beccaelizabeth (beccaelizabeth) wrote,

Why so stupid, all three?

I am really fed up of politics.

Today it's Labour saying people in work should get priority for social housing.
The thing it would really help for them to notice is those of us who do not work, indeed cannot work, still have to live, somewhere.
If people with no work, no possibility of work, and no housing, are not a priority, then the major political parties are saying they don't care who sleeps rough or indeed dies on their doorstep.

Cameron's contention that it is crazy someone on benefits can get more money than someone in work I would have to agree with, but my conclusion is rather opposite to his.
Since benefits were calculated on the basis of need and are therefore meant to be precisely what you need to live on, it is crazy that you can have a job and still not have a living wage.
Further it is bloody annoying that he continues to ignore that most (non pension) benefits go to people IN work anyway.

They can continue to argue about fairness and the contributory principle all they like, but need remains.
You cannot eradicate need.
People need to eat, they need somewhere to sleep, they need the basics of life.

Yelling at people in need will not stop them from being in need.
Cutting off their benefits will not stop them from being in need.
Need remains.

Somehow the people in charge seem to have forgotten this.
Hell, by the results of multiple opinion polls, somehow an actual majority of people seem to have forgotten this.
I think it may be a side effect of being lied to continuously for years: when people are under the impression fraud is a major problem, rather than around 0.7% and lower for some benefits, either the general population pulled the idea from the ether or the whole thing where the government lies about fraud-and-error has had an adverse impact.

I really wish people could agree on the facts. It's bloody hard to have an argument when people maintain there are different facts. Especially if you can show them the one and only available set of numbers and they still make up different facts.

(Like there are no targets for booting people off benefits for error or not trying hard enough. Guardian and sources keep finding targets. Lots and lots of places with lots of targets. But no, there are no targets, lalala, comparative indicators are not targets even if someone gets adverse job consequences for being lower than average even though half of everything is below average because that's what average means FFS, treating the average like a target drives up the average, then people are trying to survive without their benefits because some jobsworth is trying to meet a target, and oh yes, many of those people are disabled people with learning disabilities because they're the least able to meet any bloody standard or fight back when told they've missed it. But there are no targets! That would be wrong!)


... I went off on one about how there's not enough jobs, there's never going to be enough jobs, technology changes everything and the way to a Star Trek future requires a social and economic paradigm shift, but until that happens everyone who doesn't have any work to do is going to get ground up in the gears. But this is not my area of expertise and I really have other things to be doing, so I deleted it.

World is a big mess. Finance fell down and banks got caught by the government so they wouldn't go splat. Yelling at poor people won't fix global capitalism.

People need certain very basic things to live. Deciding they don't need basic benefits is deciding they don't need to live.

xposted from Dreamwidth here. comment count unavailable comments. Reply there
Tags: politics
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.