Is there a better way for me to spend my money?

Free Socialist Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:51:12 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

I'm on the left of the party, the moderate left to be precise, and I'm absolutely appalled by pretty much everything the Labour government has done since Gordon Brown became party leader and Prime Minister. I've come to a decision that I am going to cancel my membership subscription and redirect the money to more progressive causes. Can you offer suggestions?



I think the straw that broke the metaphorical camel's back was the proposal to take away social housing from the unemployed. It's made me realise how far Labour governance has become nothing more than a crowd of bullying populist Thatcherite vultures, I don't want to give the party money any more. There has to be workable alternatives, organisations that people like you and I who consider ourselves socialists can happily donate to without the moral dilemma.

tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Is there a better way for me to spend my money? | 24 comments (24 topical)

Re: Is there a better way for me to (#1)

by JM on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:07:44 AM GMT

 

If you believe that Flint said that we should "take away social housing from the unemployed", you really need to go back and re-read the article.

Her proposal was that anyone looking for work, but unable to find any, would be perfectly entitled to remain in social housing. The only people who would find themselves potentially in trouble would be those able to work, but who refuse to look for employment.

 


Re: Is there a better way (#2)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:20:30 AM GMT

Oh here we go with the usual 'let's call anyone in the party who's moderate a Thatcherite'.

I would go into the details of why Caroline Flint is not a Thatcherite but I think you already know this but you're just trying to make a scene.

I'm not going to bother trying to change your mind - if you want to leave, then leave.


Re: Is there a better way (#10)

by Free Socialist on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:02:48 AM GMT

"Oh here we go with the usual 'let's call anyone in the party who's moderate a Thatcherite'." Flint moderate? In which party? The Tories? 


[ Parent ]

Re: Is there a better way (#11)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:17:45 AM GMT

Very productive.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is there a better way (#3)

by doctordunc on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:05:56 AM GMT

Here we go again: JM and Northern Monkey refusing to understand why people are horrified by these proposals.

"Free Socialist" - if you leave then you leave it to people like them.  Stay and fight.  This policy will never be enacted; it's completely unworkable.  Yes, it shows us something about the mindset of some ministers, and its a mindset that is either utterly stupid or utterly reprehensible.  But then we expose them and find new ministers.  I completely understand where you're coming from, but it's our party as much as theirs, and one day we'll be in the ascendency again.  I wonder if they will find it in themselves to be as loyal as we have been?


Re: Is there a better way (#4)

by JM on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:51:58 AM GMT

I don't understand why you find it so hard to admit that Flint's proposals in no way aim to "take away social housing from the unemployed". You haven't been able to point to anywhere where she's said that.

You ask "who decides who is 'looking for work'", but that question is inherent in any benefits system based on rights and responsibilities. Someone has to make a judgement on whether an individual is fulfilling their responsibilities.

Serious question (genuinely) - are you in favour of providing unemployment benefits an individual who walks into a Jobcentre and explicitly states that they have no intention of working and can't be persuaded otherwise? Presuming that you'd say that you weren't in favour of that, you've accepted the basis of a rights and responsibilities based welfare system. From there, the question of "who decides" is always present and, although it is important and must be set fairly, it is a technical/operational question rather than one which demolishes any adjustment to the rights and responsibilities.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is there a better way (#5)

by doctordunc on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:18:37 AM GMT

I'm very happy to engage with you on a philosophical/theoretical debate about rights and responsibilities welfare.  BUT are you saying that social housing is (or should be) part of the benefits system?

If we begin from a shared acceptance that some people will have had their benefits stopped unfairly (even if you think that perhaps it happens very rarely) then to add to that the threat of being evicted from your home (whether or not you can find the rent) seems an utterly mystifying (and largely pointless) addition.  Caroline Flint's point is presumably that she thinks lots of people in council estates are fraudulently on benefits, but why she feels evicting them is the answer I can't possibly imagine.

Personally I opposed the introduction of Jobseekers Allowance (as a lot of Labour people did).  Ideally I'd prefer to see a system of universal benefits creating some manner of guaranteed minimum income.  In practise, rather than a fundamental shift in philosophy I'd like to see a major shift in ethos, away from one focused on how you can prove someone is not entitled to something and instead on enabling people to get their full entitlements and, yes, also to find employment.  I do not think the benefit system is the arena in which to place employment incentives, unless you are prepared to say that you would see people destitute and with nothing; if your only intellectually honest belief is that the state would step in and stop people and their families from starving or sleeping rough, then it is intellectually dishonest to propose cutting people off as an incentive to work.  And that's a bottom line really.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is there a better way (#8)

by JM on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:18:13 PM GMT

I think you're absolutely right that there are difficulties around using the benefit system as somewhere to place employment incentives - but I don't that that the difficulties make it impossible or not worthwhile.

"if your only intellectually honest belief is that the state would step in and stop people and their families from starving or sleeping rough, then it is intellectually dishonest to propose cutting people off as an incentive to work. "

As I've written below, nowhere did Caroline Flint talk about eviction as a consequence of failure to look for a job. She said that an individual could be required to sign a 'committment contract' stating that they will look for work as a condition of getting the house. That doesn't neccessarily imply that the punishment for failure to adhere to that contract would be eviction. It could mean that failure to look for a job means your rent is increased or something else.

I'm not saying that the policy is easy - it might even turn out to be unworkable. I'm just argueing that asking the question "who decides" or claiming (wrongly) that Flint is calling for the punishment of those unable to find work are not in themselves reasons to reject the idea.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is there a better way (#9)

by doctordunc on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:20:27 PM GMT

Okay, you can see why the idea of being in breach of your housing contract would imply eviction as the penalty, but I grant you that wasn't stated outright.  However, assuming some other penalty would be exacted seems a bit of a stretch.  Generally if you are in breach of a housing contract (i.e. you fall behind with rent, you sub-let, whatever it might be) then the other signatory to the contract is at liberty to terminate the contract (even though they may act differently - change the terms of the contract or whatever).  What she is saying is that you can only have social housing if you are actively seeking work; to suggest that the alternative is just that the terms on which you can have social housing may change is something of a backtrack really.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is there a better way (#13)

by JM on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:02:49 AM GMT

All I'm saying is that a number of people of this site have jumped to conclusions abour what Flint meant (often based on things they assume she said rather than what she did say) and started to throw insults are her, claim to be leaving the party and shout about how evil the policy is.

I'm simply saying that, if you look at what she said - that people could sign contracts promising to, with extra government help, look for work as a condition of initially recieving social housing - if you look at that and don't make assumptions on what you think the 'punishment' (if any) will be for failure to comply with the contract, then there's no definite moral difficulty with the idea.

But people have used this as an opportunity to assume they know what the punishments are and wax moral on them. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Is there a better way (#14)

by doctordunc on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:19:29 PM GMT

While agreeing that you need to look at the details of what people say before you make too great a judgement, part of the problem here is that she hasn't said a great deal, but she has made a great impression and made no attempt to correct the impression left if it was incorrect.

What do you think she meant?


[ Parent ]

Re: Is there a better way (#15)

by JM on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:06:31 PM GMT

I think she meant what she said in the speech and I don't think that she wants to throw families out onto the streets even if the dad (or mum) is bone idle.

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Is there a better way (#6)

by donpaskini on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:50:46 PM GMT

There are different sorts of 'rights and responsibilities' welfare systems.  For example, you could have withdrawal of benefits as a last resort option once every other alternative has been exhausted, or as a major instrument of policy which gets used as a matter of course (e.g. by time limiting the length of time for which people can receive unemployment benefits).

It is interesting to note that the countries with the highest employment levels (and hence the fewest number of these people who can work but won't) are not the ones which use tough sanctions like the threat of withdrawing benefits, but the countries which focus on things like making sure parents can get affordable childcare, active intervention by governments to help create jobs and tough laws against employers discriminating against particular groups of workers.

I believe in evidence-based policy making, and the experience of countries which put the toughest set of responsibilities in return for benefits is that it has very little impact on people who know how to play the system (if you know how to fiddle the current system, then you'll quickly figure out how to get around any new regulations), and a huge negative impact on vulnerable people who get caught out by rules that they don't understand.  You still get areas where lots of people are out of work, but many of these people are denied benefits and therefore are utterly destitute.

For example, if you want to make the right to social housing conditional on the responsibility to find a job, then you need to know which kinds of people are being allocated social housing.  Otherwise, you end up looking a bit silly when you find out that your tough new rules which are meant to make a difference won't apply to 95% of the new social housing tenants because they have very young kids, or an addiction or a mental health problem.


[ Parent ]

Re: Is there a better way (#7)

by JM on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:04:46 PM GMT

I agree that the government can do a lot to help people get into work - through providing help with skills and through other methods.

So does Caroline Flint. The section of the speech which caused the controversy is as follows:

"And I want to finish by reiterating some of the questions I've asked, and which I've been thinking about over my first week. Because I do think that we need this national debate about the role of social housing in the twenty first century.


So should existing tenants who need to move for work be given higher priority on waiting lists?


Could new tenants who can work sign commitment contracts when getting a tenancy, agreeing to actively seek work alongside better support?


How can we expand existing schemes to offer those tenants in work who can't afford to buy their own home more opportunity to buy a share?


How can we improve the links between housing services and employment services?


And how do we continue to give tenants a stronger voice to improve services and drive up standards?"

Note "alongside better support". Also, nowhere does she talk about eviction - just the signing of the contract stating that an individual will look for work as a condition of getting their house. That doesn't neccessarily imply that the punishment for failure to comply with the contract is removal from the house.


[ Parent ]

So long and thanks for all the fish (#12)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:57:42 AM GMT

Your not really a free socialist. Your a liberal demarcate. Off you go.


Re: So long and thanks for all the fish (#21)

by Free Socialist on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:45:10 AM GMT

Me a LibDem? Evidence?


[ Parent ]

Re: So long and thanks for all the fish (#23)

by Free Socialist on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:56:09 AM GMT

Oh and there's bugger-all chance of me getting involved with a party with "Liberal" in the name, pal.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#16)

by JoeRoberts on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 06:21:28 PM GMT

Free Socialist, I thought most people who see the world the way you do had already left! You remind me of a guy in my old CLP who resigned from the party eight weeks after the 1997 election (I think it was about something Robin Cook had said as Foreign Secretary).

If you seriously think that expecting people to make reasonable efforts to find a job makes one a 'populist Thatcherite vulture', I suggest that you leave, as I can't imagine you would be much of a loss to the party.


Are you actually involved in any Labour Party activities or does your political engagement consist simply of getting outraged while reading the Guardian and slagging off our government on the internet?


Re: (#17)

by doctordunc on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:30:57 PM GMT

I'm sorry but this is the sort of thing which gets me really angry.  How dare you question other people's commitment to the party just because they disagree with you, and disagree with policies that are a) stupid, b) offensive and  c) too right wing for the Tory Party?

If you think the best thing you can do for the government is cheer every ridiculous, ill-thought-out bit of kite flying then you are very seriously mistaken.  The only way we can avoid taking a hit on Flint's idiocy is to make sure as many people in the party as possible distance themselves from it (and I'm sorry if that leaves Caroline Flint a bit isolated, she should have been less stupid) - come May every one of us will be asked about this on the doorstep and if you think it's going to be popular then I might question the level of your Labour Party activities!!

If you think people's objections to this 'policy' are based on 'expecting peole to make reasonable efforts to find a job' then there's no debating with you: clearly you can comprehend that the benefits system already makes such expectations; there is absolutely no sense in writing it into the housing system too - all it does is scare people and further stigmatise and marginalise social housing.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#18)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:17:39 PM GMT

How dare you question other people's commitment to the party just because they disagree with you

To be fair Dunc, the original poster pretty much said that anyone who disagreed with his view on this was a Thatcherite.


And you yourself have just said that the proposals are 'stupid, offensive and too right-wing for the Tory party'. I disagree and don't think those comments are helpful either.


I also strongly disagree with your belief that 'on the doorstep' this idea would be unpopular. When I've been canvassing, one of the more likely conversations you'll have with Joe Public is 'why are Labour so soft on benefit cheats and the work-shy?' Now, this type of question annoys me greatly as I don't believe it's true, but nevertheless, there is very little sympathy for those who are unemployed but able to work from your average member of the voting public.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#19)

by doctordunc on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 10:56:23 PM GMT

You're welcome to attack my views; you can conclude that they'd be better placed in a different party, if you must, but I'd rather if people didn't attack me personally.

Of course we disagree - I'm not going to retract anything because I meant what I said, but I don't question your integrity, just your opinion.

And I'm 100% sure that this idea will be unpopular on the doorstep (and that is despite the fact I have had many similar conversations with 'Joe Public' to the one you have outlined) - to our committed supporters it will be unpopular because it's wrong, to others it will unpopular because it's stupid.  And with our natural opponents it will be unpopular because it's an easy target.  I can't imagine anybody enthusing about it.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#20)

by doctordunc on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 11:02:03 PM GMT

To clarify the part of the previous post that angered me was:

Are you actually involved in any Labour Party activities or does your political engagement consist simply of getting outraged while reading the Guardian and slagging off our government on the internet?

Why should people make assumptions about people's level of commitment and activism based on their views?  I know so many activists who sweat blood for the party despite serious opposition to a good deal of what has been done, and I think 'loyalists' should respect that, whatever they think of our views.  As I said elsewhere, when the boot's on the other foot I hope you will remain as faithful to the movement as we have.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#22)

by Free Socialist on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:54:51 AM GMT

I haven't gone as far as "sweated blood" for the party simply because my local party keeps the real heavy duty activity to a small clique, but I have volunteered and helped the party as long as I've been a member. I cannot continue because I don't feel that I am assisting in any way a progressive cause, but one that instead penalises the weak and vulnerable.


[ Parent ]

Re: (#24)

by doctordunc on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:24:45 PM GMT

What I always say to comrades who are contemplating leaving: the Labour Party has always been a coalition that has socialists in it, and has never really been a socialist party.  At different times different parts of the coalition dominate; it includes some with whom I have very little common cause, and sometimes - like now - they dominate.  But if we leave then we leave it to them.  One day we'll be in the ascendency again and we can get stuff done.  It's not just a simple case of lesser evilism - the politics of movements is more complex than that.  We don't keep faith with Labour just because it's preferable to a Tory government (though it certainly is) we do it because it's our party as much as it is anybody else's and the pendulum will swing again.


[ Parent ]

Is there a better way for me to spend my money? | 24 comments (24 topical)