A charming lunch with JP and SL yesterday. SL who hails from outside this country observed that it didn't matter who we vote for - we're equally screwed. Curious to know people's thoughts about the upcoming election.
Johann Hari says it's a real choice.
JP has vowed to stop voting for single issue pressure group type parties. I'm in one of the safest labour seats in the country and an somewhat typically undecided about my intentions. The idealist in me likes the Lib Dems. The pragmatist in me likes Labour. And the burgeoning misanthropist in me likes the Conservatives.
As a reference here are links to the main parties:
Labour
Conservative
Lib Dem
4 comments:
A very interesting follow-up comment posted to Hari's article on his site:
--------------------------
On the subject of poverty - in America, 12.5% of the population live below the poverty line, according to the Census Bureau's 2003 report. This translates to the following:
91 percent own colour TVs
74 percent own microwaves
55 percent own VCRs
47 percent own clothes dryers (while I, a comfortably middle-class Irishman, am still forced to hang my laundry outside and let the elements do their worst)
42 percent own stereos (I don't)
23 percent own dishwashers (ditto)
21 percent own computers
19 percent own garbage disposals (nope)
In 1995, 41% of all poor households owned their own homes. The median value of homes owned by the poor was $65,000, which is 70 percent of the median value of all homes owned in America. 60% of poor households have two or more rooms per occupant, whereas I'm stuck with 1.75. The average home owned by a person classified as "poor" has three bedrooms (I have four), one-and-a-half baths (just the one), a garage (yup), and a porch (nope) or patio (nope). The average housing space for poor Americans - 440 square feet - is greater than the average person, poor or otherwise, living in Paris (349 square feet) or London (344 square feet). 70% of poor households own a car, while 27% own two or more cars (ha! I wish!) Far from being malnourished, poor people are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons; indeed, the average child of a poor household is, due to over-nourishment, an inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the average GI who stormed the beaches of Normandy on D-Day. And on the somewhat tangential subject of taxation, it is worth noting that the richest 20% of the American population pay 80% of federal income taxes, while the richest 50% pay 96.5%.
Which is all to say, the meaning of the word "poverty" in America is rather different from its meaning elsewhere in the world, where it conjures images of abject destitution accompanied by the inability to feed or shelter oneself, a description which fits only the tiniest fraction of America's poor. At the very least, current measurements - based on relative percentage income thresholds - are insufficient to express actual material need, and it is both naive and misleading to say that America has widespread poverty problems when, in fact, a significant number of America's poor are not substantially worse off than some of Europe's middle class.
--------------------------
And another fascinating one from the Hari follow-ups:
----------------------------
I have to take issue with the way the word 'poverty' is used on this site. I live in an area deemed 'poor', where unemployment is high. However, there are plenty of jobs about.
Many of the unemployed are not out of work because they are unable to find work, they are out of work because they get a better deal from government handouts.
And there is absolutely no denying this fact - I have so many examples. I know young girls who have kids and then sit on a government waiting list from the housing association.. I also know ex-miners who claim for just about every injury and ailment available, usually pocketing good compensation sums. (You only have to drive past a solicitor's address in South Wales to understand the temptations - most solicitors are more than happy to fight cases of 'industrial white finger'). I also know many people who are on the sick, either with depression, stress of bad backs. I would bet everything I own that 90% of these 'sick' cases are spurious, but so what, they still get their handouts.
The problem is getting worse. I'm 27 but so many teenagers in the area really cannot be bothered to work. They are nice enough kids, but they are uneducated, under-motivated, lazy, and interested more in societal ills. They all have dreams of being somebody, but their dreams are just too unrealistic. They want to be the next Beckham or Rooney, not understanding the hard work and application required to achieve. So they live in a constant world of disillusionment.
This is a problem growing amongst youngsters who have no chance of achieving their aims. These kids grow up to reach 20, they suddenly realise their lives are going nowhere, and what do they do next? They play the system, become a strain on society and this government allows them to get away with it.*
So, my point is that it is trite to call these people victims of 'poverty'. I grew up in exactly the same way as the rest and I did okay, so did many of my friends. But the new generation are failing. They are failing in education, in application and in respect for society and I fear that the only political party recognising this are the Conservatives.
My area isn't a victim of poverty and inequality, it is more a victim of laziness, under-achievement and in many cases (see the growing amount of young, single mothers), crass stupidity.
*As for Redwood. Okay, his tax/spend policies are often seen as extreme. But, I ask this question. How many genuinely lazy people would be playing the system if handouts weren't so readily available?
----------------------------
I seem to remember a right wing economist who suggested that we should measure by poverty by what people HAVE rather than by income. He was widely condemned by I thought it made sense. Do you know who I mean? If you do please post a link.
I have seen first hand examples of exactly the kind of thing described in the follow ups posted above. We leave in the bizarre situation where non-working parents get free after school child-care while working parents pay a fortune. It might seem harsh but you could well argue that the non-working parents don't need the child-care in the first place.
Wikipedia - 'Poverty Line in the US'
Post a Comment