Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Family Misfortunes

With David Cameron aiming the "Family" Howitzer into the “equally valid lifestyle “ Left I have been thinking about justifying giving the traditional family special treatment. I stress that we do not start from zero .The disincentive to remain together is high . A couple on £18000 per year pay a penalty of £8588 per year of their pre tax income when they live together. Even a couple on £50,000 would be more than £7000 per annum worse off . It is entirely beyond argument that children in two parent families fair, far better, and as only one in twelve married couples part within the first five years of a child’s life marriage is obviously key. For unmarried couples that figure is one in two .One in two!

The subject goes deeper than that . When I look around at the nearby estates I am escaping from, it is more than the absence of fathers and work .There is a sort of moral hopelessness that sets in and what a lot of the better off do not realise is that in this stony ground there are lots of good seeds. The forgotten decents as they are called often work even though it makes no difference to their income .

It is as if abandoning this basic unit of the sub state society attacks the whole like a cancer . When people talk about feral children they are using hypoerbole but there is something in it .Un-socialised children are verging on dehumanised at times . When you read of a gun killing about some sexually motivated pecking order( Honour ? ) it isn`t just the crime but the mental world you enter that is so terrifying. A primordial world of sexual display and primitive unattenuated need.

This has nothing to do with the working classes .It is an under-class but not defined by income . Indeed ,a single mother working seventeen hours a week collects the equivalent of £35,000 per year in state goodies . Grey market income is almost universal and skilled deception of the system a hereditary profession , Council premises are frequently let-on informally while the couple reside in one of the other of their homes. The nearest equivalent I can think of is a sort of parallel society like the gypsies .

There is , as I mentioned ,another side to this . We are currently living in a country where the indigenous people are simply not reproducing . They are at a rate of about 1.3 which is a population implosion.. At the current rate we are headed to a another 20,000,000 in these shores over the next fifty years . That is entirely immigration and the progeny of recent immigrants . If you subtract form that “Indigenous “ figure “ those collecting benefits we can see that a part of society is being destroyed as surely as Stalin destroyed the kulaks. Figures like this cannot , of course, be extrapolated in any such way but nonetheless the face of the country is changing far faster than anyone is aware. At this point a certain element will shout racist but that isn`t the point . In a society with no ethnic coherence social policy becomes impossible and a Liberal society at all is under threat. This is statistically true around the world and if questioned I can quote from Cash Nexus

In Iain Duncan Smiths report there is much discussion of how sorting might effect the stark figures and it is not as simple an argument as the Mail , for example , pretends. Polly Toynbee wrote a cogent attack on some of the single mother assumptions recently that has a place in the debate.. We should also not imagine that a change can be effected with no pain to anyone. It must be gradual and careful gathering support along the way . I see the reintroduction of property owning and capital schemes for the poor as part of the picture along with educational improvement . Without involving as many as possible in the solution the numbers will defeat the project.

I thought this story in the Irish Independent summed up the moral corruption that state hand outs engender

Couple got €30,000 in benefits for dead child
AN English couple have been jailed for six months for claiming more than £20,000 (€30,000) in benefits for their dead child. Benjamin having died in 2002 - two weeks after his premature birth. They even chased up the Inland Revenue, saying they needed the money for Benjamin. More than £13,000 (€19,000) was handed out in child and working tax credits alone.
The fraud finally came to light in 2006 after the couple moved house -. At Isleworth Crown Court last week, they were both sentenced to six months' imprisonment.


Anonymous said...

The main thing that struck a chord with the tax break for married couples was the “moral” issue. You have touched on that yourself. I am forty years old & have strong memories of a decent ENGLAND (not Britain, but that’s a whole other rant). So when this issue was raised I was pleased, in the sense of it sounds simply like a decent thing to do.

I am very surprised by the backlash, I mean it is not as though it is a new idea or even an extreme one. I mean we can pay prisoners thousands in compo for being made to withdraw from drugs without batting an eyelid but the merest sniff of helping someone decent & the world goes bonkers.

Once again this reinforces my belief that extremist (our own home grown political fundamentalist rulers) politics is the only area that matters. If someone suggests a way to throw taxpayers money at someone who has never worked a day in their lives then it is a great idea & accepted by politicos & do gooders alike.

Any suggestion of rewarding, protecting or even listening to the decent hardworking honest section of this crumbling society is met with scorn.

The hardworking honest English are leaving this country in droves. Forced out by a variety of reasons. Crime not being the least. For me, freedom of speech is another. We have a society where perfectly legal words are slowly being forbidden. Long winded sentences used to describe something that a single word used to do. If we are not living in an Orwellian nightmare now then I dread the day we do.

We are being divided & dispersed, our language is being eroded along with our culture.

& the final straw is that people who are supposedly citizens of these shores are attempting to kill & maim those of us who are left. Biting the hand that feeds, well now that’s just taking the p**s.

up the workers!

Newmania said...

hallo, I like your post on Dale the other day GMP. I`m 43 married and pissed off myself .

I think you add a very welcome note of reality to what can become a bit of a affected enviroment. I think a lot of Conservartives like me can talk to Old Labour but feel nothing but contempt for the patronising modish lefties that tend to post.

Its as if this tiny sliver in the middle decides everything for everyone and large areas of agreement that most of the population share , but they do not are left out.

Jenny! said...

How could people do that...isn't that too upsetting after the loss of a child? Fuckwads!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Newmania said...

GMP- If you are really a Police man you had better take care your anonimity is not compromised

Newmania said...

Hi Jenny , always a pleasure to see you , it would be aneven greater pleasure to feel you but i can`t see how to work that from here

sally in norfolk said...

"a single mother working seventeen hours a week collects the equivalent of £35,000 per year in state goodies"

I often wonder where people get these figures from.

I work 18 hours a week and collect no where near that amount if i did I would class myself as very rich and would not have the worries I do have.

Anonymous said...

You have to make it worthwhile people working to get those that want to escaope "sinkdom" out of it...At the moment tax is punitive on the low paid. But there is a sickness in those estates and that underclass..

Newmania said...

Sally I got that figure from the Daily Telegraph and that is the equivalent pre tax figure. \I `ll have arummage anmd see if i can get the source.

I never make things up its just that I do not have the greatset filing system for Press Cuttings.

Nice to see you !!!!

Newmania said...

Yo Mutley ...I am working on my smut entry !!!! I find it suprisingly difficult to me cheekily smutty without revealing my inner predilictions for all sorts of inventive hanky panky.

I will try to restrain myself ( see what I mean)

Philipa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ed said...

Mutley is right, there has to be a route out of poverty through work and at the moment there are not enough incentives. If fathers were bringing home more money than the state could provide it might make a difference to some families.

Just because marriage and stability are correlated doesn't mean that there is a causal link. Stable families will both get married and stay together, they don't necessarily stay together because of the piece of legal paper.

I don't understand your "living together penalty" at all. Since when did people who live together have their tax codes changed? Do you mean that single parents get more state help?

My over-riding sense on this issue is that a good mother will always have its child's best interests at heart and although there are many bad parents out there they still want their children to get the best start they can - so surely they wouldn't throw the father out just to get more benefits? That theory paints a dark picture of many mothers' attitude.

I welcome the debate though, because clearly on some level there are big social problems, but we must be careful not to get into the kind of finger pointing debate that got Conservatives in trouble in the 90s.

Philipa said...

Gordo has trashed the super casino idea and is making housing his top priority.

I might vote for Gordon Brown.

Philipa said...

A brilliant post Newmania, brilliant!

I commented on this issue on Conservative Home and I largely think IDS's post is waffle. This emphasis on supporting the married (family or no) seems to me more like convenient scapegoating whilst avoiding real solutions, solutions that would be controvertial. People are moralising and the best blog post to do this in my opinion is no surprise to y'all. I think you all know how close PH and I often are in our politics but whilst I often agree with his observations I find his solutions here are unworkable. In fact I think Ed makes some good points - people won't stay married for £20 pw, won't happen and Polly makes a good observation on that one.

I genuinely think N that your focus on housing is a key issue, though I disagree with your emphasis on ownership as a solution mechanism. I think you hit on the crux of the matter when you talk of an underclass and expectations. I make the same point (I hope) but you make it better. I wish I could write like you I really do as I think manufacturing and job availability, apprenticeships and life expectations are key.

It is just wrong for year 10 girls to say that when they grow up they're 'going to have a baby and get a flat, Miss'. PH is spot on where he lays the blame for this but I disagree with the holier-than-thou solutions. Solutions that seem pompous and crass from the Conservative think tank. I think their solutions are stupid.

But I have to agree with Sally fN - you know I'm a single mum and I'm looking-for-pennies-down-the-sofa-broke. You see NuLab pays benefits into bank accounts now and the banks leech charges from the poor. I'd like to add up all the charges the poor pay and I think the government are keeping most of the clearing banks happy. If I was rich I wouldn't pay charges.

I haven't read the report but it is easy to draw the wrong conclusions from stats, especially when the conclusions are convenient or in line with your own prejudices (IDS is a Roman Catholic).

Anonymous said...

N out of curiosity, can I ask, do you think I have written anything that would be classed as “dodgy”?

Newmania said...

Just got bacjkk from my run ....I will have loo at work ...I doubt it GMP and i don`t censor unless its just tediously abusive

Lilith said...

£35k a year? You are having a laugh Newmania...As a single mother, self employed, working 30+ hours a week I got some tax credit for a bit, but then Gordo had it all back off me. Utterly pointless. No housing benefit ("voluntarily homeless" we were!).

Newmania said...

I welcome the debate though, because clearly on some level there are big social problems, but we must be careful not to get into the kind of finger pointing debate that got Conservatives in trouble in the 90s.

So I see Ed." Living together sorry that Married ."

"so surely they wouldn't throw the father out just to get more benefits? That theory paints a dark picture of many mothers' attitude."

This remark however betrays an utter naievety about how people and relationships work. Its hard ebnnought os tay togethr with out the state undermining the institution and this remarl ...

"Just because marriage and stability are correlated doesn't mean that there is a causal link. !" of course obvious amnd dealt with by David Camerion and in detail , so i gather in the report.

YOu are begginjning to sound a bit of a wet Liberal to me ED eeek !

Newmania said...

GMP I have read your remarks through several times and I am perfectly haoppy withthem . I appreicate your effort and its great to hear from you . Yours in the sort of view that the Liberal elite (Like Ed) try to crowsd out and I am all for it .

Just kidding Ed. I feel there is a gaon in your view in that you seema bit cold on the value of institutions and tradition.I do not imagaine we can all sit around and cleverly work out what to do . I suggest we might stop destroying things that in practice did work

Newmania said...

Stable families will both get married and stay together, they don't necessarily stay together because of the piece of legal paper.

But they do. This is your error Ed. You do not see how people work and the value of traditional ways. This is not a voter liability it is a strategic Libility in that the only group against traditional families in the swing voter Liberal .

Newmania said...

Lillith I do take your point nand you aren`t the only one to make it.

I am quoting the Mail here which is always a risk . Still i don1t think anyone pretends there are not peverse disincentives to marriage in the system

Newmania said...

P I have nothign much to add to your remark . I disagree if you are saying that removing disincentives won`t work it will and the £20 per week is a misrepresentation od the amount.

Philipa said...

No N I'm not saying "removing disincentives won`t work" - I'm saying that there's a bigger picture.

There's also the problem that financially persecuting single parents may cause some people to stay in an abusive relationship.

Blog Archive