Labour Can’t Win If It’s On Mick Philpott’s Side
This is the headline on an opinion in The Times.
It’s full of good facts and is a must read.
A Thought On The Philpott Case
The Philpott case, which is reported here, is raising a lot of debate, about the rights and wrongs of the level of benefits received.
C used to deal with some cases, where there was a vast bill for benefits on the one hand and because of the nature of the family, they cost Social Servicves a lot of time and money in keeping things in hand.
She felt, and I would agree with her, that these families are keeping benefits and services from others who need them.
So the first thing we must do is find a strategy to make sure that families like the Philpotts don’t get out of hand.
How you do that, I don’t know!
Patchy Paperwork
I was interviewed today, by a student from Liverpool University about some of the aspects of widowhood.
One thing that got me at the time of C’s death, was how professional some organisations and companies were and on the other hand how sloppy some others were.
I was moved to write to The Times, and this is my letter they published on April 16th, 2008.
The paperwork carried out when a relation dies should be standardised across all organisations.
I was widowed last year, and it is only now that I’m starting to get my life together. The response of the various government and local authority departments in handling all the paperwork involved has been very patchy.
Registrars: excellent, very sympathetic and efficient; Work and Pensions: bereavement allowance came through with a few hiccups, but not too difficult; Premium Bonds: system worked but could have been better; council tax: this was reduced automatically on signing a form by St Edmundsbury — totally painless; DVLA: its online systems worked well; winter fuel payment: found difficult to claim and missed it for last year.
The private sector wasn’t that much better, with some companies having people whose sole job appeared to be to deal with bereavement faring much better than those that didn’t. Some wanted death certificates, some accepted faxed copies and others took my word.
We need a lot more joined-up thinking in this important area, as, with nearly a million deaths in the UK every year, it would surely help the bereavement process for those left behind if every company, organisation, government department and authority were automatically notified. After all, if St Edmundsbury can do it here in supposedly sleepy Suffolk, then surely everyone else can.
Since moving to London, I could add a few to both lists, although nothing has been specifically about bereavement. In some ways the biggest surprise has been that the London Borough of Hackney hasn’t made any mistake, that has caused me the slightest bit of inconvenience.
Should We Have A Benefits Cash Card?
It has been proposed by a thinktank, that those on benefit should get a cash card, that they can only spend on approved purchases, that would not include alcohol, cigarettes, Sky television, gambling and other things that the great and good felt were not necessary.
It’s one of these issues like capital punishment, that if went to a referendum, the general public would vote for.
I wouldn’t, as it is just against my beliefs.
We need to cut down the drinking of alcohol and the smoking of tobacco, but this doesn’t just apply to those on benefit.
But the biggest fault in the proposal is the practicalities.
I am a coeliac and if someone like me was on a benefits cash card, would they be restricted from buying good quality food. After all the gluten-free food you get on prescription is generally crap.
And let’s say you are careful and always shop in the local market, where good food is often cheaper. Is every market stall going to have the expense of accepting the cards, when cash is the best method of payment. So will the cards be able to withdraw cash.
I’ve had times in my life, when I wasn’t very well off and I always resort to cash, as I then know how much I’ve got left.
Are the Bishops Right to Vote Against a Benefit Cap?
To me it’s what the statistics say, but then we don’t have access to full figures. I would like to see a database on the Internet of all those who get benefits of over the £26,000 level. It would obviously be anonimised completely. We would then see how many people lived in a particular town, who got more than £50,000 for example.
But I’m interested to see John Bird, the founder of The big Issue has written in The Times, this morning.
The title of the piece is These bishops are not so Christian after all and it has a sub-title of A benefit cap is needed. You don’t help the poor by making them dependent on handouts.
You should buy the paper today just to read this article on page 20.
Why Should Anybody Get More Than Average Wage on Benefit?
I suspect that those who framed our benefits rules many years ago, probably didn’t expect that years later claimants would get such high benefits, so they left this simple rule out.
So now benefits have spiralled out of control as government after government has put sticking plaster over sticking plaster to try to mend a failed system.
The proposed rule is a sensible one, that would probably be supported by most people, but like most things, managing the change will be the most difficult part.
But it is an insult to a prudent family, living on or below the average wage to have neighbours, who don’t work and perhaps never have, getting a lot more in benefits.
It is not a new problem, as in the 1970s, when we first lived in Suffolk, there was a problem family in the village, whose expensive lifestyle was completely sustained by benefits and certain interesting piecework. Many complained about it, but nothing happened.
Howard Flight States the Obvious
Howard Flight has been quoted on the BBC as saying this.
We’re going to have a system where the middle classes are discouraged from breeding because it’s jolly expensive.
“But for those on benefits, there is every incentive. Well, that’s not very sensible.
I could also add to the first part of his statement, that young children stop you going on those long-haul holidays, as every one needs a ticket. As to the second part, it may or may not be true, but I think it probably isn’t.
On that issue though I refer you to Peoplequake. which shows that unless there is adequate provision for flexible working and a female-friendly society, the birth rate falls drammatically. Just look at Italy, Russia and Iran for a start.
Revolt of the Mothers
George Osbourne’s proposals for cutting child benefit to high earners does not appear to have gone down well with those who will be affected. But his other proposal to limit the amount of benefit to a particular family to £500 a week seems to have been well received by the same high earners.
They can’t have it both ways!
But you have to look at the statistics here! Women are now having their children later, often after or midway through a good career. So perhaps, Osbourne’s apparent child benefit robbery will have a classic Newtonian reaction and mothers will wait until they get the finances right before having their children. I know we didn’t do that in the 1970s, but then, child benefit in those days was very insignificant compared to what it is now!
As to the benefit limit of £500 per family, this will have some beneficial effects. Most of these high benefits are paid in the form of housing benefit in areas, where rental property is expensive. Landlords will not let their properties stand empty, so we might see rents fall in another classic Newtonian reaction.
George Osbourne Abolishes Child Benefits for High Earners
We had three chidren and when we were hard up, the small amount of child benefit we got helped C make ends meet. But as we could afford to send all of our children to private schools, I don’t think we’d have missed the child benefit, when I became a high earner.
So I think George Osbourne has got it absolutely right. If you have three children, the benefit works out at about £180 per month. In the grand scheme of things if you are earning over £44,000 and living well, it’s just a case of good wine a month or a meal down the pub for two, once a week!
What really gets me is the sight of young and sometimes not-so-young mothers, wheezing as they push the baby around, whilst smoking their ciggies. After all 20 a day is about £180 a month! So if you have three children, you can use your child benefit for the fags!
John Bird on Benefits
John Bird,the founder of the Big Issue.should know a thing or two about poverty and also how the benefit system works. One thing he said was that to deliver a pound of benfit to someone who needs it costs five times that amount.
He’s just been on BBC Breakfast more or less saying that no-one should get benefits unless they sign a contract to perhaps do voluntary work.
If you can see the interview watch it.
I think he’s right, as from experience of life, I know of various families, who do nothing except sponge on the rest of us. And they have done for several generations! With the budget on Tuesday promising pain for us all, those on benefit must do something in return. One thing they should do as a condition of benefits is look after their health. After all is fair to fund their drinking, smoking, drug abuse and over-eating and then have to pay further costs for their treatment on the NHS?
One thing that annoys me, is if you drive past the Job Centre in Cambridge at say ten in the morning, there are always a few scruffy individuals outside smoking and drinking lager. Surely there is something more productive that they could do!
The Anonymous Widower 