Guardian Lies

[ViolentPanda]

0/10 for lucid financial argument, 7.5/10 for quality of the personal attack.

No chance of addressing the issue with facts and figures ?

How about having a stab at why the UK is third in the EU in percentage of people successfully graduating ?

Successful in relation to what?

I'd contend that in the era of full grant (which included being able to claim housing benefit until the early 1990s) you'll find that a higher percentage of participants in higher ed graduated, and "drop-out" rates were lower.

 

[nino_savatte]

There's also a problem of access.
If you live on a big old council estate then often the only shops within a reasonable walking distance are independents, where prices reflect their poor economies of scale, high rents etc, so if you're low-waged or on benefit it can actually be "cheaper" (in purely financial terms) to buy ready-shite meals once a week from Iceland than to shop for fresh and then spend the necessary time on food preparation and cooking.
Bob Holman up in Easterhouse coined the term "food desert" for places without access to reasonably-priced fresh food. There are plenty of "food deserts" even in Urban centres.

True. I have seen plenty of council estates where the local shops sell only tins and frozen foods and plenty of cheap, but strong, booze.

To go with the the term "food desert" is the term "food poverty".

 

[nino_savatte]

Successful in relation to what?

I'd contend that in the era of full grant (which included being able to claim housing benefit until the early 1990s) you'll find that a higher percentage of participants in higher ed graduated, and "drop-out" rates were lower.

I was one such person: I got a grant before they we abolished and had a Poll Tax (as it was then) exemption. I don't know many people who dropped out for financial reasons either. If people dropped out of HE, it was usually because they couldn't do the work or found that they weren't suited to student life.

I like the way gov't apologists will point to a set of numbers that claim that there are 'more young people going to university than in previous years' and will ignore any statistics that indicate a high percentage of drop outs. Just like teaching: they tell us more people are going into teaching but for every newly qualified teacher, there are at least three are leaving the profession each week.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I was one such person: I got a grant before they we abolished and had a Poll Tax (as it was then) exemption. I don't know many people who dropped out for financial reasons either. If people dropped out of HE, it was usually because they couldn't do the work or found that they weren't suited to student life.

My wife was "one such person" too.
She often contrasts the attitude of her tutors to students taking part-time work (don't do it, you won't be able to cencentrate on your coursework) with the modern idea that it's fine and dandy to spend 30 hours a week or so (on top of the time you spend socialising, studying and sleeping) working.
And then people wonder why degrees are becomind devalued.

I like the way gov't apologists will point to a set of numbers that claim that there are 'more young people going to university than in previous years' and will ignore any statistics that indicate a high percentage of drop outs. Just like teaching: they tell us more people are going into teaching but for every newly qualified teacher, there are at least three are leaving the profession each week.

Yep. It's easy to pint at numbers, but I've noticed that when people do cite such things, they rarely give a rounded view, just a narrow slice.

 

[Giles]

In terms of preventing malnutrition, and in asuring correct nutrition, yes.


Wow, that's such a good argument I hardly know what to say.

Oh, I know.

What a load of musty sweaty bollocks.

Did you miss what I said about relative vs absolute poverty?

The problem that I have with most definitions of "relative poverty" is that it is self-perpetuating: its no longer enough to ensure that everyone has a decent home and enough to eat, enough money to keep their house warm, buy clothes etc. If someone earns less than a percentage of the average or median income , they are "poor" even though their lifestyle is fine.

You end up with the bizarre situation where someone on the border of the relative poverty line but just above it, suddenly becomes "officially poor" because over there, some rich bastards have just got big bonuses.

Giles..

 

[Azrael]

The problem that I have with most definitions of "relative poverty" is that it is self-perpetuating: its no longer enough to ensure that everyone has a decent home and enough to eat, enough money to keep their house warm, buy clothes etc.

Exactly. A great many people still lack a decent home and the money to live comfortably. Poverty is not dead. But the argument is distracted by the endless quest to end "relative poverty". It's desgined to be self-perpetuating because that ensures the battle can never be won and the Left can justify fighting it indefinitely.

Rejecting "relative poverty" as a concept is hardly a "new Labour" opinion. Labour still buy into the relative definition. If anything it's old liberal/conservative.

I put it thus: let's say it becomes common to own 10 plasma TVs. Unless you own two or more, you're classified poor. This is not a workable standard.

 

[exosculate]

Exactly. A great many people still lack a decent home and the money to live comfortably. Poverty is not dead. But the argument is distracted by the endless quest to end "relative poverty". It's desgined to be self-perpetuating because that ensures the battle can never be won and the Left can justify fighting it indefinitely.

Rejecting "relative poverty" as a concept is hardly a "new Labour" opinion. Labour still buy into the relative definition. If anything it's old liberal/conservative.

I put it thus: let's say it becomes common to own 10 plasma TVs. Unless you own two or more, you're classified poor. This is not a workable standard.

I put it thus, that you are talking utter twaddle.

 

[exosculate]

The problem that I have with most definitions of "relative poverty" is that it is self-perpetuating: its no longer enough to ensure that everyone has a decent home and enough to eat, enough money to keep their house warm, buy clothes etc. If someone earns less than a percentage of the average or median income , they are "poor" even though their lifestyle is fine.

You end up with the bizarre situation where someone on the border of the relative poverty line but just above it, suddenly becomes "officially poor" because over there, some rich bastards have just got big bonuses.

Giles..

Everyone doesn't have a nice home though - death gloater.

 

[rhys gethin]

The problem that I have with most definitions of "relative poverty" is that it is self-perpetuating: its no longer enough to ensure that everyone has a decent home and enough to eat, enough money to keep their house warm, buy clothes etc. If someone earns less than a percentage of the average or median income , they are "poor" even though their lifestyle is fine.

You end up with the bizarre situation where someone on the border of the relative poverty line but just above it, suddenly becomes "officially poor" because over there, some rich bastards have just got big bonuses.

Giles..

Giles - I think that even as early as Marx the notion of 'poverty' was relative, and it inevitably IS that because we are a status-obsessed species - though I don't for a moment believe that everyone in this particular capitalist paradise 'has a decent home and enough to eat, enough money to keep their house warm, buy clothes etc.' either, by the way. If you believe that you should visit the world the rest of us live in sometime.

What it always comes down to is, 'Where does wealth come from?' If you believe the rich create it by their deep mental efforts, or by waving magic wands, you can be contented with the crumbs from their table. If, like me, you believe it is created by our WORK, however, you want our share - like ALL OF IT, like NOW, because they are robbing us rotten.

 

[Azrael]

I put it thus, that you are talking utter twaddle.

Are you saying that relative poverty is not a meaningless category? If so, I'd like to know how living conditions held relative to material excess are a useful definition of hardship.

 

[exosculate]

Are you saying that relative poverty is not a meaningless category? If so, I'd like to know how living conditions held relative to material excess are a useful definition of hardship.

I am saying I am a re-distributionist, for the UK but also for the world as a whole. It is perfectly valid, and the only people that go on about it being a bad thing are apologists for rich people or rich people themselves. Of course relative poverty is valid thing to argue about reducing.

 

[Azrael]

I am saying I am a re-distributionist, for the UK but also for the world as a whole. It is perfectly valid, and the only people that go on about it being a bad thing are apologists for rich people or rich people themselves. Of course relative poverty is valid thing to argue about reducing.

You've yet to explain why this ever-fluctuating "condition" needs reducing. Genuine hardship, which still exists aplenty in the UK, yes. But how can a category which relies entirely on its relation to material excess, and not on any intrinsic standard, command the same outrage as the fight to give people the essentials of life?

If those 10 plasma TVs become standard, it really does become imperative to own two. (Or whatever mathematical quota "relative poverty" demands.) When luxuries are re-branded as essentials it looks suspiciously like the left-wing equivalent of the war on terror: an endless and unwinnable war used to justify one's own existence.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Exactly. A great many people still lack a decent home and the money to live comfortably. Poverty is not dead. But the argument is distracted by the endless quest to end "relative poverty". It's desgined to be self-perpetuating because that ensures the battle can never be won and the Left can justify fighting it indefinitely.

Rejecting "relative poverty" as a concept is hardly a "new Labour" opinion. Labour still buy into the relative definition. If anything it's old liberal/conservative.

I put it thus: let's say it becomes common to own 10 plasma TVs. Unless you own two or more, you're classified poor. This is not a workable standard.

Yes, but it isn't categorised by what's "common", it's categorised by what is deemed to be necessary to allow the minimum functional standard of life, the sort of stuff the social fund used to give you loans for. If you have no means to preserve or to cook food then you're living in relative poverty.

Your "workable standard" referring to plasma screen tvs is the product of fantasy, and not one that any sociologist would work to.

 

[exosculate]

You've yet to explain why this ever-fluctuating "condition" needs reducing. Genuine hardship, which still exists aplenty in the UK, yes. But how can a category which relies entirely on its relation to material excess, and not on any intrinsic standard, command the same outrage as the fight to give people the essentials of life?

If those 10 plasma TVs become standard, it really does become imperative to own two. (Or whatever mathematical quota "relative poverty" demands.) When luxuries are re-branded as essentials it looks suspiciously like the left-wing equivalent of the war on terror: an endless and unwinnable war used to justify one's own existence.

To me its about creating a cohesive community of valued human beings. Increases in relative poverty damage the fabric that makes, sustains or encourages a greater sense of community and shared values.

ps - Why do you keep going on about Plasma screens? Thatcherites used to go on about video recorders in the 80's. There was much discussion about the meaningless of such objects in arguments about poverty. Alot of sociologists have written about it.

 

[Azrael]

To me its about creating a cohesive community of valued human beings. Increases in relative poverty damage the fabric that makes, sustains or encourages a greater sense of community and shared values.

Pretty nebulous concept. A constant war on a constantly shifting enemy needs something stronger than "greater community" as justification.

ps - Why do you keep going on about Plasma screens?

'Cos I wish I could afford one of those new HDTVs.

The reductio ad absurdum has a serious point: in an affluent society relative poverty arguments can render the concept of poverty meaningless. Which turns profound injustice into a joke. Something it should never be.

 

[Azrael]

Yes, but it isn't categorised by what's "common", it's categorised by what is deemed to be necessary to allow the minimum functional standard of life, the sort of stuff the social fund used to give you loans for. If you have no means to preserve or to cook food then you're living in relative poverty.

Relative poverty goes far beyond necessity, that's the whole point. I'm not arguing that "necessities" can't change over time, keeping pace with the development of technology.

Your "workable standard" referring to plasma screen tvs is the product of fantasy, and not one that any sociologist would work to.

What isn't fantasy is that "relative poverty" often focuses on income, and ability to buy commodities the majority take for granted. Having studied sociology for a year, disparity of income was something that came up often.

If the concept was concerned with giving poor people access to fridges I wouldn't be taking issue with it.

 

[kyser_soze]

A constant war on a constantly shifting enemy

OO, where have I seen that phrase used before...*whistles*

OK, so where does relative poverty begin? When someone who isn't feeding themselves properly but has accomodation and a TV? Or do we base it on someone who is unable to afford basic foodstuffs, has nowhere to live?

 

[HackneyE9]

Kettle backing the CDU/CSU was actually quite a lurch to the Left by his standards - both Germany and Frace's centre-right parties are WAY to the left of New Labour.

 

[TAE]

I wouldn't say the CDU/CSU is "WAY to the left of New Labour" but you do have a point.

 

[nino_savatte]

The UMP under Sarkozy will be an altogether different prospect.

 

[Idris2002]

Kettle backing the CDU/CSU was actually quite a lurch to the Left by his standards - both Germany and Frace's centre-right parties are WAY to the left of New Labour.

Was this in the context of the Guardians' sneering and contemptuous assertions that Germany had to neo-liberalise itself, though?

 

[HackneyE9]

Was this in the context of the Guardians' sneering and contemptuous assertions that Germany had to neo-liberalise itself, though?

Yup.

Stop making high quality shit the world want to buy, and develop your service sector, retail and financial "services" sector, Germany - you know it makes sense.

Then Hamburg can become a bit more like Hull.

 

[HackneyE9]

I actually met the guy who runs the London end of the Konrad Adaneur institute a couple of years back, which is basically the CDU/CSU thinktank, and he couldn't BELIEVE the poverty in the UK compared with der Vaterland, and certainly did not want to drop the Franco-German social model.

They've not had a Thatcher, that's the difference with both CDU and UMP.

 

[nino_savatte]

They've not had a Thatcher, that's the difference with both CDU and UMP.

That could all change if Sarkozy gets his wish.