3 ms·

Yes, there is a huge sentiment among the conservative public in the UK that people should not use benefits to gain capital or for social mobility. This isn't ju

Yes, there is a huge sentiment among the conservative public in the UK that people should not use benefits to gain capital or for social mobility. This isn't just a policy issue, it does come along with a commonly held attitude.

belorn 5y ago
Can there be social mobility that is independent of social social status, or does "social mobility" have a literal definition where if someone gains social status someone else must by definition be lower on the social ladder. If one follows that definition it seems not too strange logic that social support should go towards those at the bottom of the social ladder, and if you change the social ordering then who receive support will also change. One way to resolve the problem seems to be to decouple benefits from social status and instead see them as human rights. Health care is not something that you buy, but rather a service that the government provide to every citizen equally. The top 1% get the same cancer treatment as the homeless and both pay zero. Decouple benefits from social status does not seems to be strictly a left vs right issue, at least not here in Sweden. Is the UK different here?
- joeberon 5y ago
  Yes it's a left vs right issue here. This interpretation will seem very biased, since I am very left wing, but it really is this way: The left see benefits or welfare as a right, and as a very important way to help people who have found themselves in difficult situations. Here in the UK, left wing people often view those on benefits as victims of their situation or upbringing. They do not think of them as of low social status. The right see benefits or welfare as just a necessary evil to prevent mass death. Here in the UK, right wing people often view those on benefits as leeches and criminals, who have made the choice to be ineffective at achieving and maintaining a high enough income. They think of them as of low social status. Sweden is very differently politically to a lot of countries, at least I've heard you have far less party politics. The UK is absurdly polarised on these issues. For your cancer treatment thing, that's not how it works here in the UK at all. While we do have universal healthcare, unfortunately it varies drastically based on where you live, and if you live in a poorer area, you are much more likely to get overwhelmed and struggling hospitals. So really a hospital in a richer area will give totally different care to one in a poorer area.
  - belorn 5y ago
    We do have a somewhat similar problem where depending on where you live you get slightly different social support, but this comes as a consequence of local government. Local government need to have a balanced book where those that pay more local taxes than the resources they consumes from local government matches those that consume more than they pay. If a local region has an influx of citizens that consume more of local resources than they pay in local taxes, the local government then only really has one primary option: reducing who get support and how much support. Health clinics can as a result vary greatly between regions, but since there much fewer hospitals, multiple regions have to join up to a single one and thus the difference get more smoothed out. With covid-19 pandemic there has been one political change where the right has gone out with the goal of fully nationalizing healthcare, which is a bit odd in terms of left vs right.

belorn 5y ago

Can there be social mobility that is independent of social social status, or does "social mobility" have a literal definition where if someone gains social status someone else must by definition be lower on the social ladder. If one follows that definition it seems not too strange logic that social support should go towards those at the bottom of the social ladder, and if you change the social ordering then who receive support will also change. One way to resolve the problem seems to be to decouple benefits from social status and instead see them as human rights. Health care is not something that you buy, but rather a service that the government provide to every citizen equally. The top 1% get the same cancer treatment as the homeless and both pay zero. Decouple benefits from social status does not seems to be strictly a left vs right issue, at least not here in Sweden. Is the UK different here?

joeberon 5y ago
Yes it's a left vs right issue here. This interpretation will seem very biased, since I am very left wing, but it really is this way: The left see benefits or welfare as a right, and as a very important way to help people who have found themselves in difficult situations. Here in the UK, left wing people often view those on benefits as victims of their situation or upbringing. They do not think of them as of low social status. The right see benefits or welfare as just a necessary evil to prevent mass death. Here in the UK, right wing people often view those on benefits as leeches and criminals, who have made the choice to be ineffective at achieving and maintaining a high enough income. They think of them as of low social status. Sweden is very differently politically to a lot of countries, at least I've heard you have far less party politics. The UK is absurdly polarised on these issues. For your cancer treatment thing, that's not how it works here in the UK at all. While we do have universal healthcare, unfortunately it varies drastically based on where you live, and if you live in a poorer area, you are much more likely to get overwhelmed and struggling hospitals. So really a hospital in a richer area will give totally different care to one in a poorer area.
- belorn 5y ago
  We do have a somewhat similar problem where depending on where you live you get slightly different social support, but this comes as a consequence of local government. Local government need to have a balanced book where those that pay more local taxes than the resources they consumes from local government matches those that consume more than they pay. If a local region has an influx of citizens that consume more of local resources than they pay in local taxes, the local government then only really has one primary option: reducing who get support and how much support. Health clinics can as a result vary greatly between regions, but since there much fewer hospitals, multiple regions have to join up to a single one and thus the difference get more smoothed out. With covid-19 pandemic there has been one political change where the right has gone out with the goal of fully nationalizing healthcare, which is a bit odd in terms of left vs right.