Scotland

It is my hope that Scotland votes to keep Britain together next week, partly for emotional reasons- I'm half Scottish and much of my family is from there and I feel a sense of nationhood that doesn't stop at Berwick. It also seems to me that Britain is a stronger and more formidable country than merely England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Having said that I do think the 'No' campaign are wrong to concede nationalist demands on control of the welfare system in North Britain. Single currency areas like the UK require transfer payments from rich to poor areas in order to compensate for poor areas being unable to devalue their currency to compete. One of the quickest ways that an economically hard hit region to receive transfer payments is through the welfare system.

Paul Krugman (who despite his hyper partisanship is a renowned economist) explains the process with a comparison of how Spain and Florida were affected by the global recession here. Essentially when Florida's economy crashed, it automatically received more money from Washington whereas Spain did not automatically receive extra cash from Brussels leading to a much weaker fiscal position- because despite currency union Germany isn't willing to fund Spain's welfare system.

If Scotland manages it's own welfare system some of the automatic stabilisers won't work in the case of a shock to Scotland's economy.

More devolution is inevitable but welfare should remain substantially a UK wide issue.

Mentally Ill Let Progressives Down.

Very good news to see that the suicide rate has fallen. I can only hope this becomes a trend.

 Of course it is a bit surprising, because as a regular Guardian reader I was under the impression that the government was driving people to kill themselves with cuts. For example this piece quotes irresponsible demagogues impartial experts about the impact of cuts warning that they will hurt the vulnerable. Which is why the very generous welfare states of Scandinavia have such low..... oh never mind.

Other hand wringing articles warn of the:

• Suicide and the unspoken side of welfare 'reform' 

Or ask:

• How can rising suicide rates be reversed in the face of cuts to mental health services?  

The Independent's Owen "the people's tribune whether they like it or not" Jones inevitably jumped on the ghoulish bandwagon:

But even as mental distress and the risk of suicide soar because of austerity, the support is being slashed back.

In fact this kind of voyeuristic exploitation of desperate people who had ended their lives has been very widespread on the left. There was even a website "Calum's List" devoted to them as detailed by Brendan O'Neill here.

No doubt all these people will now be revising their opinions in the face of new evidence....

Any.
Minute.
Now.

Who Made Mick Philpott?

Is Mick Philpott a product of our welfare system as many have suggested and an equal number have rebutted?

It's a bit like global warming you can't pin any particular storm on the phenomenon  but it isn't unreasonable to say that it makes them more likely. The way our welfare state along with the criminal justice system work does make it more likely that sociopath's can thrive.

When he was convicted of the premeditated attempted murder of a girlfriend who rejected him he was released from prison after just three years. A functional criminal justice system  should not let a man who does that out of prison before he is even 25.

When he decided to not to work the welfare system provided for him. When he decided not to have a vast number of children that he could not support, the welfare system picked up the slack and effectively rewarded him with an income of £60000 a year for this antisocial behaviour.

The women he preyed on and controlled seem to have mostly been the results of broken homes, girls who have been failed by social services.

There will always be bad people, but a parasite like Philpott could not have thrived without a system that is broken. 

Philpott And The Far Left

In the light of Mick Philpott's conviction for killing six of his children it seems like a good opportunity to revisit the buffoonish Owen Jones's take on Philpott - the victim of hatred against the poor.

The simple fact of the matter is that people's instinctive reaction is correct- people who have lots of children with no intention of supporting them and are defiant about claiming benefits from the public purse are engaging in sociopathic behaviour.

This isn't a general 'hatred' of people on benefits, I know people who are looking for work, I know people who are genuinely disabled and they are decent people.

 But I also know people and know of people who do abuse the system and have no intention of doing anything but claiming everything they can- in one instance a mother who looks up conditions on the internet and then makes her children learn about them to con the doctors to claim more benefits (this is not someone I know personally or I would inform on them).

The people who make martyrs of all benefit recipients- which is much of the anti austerity movement- don't acknowledge that there is a difference between someone who has fallen on hard times and somebody who expects other people to support them indefinitely.

The Right To Other People's Money

Why the outrage over plans to restrict what benefit claimants can spend those benefits on?

If it is authoritarian to ring fence what people can spend welfare payments on then surely existing benefits such as housing benefits should also spark outrage- forcing the claimants to use the money for accomodation rather than fags even if they prefer the latter. Instead, most people accept that it is a good thing that money given over to provide housing is spent on housing.

The same is true of money provided for food and clothing.

Taxes are collected by force with the moral justification that they are redistributed for essential services, such as providing food and clothing to those in need, it is hardly excessive to ensure that this money is not spent down the bookies and off license.

Sociopathy

I see that one of Mick Philpott's rivals for the title of most feckless father in Britain is also on a murder charge:

Jamie Cumming has 16 children by 14 women (which begs the obvious question of what the hell is wrong with those women?).

He may be innocent but just consider that the two most notorious baby-daddies in the UK are both currently being charged with murder- it does bear out the notion that having lots of children that you can't possibly support is a sociopathic trait and those who do it should be vilified and despised.

Owen Meet Beatrix, Beatrix Meet Owen.

The problem with being a rent a quote, ideologue is that you are incapable of learning from your comrades' mistakes:Beatrix Campbell, 2008:

The story of Shannon Matthews' disappearance - and dramatic reappearance, apparently alive and well, today - has confirmed the degree to which class is still the cultural register in our purportedly classless society.

....

Karen Matthews has acted appropriately throughout: she was waiting for Shannon at home; she contacted the police as soon as she had exhausted all the obvious locations. And yet, our eye is drawn to her poverty, numbers of partners, cans of lager going into her household. Everything about Ms Matthews' life has been up for scrutiny.

Owen Jones 2012:

What does it say about modern Britain when the pre-meditated massacre of six children is described as "an accident waiting to happen" on national television? In the early hours of last Friday, someone poured petrol through the letterbox of the Philpott household, unleashing a blaze that ended in one of the most appalling mass murders in our country's recent history. Whoever was responsible must have known the almost inevitable consequences of their actions. No rationalisations exist for this sort of atrocity.

.......

But we rarely see this reality: it is intentionally hidden from us. The Government and much of the media divert anger from those who caused the crisis, to your "scrounging" neighbour down the street. And so we end with Carole Malone arguing that a family whose children died in a fire brought it on themselves. It is beyond shameful. And it must be challenged.

Hey, it's almost as if refusing to draw value judgments about people who live self indulgent and parasitic existences is a flawed way of observing human life and that maybe feckless behaviour is indicative of not being nice people.

Labour Discovers Localism?

Labour have come up with one good idea over the benefits cap- the Shadow Work and Pensions secretary Liam Byrne has proposed setting local benefits caps to meet the needs of different regions with different costs of living.

This is a great idea, it does not make sense to have the same limit in London as in Doncaster where property is much cheaper. Has he considered following through the logic of his idea into other areas though?

If taking account of the different costs of living is the right thing to do when setting a benefits limit- then surely it also makes sense to take different costs of living when setting pay scales for public sector workers. Also the minimum wage should be set for local conditions- very few jobs in London will be extinguished at £6 an hour but many jobs in Wrexham might be.

Why Not Just Go And Talk To Them?

Polly Toynbee writes:

No, said the Department for Work and Pensions, you can't visit a jobcentre to talk to social fund claimants. That's the first no I've ever had from the DWP's press officers, always helpful under both Labour and Tory governments.

Coincidentally I was picking up a friend from the Jobcentre yesterday, I managed to get inside and speak to people. I wasn't interviewing anyone obviously but I didn't get the impression I'd be told to get lost if I had. It's not like a prison or a Tuscan villa where you need a permit to get over the wall.

I'm told some inner city Jobcentres have guards on site but even then surely she could wait outside- or get some Guardian intern to wait outside- and speak to people going in or out.

Fun With Numbers

Proposed benefit cap (defeated in the House of Lords): £26000 per year.

Typical working year including holidays: 48 weeks.

Typical full time working week: 37.5 hours.

£26000 / 48 / 37.5 = £14.44

So getting benefits of £26000 a year is the equivalent of earning £14.44 an hour after tax.

I can see why the noble Lords and Bishops feel this is plunging hardworking families into debt.

* I'm haven't worked it out myself but apparently for £26000 after tax income you'd need to be earning £34000, which works out an hourly rate of  £18.89!

Nice Work If You Can Get It

A woman who illegally claimed benefits for almost three years has been told to do 180 hours' unpaid work.
Sharon Colegrove, of Blaby Road, Enderby, was sentenced at Hinckley Magistrates' Court after pleading guilty to benefit fraud.
She was given a 12-month community order and ordered to pay £519 in legal costs.
Miss Colegrove falsely claimed £9,172 in housing and council tax benefit between September 2007 and July 2010, having failed to declare that she received working tax credits.

Hmmm, £9172 divided by 180 hours = £50.96 an hour. Remember kids- crime doesn't pay!

Workfare

The true benefit of the government's workfare plans- making the longterm unemployed to unpaid "community" work, is getting people back into the habit of work. As such it is probably going to be beneficial to most of the supposed victims in the long term.

The two concerns that I have is the amount of time being talked about for the work- 30 hours a week for 4 weeks is quite a lot when they are also supposed to be looking for work. I realise it is less than a typical full time work week but I think it is too long for people unused to working regular hours.

The second concern is that the work shouldn't be demeaning, getting a qualified engineer to spend all day is a bright yellow jacket picking litter is not going to restore his morale.

It is probably most beneficial to people who have never really worked rather than those who have lost their jobs.

IFS, Bears, Woods.

Apparently some people are surprised to learn that when cuts are made to the benefits budget people who are claiming benefits lost more. Some people are also surprised that when you count the benefit cuts but not the tax increases the burden falls more on those who are poorer and more likely to receive benefits that on those who are wealthier and more likely to pay taxes.

Mother Of The Year

Some people really do need to be dragged out the back and shot:

When Ken Anderson was just 15, his mother, Shirley, made it clear: She didn't want him anymore.

Ken's father, a long-haul trucker, had been transferred from Osoyoos, B.C., to the province's Kootenay region. Although their marriage was rocky, Shirley followed, taking second-youngest son Darryl with her.

Ken was left behind. He had plenty of time to think about it as he wiped bug splatter off car windshields and pumped gas at the local station to make a buck. He says he can't even remember how many couches he slept on, or how he kept himself going. He just knows he never got to go to a prom, finish high school or even think about college.

The way he sees it, he never really had a mother.

On Aug. 3 and 4, Ken, now 46, will face off in B.C. Supreme Court against the woman who gave birth to him.

Shirley Anderson, 71, is suing Ken and four of his five siblings for parental support. The case has been dragging on for years, but the August hearing should complete it.

Shirley has dusted off a little-used section in B.C.'s Family Relations Act that legally obliges adult children to support "dependent" parents.

Seriously how can a law like this even come into force? I was going to ask what kind of person would even have the chutzpah to demand support after abandoning their children but obviously it is the sort of person who abandons their children in the first place.

Quote Of The Day.

From the "Thoughts on Freedom" blog on the mother of Octuplets in Los Angeles:

Her publicist (!) provides the money quote, as he explains:

“In Nadya’s view, the money that she gets from the food stamp program … and the resources disabilities payments she gets for her three children are not welfare,” he said. “They are part of programs designed to help people with need, and she does not see that as welfare.”

It’s only welfare if you don’t need it… Priceless!

Welfare, Not Well Fair At All.

Polly Toynbee writes:

A Financial Times poked from his briefcase to announce he did not belong in this London jobcentre. But there he was, a former Lehmans banker, signing on two weeks after his employer went bust. He had been earning £75,000 - but was left with virtually no savings. If ever there was a symbol of how everyone, high and low, feckless and thrifty, needs to feel the protection of a government that is always there in time of trouble, here it was.

Er no. If someone who had been earning £75000 a year has no savings then it a symbol of the irresponsibility the welfare state encourages even in the affluent. Personally I think anyone earning that much really ought to insure themselves against losing their job.

The rest of the article consists of advice on how the government can spend even more money that it doesn't have.

Right Wing Myths Bunked!

I'm assuming that bunked is the opposite of debunked, you know how the left always complain about the tabloid myth of immigrants being given really big houses and benefits in return for sod all?:

A FAMILY living on benefits in a £1.2 million house in west London told today how they felt they had won the lottery.

Mother-of-seven Toorpakai Saindi gets £170,000 a year in benefits and the council pays the property's private landlord £12,500 a month to accommodate the family who fled Afghanistan seven years ago.

The house in Acton has seven bedrooms, two reception rooms, a dining room and two kitchens, as well as an extensive back garden.

Mrs Saindi's son, Jawad, 20, told the Standard: "If someone gave you a lottery ticket would you leave it? No. You take what you get given.

It should be pointed out that the fault is almost entirely with the law and the council rather than the family. Of course pointing this out means that you are "Playing into the hands of the BNP". Similarly do you remember the right wing myth about the welfare state punishing marriage and rewarding single parenthood? Well that happens too:

Jacqueline Maxwell, 42, of Lakeglen Park, claimed income support totalling £51,037 while failing to declare she was living with a partner.

As other reports make clear she is a mother of three. Whilst her fraud is the newsworthy aspect to the case, the fact that the benefit system rewards her for remaining a single mother is the more interesting point.

{via}