I find it hard to imagine a scenario where a smoking ban and discrimination laws will lead to CCTVs in our bedrooms.

@174 Well I’m afraid it very much is the business of the government. If a restaurant sells dodgy food that makes people violently ill it can expect to close down by word of mouth spreading to avoid it at all costs, however in the interim period while this knowledge is taking its time to become well known, various customers will have become sick and ill from eating there. A far more efficient and less costly method is to enforce a series of health regulations that require all restaurants to operate to a minimum standard of hygiene, taking action to force either improvement or the closing down of offending establishments where necessary, and thus bypass the ‘making customers violently ill till everyone knows about it’ part. The rules to protect the public and hired staff from potentially harmful actions made by owners/managers/staff/customers are part and parcel of the acceptable costs of running a business.

@ 172 Jim and 173 Cylux

OK then, it’s like me going into a nightclub, demanding that they turn the music down because it stresses me out, then suing for emotional distress when they don’t.

I agree that the nature of private property changes when it’s a place of business or open to the public. That’s why I support a revised smoking ban, not just a full repeal. But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s frankly quite odd to enter someone else’s property, entirely by choice, then demand they change it to suit your preferences (even if that preference is health-related). It seems even worse to have your personal preference enforced by law upon the entire country.

The following is anecdotal and conversational, not a counter to your points, but my experience is that pro-ban advocates at the time were generally using the health arguments as cover for a less defensible position, anyway. I used to be a member of a Facebook group where the ban was debated, and we went back and forth on the usual points: liberty, health, employee rights, the nature of private property. Then, on the day the ban came in, every damn pro-ban advocate posted something along the lines of “Yay, my local won’t be smelly anymore!” If THAT’S someone’s reason for the smoking ban, it’s akin to demanding that all pubs be legally forced to paint their walls purple because you like the colour.

@the “libertarians:

Can we please dispose of the equivocation here that allows someone, with a straight face to refer to entry into a public house being equivalent to entering my living room.

A public house is a place of public resort – the clue is in the name. It might be the landlord’s “own property” – although with so many “landlords” being managers, perhaps not. It is however a place of work, not a home. The landlord makes money from the public using those premises; s/he is not benevolently allowing the public to do so for no reward.

I don’t enter someone else’s property by choice when going to the pub; I am going to a place of public resort where, uniquely, I can buy and consume alcohol. That those premises happen to belong to someone is neither here nor there.

That being the case, the landlord can expect to have some constraints on his/her freedom to do with his premises as s/he pleases. S/he can expect to be required (as a condition of doing business) to ensure that those premises are safe for the public to use; and that no-one be permitted within those premises adversely to affect the health or property of other members of the public resorting to them. I know that before the smoking ban, as a contact lens wearer, I found it uncomfortable to be in many pubs for an substantial period; my eyes would be stinging from the smoke and when I took the lenses out, there would be obvious visible tar deposits on the lenses. My clothes would smell of cigarette smoke until cleaned.

The problem is worse for those working in the pub; particularly since in many pubs the habitual smokers tend to cluster round the bar. In all other work environments, it is accepted that the business owner has to accept constraints so as to protect staff; and those constraints cannot be contracted out from.

That many of the libertarians are sceptic of the strength of the evidence in relation to secondary smoking is unsurprising; for some, it’s a question of quite properly insisting upon strong evidence before what they see as the freedom of property owners to do with their property as they please is infringed. For many others, it is a question of denying any evidence that might support a solution that they, politically, find unacceptable (hence the legions of libertarians in the ranks of the AGW-deniers).

And: Chaise @#178; your analogy still doesn’t work. One resorts to a nightclub where loud music is being played precisely because loud music will be played there. One resorts to a pub “for a pint”; that is after all what it is uniquely licensed to sell. If I (were I a smoker) were to claim I was going to a pub “for a cigarette”, the least I could expect would be raised eyebrows. For far too long, however, “going to the pub for a pint” included an unwanted side order of cigarette smoke.

The problem with the position pre-ban was in part the apparent sense of entitlement of smokers; and in part the fact that the smoker is inflicting his or her choice on the non-smoker simply by lighting up – feeling entitled to do so. A non-smoker, by not smoking, does not force anything upon the smoker.

The effect of the asymmetry is that allowing smoking in public confined spaces is a significant disincentive to many non-smokers actually entering them; because there will always be a smoker there.

@178 Well one of the expected functions of a night club is to play loud music, so of course your scenario sounds ridiculous, however smoking was not really a key feature of pubbing/clubbing/restauranting, it was just something that was allowed on the premises. To match up with your night club scenario non smokers would have had to have gone under smoking shelters and then complained about the smoking there and demanded action.

Sorry – completing my thought the final paragraph should read:

“The effect of the asymmetry is that allowing smoking in public confined spaces is a significant disincentive to many non-smokers actually entering them; because there will always be a smoker there. In practice non-smokers therefore would have no freedom of choice; they either go to a smoking pub/whatever – as they used to have to – or not go at all.”

Chaise @178

OK then, it’s like me going into a nightclub, demanding that they turn the music down because it stresses me out, then suing for emotional distress when they don’t.

You are going to a nightclub, Chaise, a club specifically where loud music is played, at night. You are making a decision to enter said club. Music, pool tables fruit & triva machines are part and parcel of the pub experience. That is the furniture of the pub. Incedently, these things are regulated to noise levels and gambling laws too. The analogy is that you are in a bus and someone comes in and gets his phone out and plays music for everybody else to put up with.

If THAT’S someone’s reason for the smoking ban, it’s akin to demanding that all pubs be legally forced to paint their walls purple because you like the colour.

The planet not is purple, it is nothing to do with ‘liking’ clean air. Clean air is the default position that we all live under. Everyone (and almost every living on the planet) breathes air irrespective of our ‘choice’. No one ever says ‘breathing or non breathing’ when you went to the cinema or whatever.

Everyone breathes, not everyone smokes. Everyone breaths in the smoke that the smoker generates. When I go to a smoking pub, I have to decide whether I want to suffer the consequences of the smoke. The person breaking the default should be making the compromise, not the people who follow the default.

Music, fruit machines and the like are ‘choices’ we make in going to a pub. Breathing is not.

Chaise @ 178

You are going to a nightclub, Chaise, a club specifically where loud music is played, at night. You are making a decision to enter said club. Music, pool tables fruit & triva machines are part and parcel of the pub experience. That is the furniture of the pub. Incedently, these things are regulated to noise levels and gambling laws too. The analogy is that you are in a bus and someone comes in and gets his phone out and plays music for everybody else to put up with.

If THAT’S someone’s reason for the smoking ban, it’s akin to demanding that all pubs be legally forced to paint their walls purple because you like the colour.

The planet not is purple, it is nothing to do with ‘liking’ clean air. Clean air is the default position that we all live under. Everyone (and almost every living on the planet) breathes air irrespective of our ‘choice’. No one ever says ‘breathing or non breathing’ when you went to the cinema or whatever.

Everyone breathes, not everyone smokes. Everyone breaths in the smoke that the smoker generates. When I go to a smoking pub, I have to decide whether I want to suffer the consequences of the smoke. The person breaking the default should be making the compromise, not the people who follow the default.

Music, fruit machines and the like are ‘choices’ we make in going to a pub. Breathing is not.

To those taking the libertarian position: if you accepted that there was incontrovertible evidence that secondary smoking caused permanent significant damage to the health of a significant proportion of those exposed to it – that it killed some or more of them – would you accept that this justifies a ban on smoking in confined public spaces? If not, why not?

@ Cylux, Robin and Jim

OK, you’re all using the argument that the main function of a pub is drinking (one could claim that’s it’s actually socialising, but I agree that both are more central than smoking). Two points on that:

1) So what? There isn’t some rule that says that the “main function” counts for everything and anything else has to be disregarded. You choose to enter that property and, in doing so, you tacitly accept the setup of that property.

It would be different if you were forced to go into the property, or if refusing to enter it would make your life difficult (which is why I support a smoking ban insofar as it’s designed to protect the staff). Or if you weren’t made aware of risks (e.g. if the pub sold toxic food). But when you go to a pub, you’re choosing to do so because you expect you’ll enjoy being there. If some factor means you don’t like being there, the answer isn’t to remake the venue in your own image, it’s to go elsewhere.

I don’t like loud music, but I wouldn’t demand that pubs (PUBS, not nightclubs) that play loud music be forced to turn it down simply to increase my selection of pleasant drinking venues. Going by your apparent veneration of the “main function”, I would certainly be in my rights to make this demand.

2) Getting back to the “main function” principle: I assume you would all be ok with smoking clubs being excluded from the ban, even if in practice that meant most pubs or bars renamed themselves as such?

Jim: I’m not moved by your assumption that whoever is breaking “the default” should compromise. I fail to see why that’s true as a principle. And I’m not sure if “compromise” is the right word for a scenario where you get everything your own way. Yes, we all breathe – top marks for noticing that – but if you want to breathe clean air, don’t choose to go into an establishment that allows smoking.

@ Planeshift

Not quite at that level, but if you knowingly have an STD and have unprotected sex with someone and don’t tell them of that STD, you can be prosecuted for various forms of assault. Not sure what the libertarian position on that one is.

It is deliberately harming someone else so comes under crime.

@ Jim

We have rules that are designed to smooth out the rules in which businesses act under.

I know we do, but that doesn’t mean we benefit from them.

We measure the pint glasses to make sure we are not short measured and the kitchens are checked by the State to make sure we don’t get botulism.

When I go into a pub and order a pint of beer I am entering into a civil contract. If I find am being given short measures or the vodka is being watered down I have civil remedies at my disposal (or, more likely, I can take my custom elsewhere). There is no need to get the state involved at all.

I find it hard to imagine a scenario where a smoking ban and discrimination laws will lead to CCTVs in our bedrooms.

I do too. Though 20 years ago we could never have imagined a smoking ban- such a thing would have seemed part of a dystopian fantasy.

But I was using the notion of CCTV in bedrooms to illustrate the dangers in overturning the principle that the state should not have power to override individual property rights.

And the difference in justification you postulate between private and business property is a complete red herring. Unless that is, you are telling me it is OK for me to grow cannabis in my attic?

@ 179 Robin

“The problem with the position pre-ban was in part the apparent sense of entitlement of smokers; and in part the fact that the smoker is inflicting his or her choice on the non-smoker simply by lighting up – feeling entitled to do so. A non-smoker, by not smoking, does not force anything upon the smoker.”

This is true, but why is your solution to unfairness creating unfairness in the other direction? Why not try to find a system where nobody is put out too much?

“The effect of the asymmetry is that allowing smoking in public confined spaces is a significant disincentive to many non-smokers actually entering them; because there will always be a smoker there.”

Not that significant, on the evidence.

Before the ban, nearly every pub, bar, nightclub and even restaurant was either entirely or mainly smoke-friendly. Very few were non-smoking. Indeed, if there HAD been loads of smoke-free venues I doubt we’d have brought in the ban in the first place.

But why is this, given that most of the population don’t smoke? If most people hated the smoke in their local – or avoided it altogether as a result – pioneering landlords would have set up non-smoking bars and made a mint due to 75% of the population flocking to their doors. This would probably have started a chain reaction of me-too businesses, until most venues were aimed at non-smokers. It should have been difficult to find a smoking pub in a small town. The opposite was true in reality.

I assume the answer is that most non-smokers didn’t care that much. Whether or not a venue permitted smoking simply wasn’t an important enough factor to make them choose it over somewhere else. Of course you’ll have some social groups comprised mostly of non-smokers but a couple of smokers, but that just asks the same question: how would the outnumbered smoker constantly get what they wanted in the face of the majority? What it seems to come down to is that banning smoking bothers smokers a lot more than allowing it bothers non-smokers.

So what we have is a law backed by a majority of people who were vaguely in favour but didn’t really care that much, against a minority who cared a great deal. I’m honestly unsure whether that’s a triumph or a failure of democracy. But it does annoy me that the rules in every pub in the land are being dictated by a majority who couldn’t be bothered to just get off their backsides and go support a non-smoking bar.

“It is deliberately harming someone else so comes under crime”

So is blowing cigarette smoke in someone’s face. Ok, so you can’t prove which particular smoker dealt the fatal blow (pun not intended) when somebody gets ill from passive smoking, but I guess the anti-smoking lobby would argue it’s the same principle. As someone who thinks the smoking ban went too far I think there is an obvious principle that people should be allowed their vices, provided they don’t harm others – and to some extent consent is implied if a non-smoker repeatedly goes into places filled with smoke. The question is where that line of consent is drawn – should venues have to explicitly state smoking is permitted?Shades of grey and all that.

There is a very simple libertarian case for the smoking ban incidentally – regardless of health effects, you smoking next to me affects my right not to breathe or sit in smoke.

I think the libertarian point of do what you want unless it affects others applies here – there should be no obligation for others to suffer your smoke simply because you want to smoke – others have to take a concious decision to allow your smoke to affect them. Admittedly, this position allows for smoking rooms, but then again I never quite understood any position that did not.

@ Robin

“To those taking the libertarian position: if you accepted that there was incontrovertible evidence that secondary smoking caused permanent significant damage to the health of a significant proportion of those exposed to it – that it killed some or more of them – would you accept that this justifies a ban on smoking in confined public spaces? If not, why not?”

I’m not sure whether I’m one of the people this is aimed at, as you don’t say what you mean by the “libertarian position”. In any case, I accept that passive smoking is harmful, but don’t think this justifies such a ban. See above RE choice.

@ Watchman

“Admittedly, this position allows for smoking rooms, but then again I never quite understood any position that did not.”

I certainly don’t understand why the debate around the smoking ban was a battle of two extremes, with one eventually winning out, when there was a blatantly obvious compromise available.

Chaise @ 185

If some factor means you don’t like being there, the answer isn’t to remake the venue in your own image, it’s to go elsewhere.

The person whips out his fags and pours smoke into the air changes the make up the make up of the venue. If I am in a pub, watching a live band and half a dozen people come into the pub and start smoking, why is it me that has to change my behaviour or ‘put up with it’? Why do I have to have to change MY behaviour to accommodate them? Why is my decision ‘not to smoke’, less valid than their decision to take up smoking? In fact, I haven’t taken a decision on anything because ‘not smoking’ is actually the norm. No one has a natural addiction (with due reference to babies born to addicts) to nicotine, it is strictly an acquired taste.

If I decide to visit my local pub with a couple of dozen throwing knives and start aiming them at patrons, I would not expect you to say to the victims, well you can always leave. You would expect laws to kick in and have me arrested.

Same with recreational bulimics. If people started a craze to eating in restaurants and promptly throwing up, we would not tolerate that either.

Smokers used to hold the whip hand in this Country; they held the rest of us to ransom. Well they have had the whip removed and the ‘whip’ is now in the hands of the non-smokers and the smokers are NOW willing to ‘come to an agreement’. NOW we have the whip hand and all of a sudden, they recognise how the non-smokers felt. Now THEY have to decide if they can be bothered to go out, if they want to stand in the rain or go without a fag.

The people who take the decision to smoke are now the people who suffer the social consequences of that decision?

Smokers have always believed that because they have never had to make compromises, that smoking never meant compromises were made. Funny that, because those compromises were always made, just by the people who don’t smoke.

but if you want to breathe clean air, don’t choose to go into an establishment that allows smoking

And I do because thanks to the smoking ban every pub in the Country is a non smoking pub. Because before the smoking ban no such places around here existed.

But why is it me that is forced to choose? Why is not smoking such a taboo? Those who want to smoke have the choice smoke outside the pub or smoke in the house. Perfect choice.

@ Jim

“The person whips out his fags and pours smoke into the air changes the make up the make up of the venue.”

Put signs on the smoking rooms/venues. Then you know from the start that there’s a possibility of smoking, so you don’t get stitched up into leaving halfway through a footie match.

“In fact, I haven’t taken a decision on anything because ‘not smoking’ is actually the norm.”

I just said that I see no reason to accept your assumption that the “default” gets priority.

“No one has a natural addiction (with due reference to babies born to addicts) to nicotine, it is strictly an acquired taste.”

…And I’m really not interested in arguments built on the naturalistic fallacy.

“If I decide to visit my local pub with a couple of dozen throwing knives and start aiming them at patrons, I would not expect you to say to the victims, well you can always leave. You would expect laws to kick in and have me arrested.”

Yes, but if you ran across the ring of your local circus and got hit by a knife as a result, that would be your fault. Again, it’s all about warning people beforehand.

“Same with recreational bulimics. If people started a craze to eating in restaurants and promptly throwing up, we would not tolerate that either.”

Ditto.

“Smokers used to hold the whip hand in this Country; they held the rest of us to ransom. Well they have had the whip removed and the ‘whip’ is now in the hands of the non-smokers and the smokers are NOW willing to ‘come to an agreement’. NOW we have the whip hand and all of a sudden, they recognise how the non-smokers felt. Now THEY have to decide if they can be bothered to go out, if they want to stand in the rain or go without a fag.”

Bwa ha ha! REVENGE! Now people who aren’t me will suffer! BWA HA HA HA HA!

Grow up.

“The people who take the decision to smoke are now the people who suffer the social consequences of that decision? ”

I’m confused. A moment ago you didn’t think that you should accept the consequences of choosing to enter a smoking club. Now you’re all about consequences. What changed?

Anyway, dealing with the smoking ban is only a consequence of smoking if we make one by having a ban. You could make the exact same argument to defend executing smokers. Would you?

“Smokers have always believed that because they have never had to make compromises, that smoking never meant compromises were made.”

No, that’s you making things up out of thin air.

“And I do because thanks to the smoking ban every pub in the Country is a non smoking pub.”

…i.e because everyone has been legally forced to accept your preference. Even if every customer and staff member in a pub would like to smoke, they all have to abstain because you don’t like it.

“Because before the smoking ban no such places around here existed.”

Why is that?

“But why is it me that is forced to choose?”

Because everyone shouldn’t be forced to follow your choice. And it would’t just be you, smokers would choose too (unless you think I want a law that makes banning smoking in a pub illegal).

“Why is not smoking such a taboo?”

I reject the premise. Who says it’s a taboo?

“Those who want to smoke have the choice smoke outside the pub or smoke in the house. Perfect choice.”

Now you’re just being a dick for the sake of it. It’s obviously not “perfect choice”, or nobody would complain about it.

There is a very simple libertarian case for the smoking ban incidentally – regardless of health effects, you smoking next to me affects my right not to breathe or sit in smoke.

I think the libertarian point of do what you want unless it affects others applies here

Agreed.

Except that the property owner has the right to declare whether smoking is, or is not, permitted on his property and the person not wishing to risk breathing second hand smoke has the clear remedy of not going onto that property.

Unless it’s Jim, of course, who wants the right to go onto someone else’s property, dictate what and does not happen there, and then have the state use it’s monopoly of power to get his way.

We already have CCTV cameras in people’s bedrooms. They’re called ‘webcams’, people pay to watch the footage too…

Chaise,

I certainly don’t understand why the debate around the smoking ban was a battle of two extremes, with one eventually winning out, when there was a blatantly obvious compromise available.

Well to be honest, it was about imposing what is ‘good’ for people (without the important proviso ‘in the current state of knowledge, and current conditions’), in preference to their self-destructive ability to make choices for themselves – about the state as guardian rather than service (a problem with all political tendencies). I know why they did it, but just can’t understand it – how arrogant do you have to be to assume you can dictate to everyone what is right for them at such a mundane level.

@ Watchman

Agreed, and good point – I’m so used to the general debate about the smoking ban being about property rights and freedom-from vs freedom-to (well, sort of) that I’d forgotten that the government’s main agenda was trying to get people to quit smoking, which doesn’t often turn up as a serious argument in the resulting debates.

I don’t agree with the pro-ban guys, but their arguments (including some on this thread) are a damn sight more compelling than the motives of the people who actually instigated the ban.

194 Chaise

Put signs on the smoking rooms/venues. Then you know from the start that there’s a possibility of smoking, so you don’t get stitched up into leaving halfway through a footie match.

Why do I need a sign? I am not a smoker, so why have I got look out for sign? Let us say there is a pub in Rose Street in Edinburgh that plays live music every Saturday (mainly because it is true) some nights it is Rhythm and Blues the next Scottish folk/rock. Up to recently we would go there and put up with the smoke because there was no alternative. Pining away while life was passing me by just wasn’t my idea of fun. Putting a sign up didn’t change that on iota. Every time I went out, I used to have to make a compromise. Now the people who have to compromise are the smokers.

You seem to be saying that because smokers are not willing to compromise, then I have to. That hardly seems fair, does it?

Bwa ha ha! REVENGE! Now people who aren’t me will suffer! BWA HA HA HA HA!

Not revenge, justice.

A moment ago you didn’t think that you should accept the consequences of choosing to enter a smoking club.

Why should accept the consequences of other people’s actions? It is the smokers who should take into account their actions, I shouldn’t have to worry about the choices they take, should I?

Because everyone shouldn’t be forced to follow your choice.

Because they are not being forced to follow my choice, they are being forced to follow their own choice and keep it to themselves. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Now you’re just being a dick for the sake of it. It’s obviously not “perfect choice”, or nobody would complain about it.

Ah, but there is rub. The smokers are aware of the choices available. Now the smokers don’t find those particularly palatable, but that is not my problem, is it? Just because you don’t like the options, does not mean the options are not fair, does it?They know the options and they can like it or lump it, just like I had for the first decade of my drinking life.

If someone left school at 15 with no qualifications and no skills their choice of job may be restricted, but so what? A minimum wage job. Okay they might prefer to work for 60k, but if they cannot find it, then whose fault is that?

Watchman @ 196

I do not think that is an honest position. I have no objection to people enjoying nicotine. If people where chewing tobacco or wearing patches, then that is fine in my book, but smoking is completely different because the smoke is free to affect everyone else, irrespective of whether or not they consent to it.

The ban was driven by puritanical authoritarianism, as is exposed by the refusal to compromise at any point. Air filter systems are advanced enough to reduce tobacco smoke to zero, but this was not permitted. Private smokers clubs are illegal, and what really reveals the agenda is the hostility to e-cigarettes, which the anti-smokers hate, because none of their plausible objections to smoking apply and and they know it, so they wail and gnash their teeth.

As was predictable, the anti-smokers have not stopped at this ban, and are now campaigning for smoking to be banned in private cars and in private homes. There is no satisfying them. They are increasingly using the same tactics against alcohol. We are constantly being led to believe that we’re in the grip of a national frenzy of dipsomania, which is not supported by to the facts.

It is certainly the case that in a pub before the ban, I would not ask anyone before starting to smoke, as the presence of other smokers and large ashtrays on every table, not to say my experience in life, indicated that this was permitted. But, contrary to what Jim says above, the majority of smokers did compromise before the blanket ban, and usually obeyed smoking prohibitions wherever they were imposed, as they do now. I, for one, never started smoking in someone’s house, unless I knew I could, and if my host was not a smoker I would usually go outside, even if they said it was okay. This is normal manners, not followed by everyone, but quite common.

Btw Jim, you asked me an interesting question back @ 163, which I intend to answer when I get the chance.

TT @ 200 (phew)

A couple of points. We are not a homogenous group, there is no way I would support a minimum price for alcohol. I am a pub drinker, not a house drinker. I am sitting in a house tonight where they may be the odd bottle whisky sitting somewhere, but I rarely drink in the house. The two for one crap never bothers me as I never buy it. However, I would not support a price hike as it is not the way to tackle binge drinking! There could still be a vested interest here because it could be that the two for one bottles keep the pubs honest, but my gut tells me that house and pub drinkers are two co-existent species.

I am not in favour of a general ban on tobacco. I can sort of see where we are with the ban cars that children are in thing but, no, unenforceable, even if I could be persuaded to back it. I dislike the idea of children’s lungs being damaged by their parents smoke, however, well at that level we are sending out life manuals.

Interestingly, enough all this talk of air purifiers and compromise only ever came about once the balance of power shifted in favour of the non-smoker. Why should I pay (via an extra two pence on my pint) or whatever to clear up other people’s smoke? Isn’t Libertarianism about the polluter paying? Unless you are proposing that smokers are charged an extra two pence per pint?

No!!! Neither am I, silly.

The thing is as you say, when you sat down in a pub, out came the packet of fags and you and your mates got into a session and you never once gave it a second’s thought about the other people in the pub, either. Never even crossed your mind and if someone ever said, ‘hey your smoking affects my asthma, can you put your fags out?’, I have no idea how you guys would have reacted, but I will make the point that some, would have returned with a polite, but firm, ‘fuck off’. Not saying you would have, but I bet you can think of those that would have. Yes? It probably never crossed your mind that guys like me went out every now and again for a breath of fresh air. I bet you think that since the smoking ban was introduced, that people are inconvenienced and annoyed? No, because when I used to go out, it was me that was inconvenienced and annoyed by your smoking. All that has happened is that the people who actually make the decision to smoke, are inconvenienced, as it should be. So when it is raining and you are huddled out there, cry me a river, because I no longer have to intake your smoke.

I am not actually that bad, to be honest, but you smokers could be selfish at times.

Anyway, tobacco was and to some extent still is the dominant culture in this Country. The smoking lobby still carries economic clout. I have spoken two precisely two publications, one retired the other still working in the trade. The retired one suggests that smoking ban has killed the trade stone dead; the other thinks lots of other things have done that. Where I live, the pubs with good reputations and solid management appear to thrive and the pisspoor ones have died or are moribund. The pubs that sell food get a bit of live music in and the odd pub quiz can still get a crowd. The smokers retreat to the door or what is now jokingly called the ‘beer garden’ round back.

Perhaps the SNP did introduce a draconian law and perhaps it has not changed the cultural landscape over the piece and perhaps it never will.

How about a compromise? Seeing you guys had the last two hundred years when smoking in pubs was the norm, why not give us the next two hundred years? After that revoke the ban and we will see who wins?

@ Jim

Why do I need a sign? I am not a smoker, so why have I got look out for sign?”

You’re seriously gonna object on the basis that you’re too lazy to look at a door to see if it has “smoking room” written on it? Reading two or three words is such a big imposition on you that it makes an otherwise-good solution unworkable?

“I used to have to make a compromise. Now the people who have to compromise are the smokers.”

True dat. Which is why I think an ACTUAL compromise – you know, with both sides giving up a little ground but generally being satisified – is better than either extreme (i.e. what we had before the ban, and what we have now).

“You seem to be saying that because smokers are not willing to compromise, then I have to. That hardly seems fair, does it?”

No, what you’re saying is that you flat-out refuse to compromise, so smokers have to. If that attitude seems unfair, examine the beam in your own eye. I support a system where the law ensures that smokers can smoke in some places (assuming landlords are willing) and non-smokers can enjoy clean air in others (regardless of whether landlords are willing). And where staff are protected from smoke, I might add.

“Not revenge, justice.”

Absolutely NOT justice, because you’re taking gleeful revenge on EACH and EVERY smoker because some (even most) of them are inconsiderate. Even considerate smokers are hurt by your system (including people who didn’t smoke before the ban), and you seem to get a hard-on over it.

Demonising every single member of a group for the sins of some members of the group… what do we call that again? Oh, yeah. Bigotry. If your idea of justice includes equal punishment for innocent people who are tarred with the same brush as the guilty, your concept of justice is UTTERLY fucked up,.

Did this ever occur to you? Or did you just mentally define “smoker” into the category of “enemy” and have done with it?

“Why should accept the consequences of other people’s actions?”

The consequences of YOU walking into a smoking club. Pay attention to pronouns, please.

“It is the smokers who should take into account their actions, I shouldn’t have to worry about the choices they take, should I?”

No, worry about your own. But that doesn’t mean forcing everyone to follow your choice if the opportunity exists to avoid these choices impinging on each other without anyone else being hurt much.

Imagine a parent buys an 18-rated horror film and lets their young children watch it. Their children are terrified by the film, and the parent complains. The film-makers point out that the film had an 18-rating. “But THEY chose to make a scary film that wasn’t appropriate for children!” says the parent, channelling the spirit of Jim. “Why should I have to worry about their choices when buying films?” Yep, that’s you.

Don’t be tiresome and pretend I intended that as a direct analogy of the smoking ban issue. It’s an illustration of the fact that it’s reasonable to expect you to share the world with people who want to do different things to you, as long as measures are taken to stop their choices being forced upon you. Stop being such a fecking zealot.

“Because they are not being forced to follow my choice, they are being forced to follow their own choice and keep it to themselves.”

Your choice IS that they keep it to themselves.

“Why is that so difficult to understand?”

Believe it or not, the fact that I think you’re wrong doesn’t mean I’m incapable of understanding your arguments. It simply means I think you’re wrong.

“Ah, but there is rub. The smokers are aware of the choices available. Now the smokers don’t find those particularly palatable, but that is not my problem, is it?”

There’s the rub indeed! Your criteria for a “fair” system is simply that you, personally, are not negatively affected by it. Fuck everyone else! It’s not your problem!

“Just because you don’t like the options, does not mean the options are not fair, does it?They know the options and they can like it or lump it, just like I had for the first decade of my drinking life.”

I’ve addressed this already. Saying “they know the options” is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for excusing the options your system has imposed. I notice you didn’t answer whether you’d be in favour of imposing a death penalty on smokers, on the grounds that they knew they’d be executed when they decided to smoke.

“If someone left school at 15 with no qualifications and no skills their choice of job may be restricted, but so what? A minimum wage job. Okay they might prefer to work for 60k, but if they cannot find it, then whose fault is that?”

FFS. I have no problem with people accepting the consequences of their actions (although I don’t get off on it like you do). What I have a problem with is your attitude to clashes of desires. A sensible person would say “OK, group A wants this and group B wants that, and this and that are not compatible. How can we come up with a solution that allows both groups to get what they want without fucking either group over?” You, the zealot, say “I’m in group A! The world must follow the desires of group A! Fuck group B They are Bad People! IT’S NOT MY PROBLEM!”

@ 199 Jim

You might try reading Watchman’s posts before replying tohim. It’s surprisingly useful for helping you understand what you’re replying to. He’s not saying that the only justification for the smoking ban is forcing smokers to be healthy. He’s saying that was the government’s reason for doing it. Different thing.

@203 – Quite apart from anything else you’ve said –

“Demonising every single member of a group for the sins of some members of the group… what do we call that again? Oh, yeah. Bigotry”

Nope, only for groups where people don’t have a free choice. Smokers do.

(Yes, blah blah addictive…there’s free help to quit)

I’m quite willing to stand up and call all BNP members scum, for instance, and screw you if you call that bigotry.

@ Jim,

as I state @ 200 I do not accept that smokers never compromised. I remember when you were allowed to smoke in cinemas, but since cinemas changed their policy (I’m pretty sure this was not law-driven) I cannot recall seeing or smelling anyone smoking in a cinema. Ditto other places, such as public transport, with a few exceptions, such as on a drunken night bus (not me doing it, someone else). Smokers have by and large obeyed prohibitions. What we did not do as a rule was stop smoking when somebody told us not to or wanted us to, because they didn’t like it, when we were permitted by the property owner to smoke, unless they claimed it was genuinely affecting them badly, rather than that they merely didn’t like the smell.

By the time the blanket ban was brought in, smoking prohibitions were widespread, in offices, on transport, in shops etc. What you call ‘refusing to compromise’ was merely objecting to the last places where smoking was permitted have the ban imposed on them. There never was anything stopping an enterprising person setting up a non-smoking pub. It is still a mystery that those in favour of the ban cannot answer as to why, if the smoking ban is so popular, and if the non-smokers were suffering in such abject misery, it never occurred to one of them to tap this apparently huge untapped market. After all, 75% of people don’t smoke. It was not smokers who refused to compromise – which I suppose would mean smokers collectively agreeing to smoke only every other day or something, it was the anti-smoking lobby which refused to compromise, and the reason it took this action is, as has been pointed out, because the driving force was not to protect your lily-white lungs, but to impose abstinence on smokers and encourage, if not coerce, a societal change against smoking.

I am not saying that this is your view. This latter seems more grounded on your own situation, and I can understand why you, as a non-smoker, prefer to go into a non-smoking pub, as perhaps you can understand why I would prefer to go to a smoking pub. I would say, the reality is, as is often the case, the prohibition indicated a change in attitudes against smoking. What I believe, but cannot prove, is that if the iron fist of the law had not been deployed, we probably would have seen an increasing number of places banning smoking, going after the non-smokers’ dollar. In this way, the market, i.e., the sum of individual decisions between smoky pub or clean pub, could have provided for everyone, and the property rights of owners could have been preserved, rather than brushed aside in a way that can only set a dangerous precedent.

@ 205 Leon

“Nope, only for groups where people don’t have a free choice. Smokers do.”

Yes, but your objection isn’t that they smoke in itself, is it? Unless you’re a puritan and you’ve been keeping it quiet. Your objection – and subsequent joy in seeing smokers litigated against – is that some smokers are inconsiderate (i.e. smoke over you whether you like it or not).

I don’t blame you for objecting to that. But I do think you’re a bigot for calling it “justice” when the resulting penalty applies to *all smokers, even those who are considerate about it*. Am I getting through here?

Take a smoker who only smoked in pubs pre-ban if there was a separate smoking room (room, not section, before you give me that swimming pool analogy), because he/she felt guilty about imposing their smoke on others. Or indeed someone who took up smoking after the ban, and hence has never smoked in a public building. Not only are you prepared to punish them along with their less considerate brethren, but you actively get your rocks off on the idea of them being unhappy.

Like I said: bigot, and unpleasant human being to boot.

“Yes, blah blah addictive…there’s free help to quit”

Captain Callous makes another point. Yes, there’s free help to quit. No, that doesn’t make quitting easy. Giving up is very hard for many people, evidenced by the fact that some try over and over again but can’t make it stick. A lot of people hate the fact that they smoke, but find themselves unable to stop.

But, again, if it doesn’t hurt Jim then it can’t be important, right?

“I’m quite willing to stand up and call all BNP members scum, for instance, and screw you if you call that bigotry.”

I wouldn’t, but again this only stands up if you hate people purely for the fact that they smoke – which would be none of your business. If you object to smokers based on them pushing their smoke on you, it doesn’t apply. I think you need to clarify this, because you keep twisting and turning. Do you think smokers deserve to be punished for smoking, even if the smoker in question is always careful to ensure that their smoking does not affect others?

@ Leon

This is great… first I replied to you thinking you were Jim. Then I realised and posted a retraction, but I got an error message and don’t know if the retraction will show up!

To synopsise my attempted post: I mistook you for Jim, sorry. My general points stand, but anything attacking you over previous comments doesn’t. I also withdraw the accusation of bigotry on the assumption that you haven’t read the entire conversation and don’t realise that Jim gets a lovely warm glow from the idea of innocent people suffering for the sins of the guilty. Hopefully you’re not callous like him.

@ 206 Trooper

Good post. About this:

“It was not smokers who refused to compromise – which I suppose would mean smokers collectively agreeing to smoke only every other day or something”

I’ve never understood exactly what evidence people would have accepted, pre-ban, for the idea that smokers were compromising. Maybe if your own social group includes smokers and non-smokers, you take turns choosing which section of the pub to sit in. But beyond that? If all the smokers in the pub were deliberately smoking at half their normal rate, in the spirit of compromise, how would the non-smokers know?

Obviously that’s not realistic. The more sensible compromise is that smokers agree not to smoke in non-smoking rooms and venues. But as you and I have both said (and nobody seems to be addressing), that led to a surprisingly small number of non-smoking places in reality, raising interesting questions.

Oh, and as your post was in reply to Jim, you’re using words differently, as shown by his post at 202 and many others. You’re using “compromise” to mean “compromise”. He’s using “compromise” to mean “I get everything my way”. This is a fascinating new use of the term!

@Chaise & Trooper passim:

Smoking rooms in pubs, and commercial smoking clubs would be entirely impractical. Bars require glasses to be collected, tables to be wiped down, ashtrays emptied, patrons’ intake of alcohol to be policed to ensure that no-one who is drunk is being served etc – none of which can be done without staff having access. The same would apply to licensed smoking clubs; and, barring the alcohol intake issue, to non-licensed smoking clubs.

As for Trooper’s claim to have compromised by obeying smoking prohibitions – with all due respect, that isn’t compromising. You do show your true colours with your claim never to have desisted from smoking simply because others asked you to, provided the manager (you say owner, but of course many pubs have managers only) of the premises or the law didn’t actually prohibit you from doing so. That is hardly compromise.

As a non-smoker, I can never remember a smoker (other perhaps than one I was actually with) asking me whether I minded their smoking; even when they were the first smoker to light up in a pub. How you worked out when someone who actively objected to your lighting up without asking simply disliked the smell, I don’t know; but even were there anyone whose concern was entirely aesthetic (unlikely), would you have had a problem with that person then, in retaliation, walking over to your table and farting over your meal – topping up as and when required, throughout your meal, and indeed throughout your stay in the premises?

To pick up another point; non-smoking pubs would be unlikely to appear until very late in the game, if at all. The problem is that the only way non-smokers could have registered their choice (since Trooper would have continued to smoke until actually prohibited by the bar manager) would have been by not patronising pubs where smoking continued – which would make them invisible to the market. Again, the way that licensing laws work would work against new pubs opening to compete directly with existing pubs – the justices (and now committees) consider, on application for a licence, existing provision and will not permit significant over-provision.

Another problem is that most non-smokers have smokers amongst their friends; certainly, in any large-ish group deciding on a venue for their drinks, there would be a smoker – call him Trooper. The norm would be for someone, if a no-smoking venue were considered, to say “but that would mean that Trooper couldn’t smoke”, and everyone would think of somewhere else. If that didn’t happen, Trooper would pipe up – or would say that he wouldn’t go if the group were going to a no-smoking venue when there were smoking venues, that were just as good, available. The combination of consideration by the non-smokers for their smoking friends, the invisibility of non-smokers market choices, the difficulties in opening new non-smoking venues, and inertia, meant that any large-scale expansion of non-smoking provision would only have come after smoking was seen as socially unacceptable as farting in someone’s face.

would only have come after smoking was seen as socially unacceptable as farting in someone’s face.

Both leave similar stains too.

@210 – Agreed!

@ Robin

“Smoking rooms in pubs, and commercial smoking clubs would be entirely impractical. Bars require glasses to be collected, tables to be wiped down, ashtrays emptied, patrons’ intake of alcohol to be policed to ensure that no-one who is drunk is being served etc – none of which can be done without staff having access. ”

I think it’s possible to take a middle stance rather than being guided by one extreme or the other. If a venue has a smoking room, and that room does not include the bar area, and is sealed off and/or ventilated in such a way that a negligable amount of smoke passes into the other rooms, then I think staff are being adequately protected, even if they have to pop in for a couple of minutes every so often to collect glasses and so on. You wouldn’t want someone standing in there for hours to wait on tables, but a handful of minutes each night doesn’t seem like a huge deal.

If your rule is that people’s health can NEVER be affected by other’s unjustified actions without their express consent, you’re going to have to ban an awful lot of things to stay consistent. For example, entertainment TV uses electricity, which is in part generated by processes that pollute the air and can harm people. You’d have to get rid of it.

Generally we allow people to negatively affect each other if the effect is sufficiently minor, and I don’t see why this issue should be any different.

“The same would apply to licensed smoking clubs; and, barring the alcohol intake issue, to non-licensed smoking clubs.”

I agree, and I don’t actually support such clubs (one exception: California or somewhere allows smoking venues if all the staff own a certain percentage of the venue and agree to the policy, which seems ok to me). I only raised the idea of smoking clubs to address the “main function” red herring.

“As a non-smoker, I can never remember a smoker (other perhaps than one I was actually with) asking me whether I minded their smoking; even when they were the first smoker to light up in a pub.”

It’s not quite the same thing, but before the ban I would sometimes refrain from smoking because a family with children were sitting near me.

The thing is that smoking areas in pubs pre-ban were designated (if only by custom and default) as places where you could smoke. So it wasn’t unreasonable for smokers to smoke in them. The problem is mainly the staff: normally I’d argue that vegetarians should avoid working for butchers, but the pub industry is such a big part of our casual, moderately unskilled job market that refusing to work in a pub might in practice mean not being able to find work at all, especially if you wanted temporary or part-time employment, or needed evening shifts because you were in college during the day. That’s the main reason I support a partial ban – although I do also sympathise with non-smokers who live in a place with no smoke-free drinking options.

Your farting example: obviously nobody actually does this, and it would get you kicked out for inexplicable bad behaviour. You can come up with any number of weird antisocial behaviours that we don’t bother making rules for because nobody does them. If farting over other people’s food was a fairly common practice, I would definitely seek out No Farting On Food rooms in pubs!

“To pick up another point; non-smoking pubs would be unlikely to appear until very late in the game, if at all. The problem is that the only way non-smokers could have registered their choice (since Trooper would have continued to smoke until actually prohibited by the bar manager) would have been by not patronising pubs where smoking continued – which would make them invisible to the market.”

The problem with this argument is that there WERE non-smoking venues pre-ban, and that they weren’t wildly successful. Theoretically, the first-movers should have been big winners, prompting copy-cat ventures (I would have predicted this to happen if I hadn’t seen the reality for myself).

In a country that doesn’t ban smoking, the market for non-smoking pubs and rooms seems to be very limited. This is anecdotal, but my local at home had a non-smoking room pre-ban: it was arguably the nicest-looking part of the pub, and took up less than 20% of the total floorspace. And it was almost always nearly empty – it was generally the only place you could get a seat on a busy night. Again: why is this? For the record, this isn’t in a place with an unsually high number of smokers.

“Another problem is that most non-smokers have smokers amongst their friends; certainly, in any large-ish group deciding on a venue for their drinks, there would be a smoker – call him Trooper. The norm would be for someone, if a no-smoking venue were considered, to say “but that would mean that Trooper couldn’t smoke”, and everyone would think of somewhere else.”

Call him Chaise and you’ve got my pre-ban experience. The question is, where smokers are the minority in a group: why did they get their way nearly all of the time? Jim would no doubt declare that it’s because all smokers are selfish bastards, but I hope you’re more sensible than that. It seems to me that the majority of non-smokers just aren’t that bothered about smoke – given a straight choice they prefer not to have it there, but it’s not enough of a deal-breaker to lose the company of their smoking friends.

In fact, I bet that before the ban you could have found plenty of completely non-smoking groups sitting in smoking pubs, even when there was a non-smoking venue (or one with a good non-smoking room) around the corner. Presumably other factors, like the price of the drinks, the beer on offer, the general ambience, were more important to them than smoking policy.