Bollitics: VT General Election Poll #3 - GE Week One

[snowychap]

The poverty trap is hardly something new, Tony.

not new at all, but If it's true it shows that Labour haven't really done anything significant to change the situation.

Not really. In order to make a judgement one needs to look at the poverty trap over time to see whether things have changed (I'm not sure whether there's any historical data floating about).

FWIW, I don't think either blue or red are that concerned with getting to grips with it as it would require some pretty radical thinking and acting.

for sure but it's being cited as a major reason why people on VT would "Never" vote Tory

I think that's more to do with how people believe that the Tories would look at tackling the problem rather than the problem's existence, though I may be wrong.

[tonyh29]

though I may be wrong

surely not :winkold:

[blandy]

.. In order to make a judgement one needs to look at the poverty trap over time to see whether things have changed (I'm not sure whether there's any historical data floating about).

FWIW, I don't think either blue or red are that concerned with getting to grips with it as it would require some pretty radical thinking and acting...

large pdf file here gives the answer, and it's mixed - Labour has helped improve poverty, but the gap from rich to poor has got bigger, though much less quickly than it did under the tories. Little or no evidence to say that any one party would be any better than any other.

[tonyh29]

Going back to an earlier conversation in the other politics thread .. what is peoples reaction when reading this story .. Is it what fairness for all and what the welfare system is all about ?

or should governments cap what benefits they make to an individual ?

Being one of outrage it is of course from the Heil , but the article does kind make the parents come across as obnoxious

The Davey family's £815-a-week state handouts pay for a four-bedroom home, top-of-the-range mod cons and two vehicles including a Mercedes people carrier.

Father-of-seven Peter gave up work because he could make more living on benefits.

Yet he and his wife Claire are still not happy with their lot.

With an eighth child on the way, they are demanding a bigger house, courtesy of the taxpayer.

More on the way: The Davey family at home

'It's really hard,' said Mrs Davey, 29, who is seven months pregnant. 'We can't afford holidays and I don't want my kids living on a council estate and struggling like I have.

'The price of living is going up but benefits are going down. My carer's allowance is only going up by 80p this year and petrol is so expensive now, I'm worried how we'll cope.

'We're still waiting for somewhere bigger.'

Mrs Davey has never had a full-time job while her 35-year-old husband gave up his post in administration nine years ago after realising they would be better off living off the state.

At their semi on the Isle of Anglesey, the family have a 42in flatscreen television in the living room with Sky TV at £50 a month, a Wii games console, three Nintendo DS machines and a computer - not to mention four mobile phones.

With their income of more than £42,000 a year, they run an 11-seater minibus and the seven-seat automatic Mercedes.

But according to the Daveys they have nothing to be thankful for.

'It doesn't bother me that taxpayers are paying for me to have a large family,' added Mrs Davey.

'We couldn't afford to care for our children without benefits, but as long as they have everything they need, I don't think I'm selfish.

'Most of the parents at our kids' school are on benefits.'

She added: 'I don't feel bad about being subsidised by people who are working. I'm just working with the system that's there.

'If the government wants to give me money, I'm happy to take it. We get what we're entitled to. I don't put in anything because I don't pay taxes, but if I could work I would.'

The couple met in a pub 13 years ago. A year later, at the age of 17, Mrs Davey gave birth to Jessica, now 12.

The full feature appears in this week's Closer magazine, on sale now.

She was followed by Jade, ten, Jamie-Anne, eight, Harriet, six, Adele, four, the couple's only son Tie, three, and Mercedes, two.

'It cost too much to carry on working as we were actually better off unemployed,' said Mr Davey.

In addition to income support, housing benefit, child tax credits and a council tax discount, the couple receive carer's allowance and disability living allowance for Tie, who suffers from a severe skin disorder.

Despite filing for bankruptcy 18 months ago after racking up £20,000 of debt on mail order catalogues they still insist on splashing out on four presents per child at birthdays and last Christmas spent £2,000 on gifts alone.

'Santa is always generous in our house,' said Mrs Davey, who once applied to join the police but was turned down.

She insists her husband would do any job 'as long as we could still afford the lifestyle we have now'.

Mrs Davey, who spends £160 a week at Tesco, says she does not intend to stop at eight children. Her target is 14.

From the Heil

[Chindie]

It's impossible to have a welfare system that doesn't have someone find a loophole or abuse it somehow. The nature of the beast is such that you either legislate against severe abuses of it, or things like this you end up accepting.

The fact of the matter is thus - it's a rarity. Which is why the outrage spouted by newspapers like the above has to be so, to make it appear considerably worse than it is.

EDIT - I don't condone what they're doing obviously, and they don't sound like terribly endearing people, and nor would I condone anyone having that many children, as I'd feel it would be a detriment to the children themselves.

[Guest Ricardomeister]

Only a simpleton would believe that the situation in the story from the Daily Fascist is that common, assuming it is even true. The Fascist rag will find a totally extreme case and then hope its bigotted readers will believe that this is happening everywhere.

Tax evasion by the rich is far more commonplace and costs us far more than the type of idiot in the Daily Fascist story but as most of the culprits will be Tory supporters then the Tory press will forget about that to feed on the bigotry of its readers. The issue of the workshy obviously should also be addressed but it is not the first thing on my list of priorities.

[Mantis]

^^ We'd be paying a fortune for our petrol if it weren't for those wars.....

Do people still believe the wars are about oil?

Afghanistan doesn't even have any oil.

[tonyh29]

Only a simpleton would believe that the situation in the story from the Daily Fascist is that common, assuming it is even true. The Fascist rag will find a totally extreme case and then hope its bigotted readers will believe that this is happening everywhere.

Tax evasion by the rich is far more commonplace and costs us far more than the type of idiot in the Daily Fascist story but as most of the culprits will be Tory supporters then the Tory press will forget about that to feed on the bigotry of its readers. The issue of the workshy obviously should also be addressed but it is not the first thing on my list of priorities.

and breathe ..........

[drat01]

[Richard]

I do find it very amusing when the accusation of lieing gets thrown about by some quarters. It is very hypocritical

[snowychap]

.. In order to make a judgement one needs to look at the poverty trap over time to see whether things have changed (I'm not sure whether there's any historical data floating about).

FWIW, I don't think either blue or red are that concerned with getting to grips with it as it would require some pretty radical thinking and acting...

large pdf file here gives the answer, and it's mixed - Labour has helped improve poverty, but the gap from rich to poor has got bigger, though much less quickly than it did under the tories. Little or no evidence to say that any one party would be any better than any other.

Cheers, Pete, but scanning through that, I can't see anything about the poverty trap itself. Obviously there is lots of good info about poverty, distribution of wealth, &c. but not about the marginal rates of taxation when switching from benefits to work.

[blandy]

Sorry Darren. Did you have a rummage about the IFS site generally? Not saying the info is there, but it might be.

[snowychap]

Sorry Darren. Did you have a rummage about the IFS site generally? Not saying the info is there, but it might be.

No worries. That sounds like a good shout; I'll have a look on there later.

[Chindie]

I'm curious about the schools thing in the Tory manifesto - they apparently want to allow people to set up their own schools...

...that sounds like an absolutely horrendous idea to me and I can only hope theres considerably more to it than that.

Anyone know? Apparently there's a similar system in Sweden.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I'm curious about the schools thing in the Tory manifesto - they apparently want to allow people to set up their own schools...

...that sounds like an absolutely horrendous idea to me and I can only hope theres considerably more to it than that.

Anyone know? Apparently there's a similar system in Sweden.

There is a few countries that do it IIRC. And I don't think it's that bad an idea tbh.

I don't have faith in the whole education system anyway, it has plenty of good points but how much useless shit really gets pumped into you. If parents wanted to take it upon themselves to teach their children and ready them for adult hood then all power too them IMO.

The only dangerous aspect is if there is a rise in religious/far right education centres, which thankfully our system generally filters out but not completely.

But I do think schools should become self-sustainable, instead of relying on billions every year to remain open and produce nothing really spectacular.

[Reality]

Basically they want parents to be able to opt-out of failing comprehensives to set up their own schools.

[tonyh29]

I'm curious about the schools thing in the Tory manifesto - they apparently want to allow people to set up their own schools...

...that sounds like an absolutely horrendous idea to me and I can only hope theres considerably more to it than that.

must admit my first thought when i heard it on the radio this morning echoed yours ..parents in control Horrendous

however looking into it they've based it on the American charter school model .. countrywide in the US there have been some great results but also some some not so great , states like New Orleans appear to be dragging the average down for example ...

however in New York the gains have been far far better than the national average so a lot seems to depend on how it is managed ( and possibly how affluent the areas are ??)

it could be a winner .. could being the key word here

The government allocate money to the new school per pupil , based on the same cost it would have paid towards the child going to a normal school ..it's a 5 year license if results are bad you are shut down ..

From the way I saw the New York system work it's very similar to the school my boy is at whereby it seemed far more flexible on the curriculum and teaching methods decided by the headmaster and governors rather than following guidelines laid down by any government .. I guess it could end up like a private school but without parents paying any money ??

of course Labour and it's supporters will dismiss it out of hand as a bad idea ..such is politics ..I'd like to see if it could work , my guess would be it would require a trial basis ..but not sure how you do that without messing up some children's education somewhere along the way

[leviramsey]

Cheers, Pete, but scanning through that, I can't see anything about the poverty trap itself. Obviously there is lots of good info about poverty, distribution of wealth, &c. but not about the marginal rates of taxation when switching from benefits to work.

Having the combination of a zero-marginal-rate tax bracket and a basic tax credit creates the poverty trap. End one of them and you make the effective marginal tax rates much smoother (and depending on how you rejigger the tax system, it's quite possibly more progressive... by the end of Reagan's term, the US federal income tax, despite the top marginal rate dropping from 91% to 28%, was more progressive than the pre-JFK income tax (JFK cut the top marginal rate from 91% to 70%)).

[TrentVilla]

of course Labour and it's supporters will dismiss it out of hand as a bad idea ..such is politics ..I'd like to see if it could work , my guess would be it would require a trial basis ..but not sure how you do that without messing up some children's education somewhere along the way

Quite simply you can't, some poor kids will have to be the test subjects for such a trial they may benefit they may not but then I guess this is always true with any change in the fabric of the education system.

Education needs to evolve, if there weren't people willing to try new things in education children would still be sitting in silence in classrooms copying from a blackboard.

Personally and this has nothing to do with my personal political stance I think this is a bad idea or should I say a good idea in principle but would be a bad idea when put into practise. Everything I've seen and heard in the last 10 years of recruiting for the education sector makes me believe that as does what I hear at home from my misses who is a Deputy Head.

The notion that some parents hold that they some how know best what their children need and how they should be taught in comparison to someone who has trained for years is simply laughable.

It has nothing to do with weatlh or class either as the parents at both ends of the spectrum are capable of the most clueless attitudes and understanding of the needs of their child.

What I'm struggling to see is on what level it could be a winner as you claim, in what senes could it be a winner? In terms of the education the children recieve? Financially in terms of budget? This is a genuine question as I may be missing something and you clearly have more knowledge of the US system than I do.

I certainly agree there is scope for better financial management of schools and their budgets, without question. For to many years those trained to teach have been asked to then control the purse strings once they enter senior management which is clearly a problem. That though has been changing in recent years with the introduction of school bursars, financially trainied and minded individuals working alongside senior management to ensure budgets are used correctly.

The government allocate money to the new school per pupil , based on the same cost it would have paid towards the child going to a normal school ..it's a 5 year license if results are bad you are shut down ..

So how does this save money as that allocation of funds is just the same as to state schools. Also what about premises for the schools? Who provides them?

Simply shutting down schools after a 5 year period would cause untold problems both for the pupils and for the state schools required to pick up the displaced children. How on earth would local state schools cope with a sudden influx of pupils into all year groups who have been taugh a different cuuriculum and or at a different pace. Not only would it seriously damage the education of the displaced pupils but also the pupils in the schools they then join.

Another issue with this policy that I have is that I think it would lead to increased social division along religious, racial and financial lines.

Such a policy would without question lead to an increase in single faith schools, muslim or christian it matters not it would happen and personally I would rather see an education system that is inclusive rather than devisive that unites rather than devides communities and society.

The reality of this legislation though won't be parent controlled schools, sure there will be some but as I understand it this policy would open the door to schools run by 'parents, individuals or companies'. In reality what this policy would do if it became legislation is open the door to what equate to state funded private schools, it is back door privitisation of the education system or as you say yourself;

I guess it could end up like a private school but without parents paying any money ??

This policy makes it very hard not to view the Cameron Tory party with the same way as in previous elections.

Essentially they are offering lower tax by reducing public spending they say they will do this not by reducing spending in real terms but by removing waste yet policies like this to me at least suggest they will do it by the same old methods they have always employed simply repackaged.

[Clarry]

The notion that some parents hold that they some how know best what their children need and how they should be taught in comparison to someone who has trained for years is simply laughable.

It has nothing to do with weatlh or class either as the parents at both ends of the spectrum are capable of the most clueless attitudes and understanding of the needs of their child.

Spot on.

I am dismayed with the number of parents who do not have faith in their own children's ability. Unfortunately, in Lambeth, this is down to a lot of White British "middle-class" parents who think it is better to educate their children in neighbouring boroughs (with the same or worse results, especially at GCSE).

These are the parents of children that will usually do well, regardless.

I'm all for the days of sending your children to the nearest school available.

Basically, if you teach your children to count and do the alphabet before they are of school age, they're likely to be fine.