Thursday, 27 November 2008

And this might also be of interest

From a child poverty debate, 6 March 2007

"I shall focus on those people who are the hardest to reach and whose problems are the hardest to solve. Much of the Government's work so far has been to top-slice at children in poverty, lifting those just below the poverty line to just above it. However, my constituency includes the most deprived ward in south-west England, and those of us who represent areas with significant deprivation know that there are families who sometimes seem beyond help and that mere cash injections will not solve their huge, intractable problems.

"I speak to head teachers in my constituency who are in absolute despair at the dysfunctional and chaotic lives of some parents who bring children to their schools. I am not saying that those parents do not care about their children—they do—but sometimes they do not know how to care for them, or they have so much to contend with in their daily lives that they cannot give their children the care, attention and love that they need to thrive. I am talking about parents who are drug users, and who might be involved in violent or abusive relationships, or might be engaged in drug dealing, crime or prostitution. About 300 women are working on the streets of Bristol at any given time, and many of them are mothers. Of course, some of those mothers are little more than children themselves."

17 comments:

Old Holborn said...

Labour creates monsters

Like this ONE

Britain's Fritzl 'driven by child benefit greed'
The "British Josef Fritzl" who raped his daughters and made them pregnant 19 times did it to get child benefit payments, his sister-in-law has claimed.

The 56-year-old fathered nine children by the girls in order to support his lifestyle, his relative said. He once offered his younger daughter £500 to have another child in order to boost his income through benefits and tax credits, she said.

Old Holborn said...

Watch the feckless

The Penguin said...

Yes, Kerry, fine words, but what have you actually DONE to improve things?

You're the MP, you have access and influence, so what have you done?

Other than fart about on daft trips abroad?

The Penguin

DaveA said...

Dare I say we have reached a consensus on some of the ills of society, I also dare say we will fall out on how we are going to fix it.

To be fair to Labour, I believe their heart is in the right place. From what Kerry has written there seems to be lots of carrots, but like me and the more conservative (small 'c')posters we need some more sticks.

In the state of Wyoming they have trialed a more direct approach to welfare dependency. You are allowed to make one mistake in having a baby and after that you will receive not a penny more in benefits if you fall pregnant again. There are also training and work experience schemes as part of the package.

The result is evidence of the dependency cycle broken, far less mothers being a burden on the tax payer and many find gainful employment.

Bristol Dave said...

Conversation heard on a bus a few years ago (this was in Manchester where the public transport was passable, unlike Bristol where "diabolical" is frankly a compliment):

Girl 1: 'Ere, you thinking about gettin' a baby soon?
Girl 2: Yeah, might do, though innit
Girl 1: Yeah cos Kelly got one and now she's got 'er own flat. Iss wicked, innit
Girl 2: Yeah man, I'll ask Darren if he wants to get me preggers


Whilst people have this idea (and Labour has done nothing to change this, by the way) we will have this problem.

Welfare dependancy on the scale it exists now was relatively unknown until 1997 onwards. Funny that.

Northern Lights said...

So there were no monsters before the introduction of the welfare state Old Holborn?

Bristol Dave said...

NL: Of course they were.

But the fact that a family member has mentioned the welfare state as a reason for a father raping his own daughters cannot be ignored.

The welfare state would be easy enough to reform to stop it being seen as a lifestyle choice. Furthermore, these reforms would be supported by everyone who actually works, pays taxes, and hates to see others lazily sit back and live lives funded by everyone but themselves. But then that might loose Labour votes from the remaining sections of society they know they can rely on, so they won't do it.

pagar said...

Dare I say we have reached a consensus on some of the ills of society, I also dare say we will fall out on how we are going to fix it.

To be fair to Labour, I believe their heart is in the right place. From what Kerry has written there seems to be lots of carrots, but like me and the more conservative (small 'c')posters we need some more sticks.


We need to be constructive and imaginative if we are going to solve this. My view is that a carefully tailored workfare programme is the answer. All benefits stop after a period of six months unless the claimant enters the programmme. This is neither carrot nor stick but it will break the cycle.

Once people understand that money has to be worked for, they tend to make wiser decisions when they spend it.

Guthrum said...

So there were no monsters before the introduction of the welfare state Old Holborn?

Not ones that could have raped their children, and lived off the handouts from the State seeing the offspring as income, no

The welfare State has created an immoral situation where neighbors and workmates now see 'that it is nothing to do with them' I pay my taxes it is nothing to do with me.

DaveA said...

NL: The ability to not do a stroke of work throughout your life did not really happen until 1948, along with the invention of the NHS.

Because of years of self reliance and years of neglect, people were genuinely grateful at the welfare state. Abuse was rare, and society's mores meant anyone taking the p155 was a social pariah. Then we had the 1960s and 70s and the arrival of the Guardianista. Mainly guilty, middle class liberals who blush at their 6 figure salaries, holiday homes in Italy, eg Polly Toynbee types and how oppressed and disadvantaged the "poor" are. The underclass are not that stupid and have taken this as a green light to rape the taxpayer for importunity.

As the joke goes what is the difference between a liberal and a conservative: A conservative is a liberal that has been mugged.

So yes abuse was rare until the 1980s, and these degenerates are the bastard child of of left wing liberals.

Kerry said...

Bristol Dave - if you read the 'Which I followed up with...' post, then you'll get a summary of what Labour is doing to get people to into work. And there'll be a Welfare Reform Bill in the Queen's Speech next week.

The Penguin said...

Not working though, is it?

The Penguin

Northern Lights said...

You won't agree - but I prefer the NHS and the welfare state to the Poor Laws.

donpaskini said...

"Welfare dependancy on the scale it exists now was relatively unknown until 1997 onwards."

Not it wasn't - the big increase came in the 1980s. For example, more lone parents, by far (both absolute numbers and in percentage terms), are in work now than in 1997.

"My view is that a carefully tailored workfare programme is the answer. All benefits stop after a period of six months unless the claimant enters the programmme. This is neither carrot nor stick but it will break the cycle."

Worth noting that this kind of programme, if it is going to be effective, is going to be much more expensive per person than paying people benefits.

That doesn't make it a bad thing of itself, but it's not a way of saving the taxpayer money in the short term.

You could try to do it on the cheap, but then it won't help people be able to hold down a job, so you'll get people turning up to pointless courses just to get their benefits (and create a whole load of extra handouts to training providers) - which I assume is not what you are hoping to achieve?

Old Holborn said...

From a Welfare State to a Totalitarian State is just a matter of time.

It is no coincidence that we have 26,000 new laws under New Labour, massive loss of civil liberties, huge increases in crime and the most powerful State interference in our lives in our history.

One on for of us actually now works directly for the State and 23 million of us receive some kind of benefit from the State.

We have become East Germans

Andy said...

Kerry, you have no idea of what "poverty" is. No-one in this country needs to live in poverty; everyone can be well fed, clothed and warmed .. if they didn't choose to buy 40 injch plasmas, the latest Nikes and go and f**k up a greek island once a year.

Seriously, you know this happens, and you know it was not the intention of the welfare state founders that that was how benefits should be used.

Open your eyes Kerry and see the reality

Blogsy said...

"From a welfare state to a totalitarian state is just a matter of time"

Hmm. Welfare state introduced over 6 decades ago and Britain is still a free and democratic society. So democratic and open that an anonymous blogger can repeatedly insult and impute crypto-facist leanings towards a Parliamentary representative from the comfort of his home.

Also East Germany wasn't democratic. The labour government here was endorsed by the majority who chose to vote.

"But the fact that a family member has mentioned the welfare state as a reason for a father raping his own daughters cannot be ignored"

follopwing this bizarre line of logic, I could equally hypothesise that if Josef Fritzl hadn't being trained as a builder by the private sector, and had instead lounged around on benefits, he would never have been able to construct his daughters prison.

Such shocking events occur in all societies. Using them to flog your political views is tasteless.