The UK seems more advanced than the US in some respects..."poverty porn"

[HiPointDem]

Another example of how poverty in contemporary
Scotland is portrayed is provided by the four-part
BBC reality television programme The Scheme,
the first two parts of which were broadcast in
May 2010. In this example the community of a
deprived housing scheme, Onthank in Kilmarnock,
was presented as entertainment for public
consumption....programme makers created a modern day
equivalent of the carnival ‘freak show’...the offering
up of poverty and of ‘poor people’ for public
entertainment...

The programme formats...are supplemented by a whole host of
‘make-over’ and ‘self-improvement’ shows, as well
as other programmes which offer the wealthy
a chance to express their benefactor role or
philanthropism by dispensing money to good
causes (Secret Millionaire) and the like, or to live
among poor people to ‘experience what poverty is
really like’ (How the Other Half Live).

Together with the other poverty
porn formats highlighted here, it does however
illustrate the importance of media discourse in
the constructing particular groups as ‘problem’, as
well as contributing to tutelage for those deemed
in need of such – part of a burgeoning skills/
confidence/ ‘wellbeing’ market under New Labour,
evidenced by the likes of ‘parenting qualifications’.
In turn, the messages that we as viewers receive
are that, for the most part, working-class people
lack aspiration, are lazy, waste national resources
and tax-payers’ money – an especially heinous
crime when there is an economic crisis and when
the middle classes are doing their bit, losing out
on child benefit, for instance; they do not have
the character to lead a morally upright and crime-
free life and lack the wherewithal to improve
their condition without being ‘nudged’ in the
right direction. But we are also asked to concur
on who is designated ‘deserving’ or not.

The BBC TV series Saints and Scroungers
(in 2009) is one such programme centred on the ‘deserving’ and
‘undeserving’ poor. As its web pages inform us:
“Dominic Littlewood follows fraud officers as
they bust the benefits thieves stealing millions
of pounds every year, while charities and
councils track down people who actually deserve
government help”. The programme reminds us that
‘we’ law abiding taxpayers are being ‘robbed’ by
the ‘scroungers’; we acquire the impression that it
is easy to obtain welfare benefits (as evidenced by
supposed prevalence of ‘scroungers’ – whereas in
2008/09 £12.7bn of means-tested benefits and £5bn
of tax credits went unclaimed...

The cameras pay attention to the possessions
of those experiencing severe poverty (on
The Scheme for example) and through the camera’s
gaze on the plasma TVs and other goods, use of
alcohol and tobacco we learn that many of those
in poverty are ‘flawed consumers’ and that, as
these are ‘non-essentials’, the benefits which
claimants receive must be ‘too much’. Once more
the question of the ‘fairness of it all’ is raised,
...the ‘binary divide’ between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is
reinforced. In the context of increasing economic
and social insecurity, flawed consumption and
this seemingly pathological behaviour mobilises
support for a harsher and more punitive welfarism.
Furthermore, these messages also work as a
warning – inculcating fear that personal ‘failure’
will lead to the flawed and deviant lifestyle of ‘the
poor’... Poverty porn provides, or helps to provide, the justification for the
‘remaking’ of welfare along US-style ‘workfare’
models. It fits with the common-place anti-
welfarism in the tabloid press.

http://www.midpsy.org/poverty%20porn%20tv.pdf

[sibelian]

1. Very well observed article.

I live in Scotland and following "the Scheme" there was a small but loud outcry about the appalling misrepresentation of Scottish housing communities (they really went out of their way to pick the freakiest people they could film) that was heard in Scotland and nowhere else.

[HiPointDem]

4. i was kind of surprised, actually, to read that story. i guess the uk is ramping up that kind of

thing as they are trying to cut their safety net? and it seems like there was some revision on the council housing thing -- privatizing it, letting people buy their apartments (i.e. putting them into the 'free market')?

It reminded me that a lot of Indian reservation land vanished into the hands of white people when Indians were 'allowed' to own their individual pieces of it -- because they didn't have the income to hold on to it and wound up selling out to whites.

Same thing is happening in Mexico currently with the privatization of the ejido system of (communal peasant land). It sounds great in theory but typically results in the loss of a good deal of property.

I'm thinking the council housing scheme has the same end in mind. Is this a correct assumption?

[dipsydoodle]

5. Right to buy goes back years

Labour Party initially proposed the idea of the right of tenants to own the house they live in, in its manifesto for the 1959 General Election which it subsequently lost.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Buy

Its an option for those who had the preference to do so. There are restrictions on how soon after such a purchase the house can be re-sold given that the sale price to the tenant would've been at highly preferential terms.

[HiPointDem]

6. but it looks like it didn't happen much until the 80s. so what happens to a council flat when

it's repeatedly sold? doesn't it turn into ordinary privatized housing?

has council housing been lost because of this wrinkle?

[dipsydoodle]

7. First time its sold it has become private housing.

I've never heard of an instance where a council has subsequently bought back a house or flat which they had sold. There are however instances however where councils have bought other private houses to increase their stock for whatever reason.

The eighties ties in with what was more or less the first time we experienced house price inflation. The resultant appreciation in property values encouraged some to buy their rented council house / flats while the going was good.

What councils used to build was to a certain extent overtaken by Housing Associations some of whom adopted charitable status. The ability of councils to build properties for rent would depend on both their income and ability to borrow. Council taxes aka rates here are the only form of taxation outside of government - we don't have local sales taxes whatever in the UK.

There are geographical issues here too. Last week or so a council up north was selling ex-council terraced properties for £1 each conditional on the buyer restoring / refurbishing them as necessary whereas in Notting Hill London ex-council flats now change hands for over £1 million. Late eighties Liverpool council had difficulty selling and entire tower block of flats for £1 !

edit stupid spelling error - its flat not falt.

[HiPointDem]

8. so has the stock of low-income housing decreased?

[loli phabay]

11. in some areas but that was the plan, it was becoming burdensome on the corpy to maintain the homes

and it was seen as giving the tenants some skin in the game in order to keep up the schemes in particular. some areas benefited from the plan and the tenants sold up and moved on but as in every plan there were some unintended consequences.

[HiPointDem]

14. interesting, thanks.

[loli phabay]

19. a good example is the city of glasgow which had over 90,000 council houses on the books

the expenditure on these was not being covered by the rates, I think in the 90' s the housing committee decided to sell as much off as possible and reorganize how they where run.

[dipsydoodle]

15. Was off set by the rise in housing associations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_association

[HiPointDem]

21. "Although independent they are regulated by the state and commonly receive public funding."

"They increased in importance over the last decades of the twentieth century due to changes to council housing brought in by the Thatcher government"


and it sounds like the rise in housing associations was set off by legislative changes introduced under thatcher. so neoliberalism.

[loli phabay]

10. yeah I think it was two years after you buy it before you can sell

also there was a point system that drastically reduced the rate you paid for the house depending on how long you had been on the corpy and how long in the particular howf.

[dipsydoodle]

16. There are some new rules in place

whereby if bought under right to buy first option has to be given back to the vendor.

[loli phabay]

18. it's been a few years since I looked into it, does the vendor have to pay market price to buy back

or is the option at original selling price, as there where huge discounts given to the original buyers where frinstance a house was bought for fifteen grand by the tenants and sold a couple of years later for over fifty. thanks

[dipsydoodle]

20. Not sure about that aspect.

see most recent changes here :

The Right to Buy rules were changed in 2005. Five years' tenancy is now required for new tenants to qualify, and properties purchased after January 2005 can no longer immediately be placed on the open market should the owner decide to sell. Such owners must now approach their previous landlord (council or housing association) and offer them "first right of refusal". If the previous landlord is no longer in existence, for example in cases where the former landlord was a registered social landlord which has ceased business, then the property has to first be offered to the local housing authority.

>

At the 2011 Conservative Party Conference, David Cameron proposed to increase Right to Buy discounts in order to revitalise the housing market and generate receipts which could be spent on new housing. Social housing professionals have expressed concerns over the proposal.[9]

As of 2 April 2012 the Right to Buy discount has been increased to a maximum of £75,000 or 60% of the house value (70% for a flat) depending on which is lower.

The aim of the scheme is, for every additional home sold, a new home will be built for affordable rent, which will maintain the level of affordable housing while also increasing the number of properties available for those on the waiting list. The five year tenancy criterion will remain, and should the property be sold within the first five years of the original sale, part or all of the discount will be required to be paid back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Buy

As you can see no reference is made to market rates whatever for buy backs by local councils.

[loli phabay]

9. I have a different take on the show, I look at it like rab c nesbitt in that there is an element of

in it, you go to the schemes and there is a good share of jakies, neds, chavs and psychos.

[Beearewhyain]

2. Thanks You HiPointDem

For putting a bit more focus on our economic issues than other ones. It is truly the issue that we should have on the forefront of our minds as I see many others as important, but distracting.

[dtom67]

3. meanwhile HSBC ....

Launders drug money, in London they rig the rates, Corzine lives the high life. Of course the TRUE villains are the ones who try to scam a few bucks to by their kids some fucking food.
So sick of Media. Theirs are perhaps the greatest sins of all....

[Zax2me]

12. Snooze......

What a load of crap.

[HiPointDem]

13. could you elaborate on that?

[sibelian]

17. Strange response!

What do you mean?