The times they are a changing

Bob Dylan's iconic song still sounds great. "The times they are a changing". This is a rather poor excuse for a lead in to a blog, as I just wanted to play it again. The first part of this blog could be described as payback, while the second part presents me with a moral dilemma. The first may be seen as petty, while the second as pretty awful.

You see, for years I went to extraordinary lengths to avoid street canvassers and charity co-opters. You know the street canvassers I mean. People with clip boards asking you for a few minutes of your time. They want your views on shopping habits, television viewing or a plethora of additional subjects. The charity street collectors have become known as "Charity muggers", or "Chuggers" - a title that most charities are not fond of. These are mostly young people earning around £6 or £7 an hour who stand on the streets of towns and cities up and down the land trying to separate you from your money. The causes change, and depend on what tee-shirt they're wearing that day. They don't work for the charity that they're collecting for, but for a "face to face fundraising company" who are commissioned by the said charity. They are almost always bright, cheerful, and for some, persistent. Over the years I have avoided them like the plague.

But the times they are a changing. It's payback time. Now, no one seems to want anything to do with me. The street canvassers ignore me, and the Chuggers don't give me a second glance. I've become so pathetic that I now head straight for all of these canvassers and collectors, giving them every opportunity to engage with me. But nothing. I am no longer part of someone's demographic target. You'd think that after years of giving them all the cold shoulder that I'd be pleased, but strangely I'm not. There's just no pleasing some people is there? It seems that I've been discarded; no longer relevant, and no longer wanted. Ah well, maybe AgeUK will be represented on the streets soon - surely I'll have a chance there?

Image I didn't want to show

From one type of charity fundraising to another. And this is where I have a moral dilemma. I have worked in charities most of my life, and I know what it's like to have to raise money. But where should the line be drawn below which you shouldn't go?

Let me take as an example child poverty in Africa. There is no doubting that the situation, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa is horrendous. The facts are staggering; the need is evident, and the statistics of which can be found on many web sites. And it's here that my moral dilemma begins, and is in two parts. How do you present that need, and what is being done to meet that need?

I usually have my tea about 6 o'clock and sit down to watch a bit of television. I've become increasingly concerned over the last few weeks at some of the TV advertising. It was particularly apparent last night. I was watching a channel which is dependent on advertising. In an hours programme there was four advertising breaks. Each one featured the charities Children in Need or Water Aid, and this at a time when families would be sitting down together (at least those families that still operate as a family). The adverts had images such as the one above, basically of dying children. The images, voice over and choice of music were all designed to illicit an emotional response from the viewers, and with the timing of the adverts, I can only assume that the target was the whole family, children included. I've done advertising courses, and understand some of the philosophies involved.

The images are undoubtedly designed to shock, and to make us pick up the phone there and then and commit to giving £2 to £3 per month. If shock tactics are required for people to respond to need, then it is an indictment on our society. I've worked in charities where disturbing images of human beings could easily have been used, but I've refused to go down that route. I've preferred another way of visualizing need, and how that need is met, and it's not one of shock. Children in Need or Water Aid may well be hugely successful through their advertising, but I find them offensive - a word that I use very reluctantly. This is the first part of my moral dilemma.

Sub-Saharan Africa

The second part asks what is being done to address the need? There is poverty across the world, but there is often a focus on the plight of those living in Sub-Saharan Africa.

For as long as I can remember there has been famine in Africa, and every year there are appeals to address that need. My reader may well remember the 13th July 1985 when money was raised particularly for the famine in Ethiopia. This was the dual-venue concert held at Wembley Stadium and in Philadelphia, and called 'Live Aid'. It raised about £150 million, and was said at the time to have "changed the perception of Africa". This was now over 26 years ago.

The current British Government has committed £203 million a year until 2015 to parts of Africa, and who knows how much is being provided through national and international not-for-profit organisations. No matter how much is given, the need doesn't seem to diminish, and more is required. On its Facebook page, the Department for International Development says, "We're helping people to lift themselves out of poverty, for good". Their relatively short-term plans for some of the most deprived areas of the world are to be applauded. They are working in partnership with the Kenyan Government to improve the long-term prospects of farmers and local communities which I've no doubt will bring an improvement. The building of wells by the likes of Water Aid is no doubt an excellent step forward, and for relatively small amounts of money, hundreds of lives are saved. Save the Children's child sponsorship scheme will also improve the lot of the 5,000 or so involved at any time. But what of the future?

Despite billions of pounds and dollars being poured into Africa over the last few decades, we are still being inundated, every year with appeals for yet more money. Kenya is working with others, but what of their neighbours? What of those countries still riddled with violence, or those with allegations of corrupt Government against them, or those who may be just simply incompetent? If individual countries don't change, why should the situation in those countries change? We save a few lives; improve the lot of others, only to find that they are quickly replaced by more people in need.

Here's where I have a dilemma. I don't want my money to go to countries dominated by violence and corruption; they should be sorted out before they should expect international aid. But, the plight of those living now in poverty and deprivation is so horrendous, that they cannot be ignored. I cannot punish the poor, the hungry and the dying because of the actions of those who rule over them. So until something is done about "regime change" in some areas, I guess we're going to have to put up with daily requests to dip into our pockets and purses to meet the needs of the world's poor.

It may be right that in many ways, "The times they are a changing", but in respect to world poverty, they are not changing at all, or at least not quickly enough.

"Where am I to go?"

Homeless in Nottingham

Walking through the centre of Nottingham today, I came across a man sleeping on the step of the Central Library in Angel Row. He was surrounded by his worldly wealth; a ruck sack and two plastic carrier bags. I'd witnessed a similar scene a thousand times over the years - the sign of homelessness.

Returning to Angel Row later in the day to catch my bus, the man was still there, as were two policemen. They were telling the man to move on, as is the policy in the city centre. As I was passing, I could just make out the man's words in an east European accent, "But where am I to go?" This was not an unreasonable question, but I didn't hear the reply.

I haven't researched recent homelessness figures for Nottingham, as they are notoriously difficult to accurately quantify. Local authorities tend to just give those that they have a duty to accept, and Charities can be a bit hit and miss with their figures. Even the very good ones only tend to produce figures annually, and even then you're not sure of "double counting", as clients tend to use more than one agency. Anecdotal, or evidence of the eye may not be terribly scientific, but it does give a picture. As I wander about the city, it does seem to me that the problem is getting greater, particularly among migrants from countries that joined the European Union in 2004, but not just them. If my experience is anything to go by, begging is also on the increase. I've had more people approach me for money in the last month, than in the previous six months. What intrigues me about this is that mostly I get asked for 29p. Why 29p?

My observations do seem to be backed up by one of the leading homelessness charities in the Midlands, Framework, who broaden out the problem to include more than I see. In a BBC Radio Nottingham interview about a month ago, Framework's Service Director for Homeless Services said, "We are seeing more people who are victims of the broader economic downturn - people who are struggling to pay their mortgage or challenged by rising rent levels. Economic pressures mean that more people are making contact who previously would have had nothing to do with homelessness services. While a growing number of people are in need of support, funding cuts approaching 50% have reduced our ability to respond". In a blog item on the charities web site, Chris Senior said, following up on the previous comment, "At the same time, Framework's Street Outreach team in Nottingham reports that the most frequently asked question these days is, 'Where is it safe to sleep rough?'"

The City and County Council's draconian cuts to the Supporting People budget earlier this year, resulted in day centres closing, and hostel places being decimated, along with the reduction in support services. So the question as to where are homeless people to go, is a good one. It's no good pretending that the problem is just about 'foreigners', as it's not; local people who have lived all, or most of their lives here are being affected. But even if it was just a migrant problem, and they should just go home, that cannot happen any more under European Commission legislation. You see, in the EU, there are no foreigners, we are all Europeans. The UK has traditionally had a "Right to Reside Test" before people could receive benefits, but the EU has declared this to be discriminatory, see here, and has 'requested' the UK to pay welfare to all EU nationals, which according to Zach Johnstone could cost the country up to £2.5 billion. As he says, "So much for the Coalition's welfare reforms". I'll have a rant about Europe another time.

There are signs that not only is homelessness on the rise, but that it will get worse if not addressed.  There are at least two areas that indicate a greater problem in the making.

One is the level of wages earned by so many workers. New research has shown that more than 20% of British employees are earning less than a living wage. We're talking about low pay here.

Every year on the 1st October, the minimum wage is increased. Yesterday it went up from £5.98 to £6.08 per hour. That's a massive (yes I'm being sarcastic) increase of 10p per hour. So for a 40 hour week, the wage is increased by £4 before deductions. This is easily eaten up by the rise in prices.

The Resolution Foundation has produced a report that shows that as many as 5 million people higher up the scale are barely earning enough to make ends meet. In their estimation, this is earning less than a "living wage", as opposed to the minimum wage. How much is a living wage? The Centre for Research in Social Policy at Loughborough University, reputed to be the authority on the subject, calculates that outside of London, a living wage should be at least £7.20 per hour. For a 40 hour week this is still only £14,976 per annum, before deductions ; about £7,000 below what is supposed to be the average wage in the UK. Look at the chart above for your area. If I take the East Midlands, the white column shows the percentage of the population earning less than a living wage (24.5%), and the purple column shows the percentage earning up to the minimum wage (5.5%). Using official earnings figures, The Resolution Foundation found that in some parts of the country, almost a quarter of the workforce are taking home less than the living wage. In sales, 60% of workers earn less than the living wage, and 33% of hairdresser's and childminders.

This, says Resolution's Chief Executive, Gavin Kelly, "Brings to life just how pervasive low pay is in modern Britain". To raise this matter in the past has often left you open to the charge of being Marxist; now it it being pointed out by respectable and responsible 'Thinktanks', and we need to take notice. It is a cancer that needs treatment; people cannot live with rising prices and falling levels of income in real terms. The top 10% of earners have seen their income double in real terms over the last thirty years, while the bottom 10% saw an increase of just 27%. Andy Hill of the Institute for Public Policy Research says, "The argument that no one should do a days work for less than a wage they can live on is a hard one to disagree with".

Another area that should highlight the problem now, and the potential for greater problems in the future is that of food handouts.

This may come as a surprise to some. It is estimated that three million tonnes of food is being wasted by the major supermarkets every year in Britain, and ends up on waste fill sites, at enormous cost. As one who negotiated with a local Marks and Spencer store on the south coast to take unwanted food, rather than have it thrown away, I understand this issue. In the Guardian yesterday, Jay Rayner highlighted the work of food charity FareShare. Lindsay Boswell, Chief Executive of FareShare said, "As a charity we started out purely interested in liberating waste. We are an environmental charity that gets bloody angry about food being thrown away. However, we're clear that it is the alleviation of poverty which now leads what we do".

FareShare gets hold of about 1% of the three million tonnes of waste food mentioned. They distribute food to social care charities, and have in the last year seen a 20% rise in the number of people it is feeding - from 29,500 a year to 35,000. It operates from about 17 sites across the UK, and in the last year, the number of charities that have signed up to receive food from them has risen from 600 to 700. Over 40% of those charities are recording increases in demand for their feeding services of up to 50%. This is the reality in 21st Century Britain, as Lindsay Boswell says, "People in our communities are going to bed hungry because they can't afford to feed themselves. This is a huge problem and it's right here, in our neighbourhoods, on our streets. This is outrageous enough before you factor in the thousands of tonnes of good food thrown away each year. It's illogical and frankly immoral that these problems coexist".

Another organisation working in the same field is the Trussell Trust, based in Salisbury, but with over 100 food banks across the country. They have seen the number of people it is feeding rise from 41,000 to 61,500. The Trussell Trust manager, Jeremy Ravn says, "We're seeing a big increase in what you would call, for want of a better phrase, normal working people, those who have lost their jobs or seen their own businesses go under. The big problem is that the welfare state is not reacting fast enough to need". The message from these charities, and many more like them, is that it can happen to anyone. Where once it was single homeless and the chronically destitute, now it's increasingly families and working people who have fallen on hard times. There is a short step from needing a food handout, to being homeless. As the Simon Community said many years ago, "Most of us are only three pay-checks away from homelessness".

I don't enjoy being a doom-monger; I'd much prefer to rejoice in the fact that all of us have a good standard of living, but this is clearly not the case. Only the Government can make a difference. The Lib Dem and Labour Party conferences failed miserably to address these matters; let's hope that this week at the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester, when the Government's deficit reduction programme is being scrutinised, that voices will be raised to draw attention to the iniquities of low pay, food handouts and homelessness. Am I being too cynical if I question whether enough people in the top 10% of earners will worry sufficiently about the plight of the rest?

Something can and must be done. I support the UK playing its part in helping to deal with social and humanitarian problems in other parts of the world, even if at times I question how that support is given.

The International Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, was positively glowing in May this year when he published his action plans to fight world poverty. Two things to note; the UK is part of the world, and, it has poverty. I can hear the red herrings being thrown in my direction already. "Our poverty is nothing like that of many other countries". This is mostly said by people who are not in poverty. Like I said, 'Red Herring'; it's all relative. The Department for International Development has a budget of £7.8 billion a year; why can't a part of that be given up to address the growing problem of domestic poverty?

If I had all of the answers I'd be in politics. All I know is that answers had better be forthcoming, or I sense a move away from the normally British phlegmatic view of Government.