Tuesday, 19 February 2013

There was a young woman, who lived in a shoe...


We don't normally tread on Daily Mail demonisation of the Chavs territory on this blog. But today the story of Heather Frost, 37 year old  mother of eleven, who is moving soon into a brand new, taxpayer funded purpose built house for her and her off spring, caught my eye.

And already its dog whistle time. The Daily Mail presses those middle class buttons so well. 'The purpose built house'. Well, all social housing is purpose built. Just not normally for eleven kids. 

Her TWO current council houses are too cramped ! - well, they would be. Thirteen or fourteen people living in them. That's at least two to each bedroom. And having to serve meals in a kitchen made for 3-5 people. 

And the pictures of her rubbish strewn, neglected,  back garden don't actually specify that it is her garden. Just 'the properties' in that street. And even if it is her garden, from the front there are skips and it looks like some sort of clearout going on.

The images have set off the comments. Some 3000 comments just today, on the Mail Online, world's most popular media website.  {That is actually an incredible statistic when you think about it. More people read the Daily Mail webpages, than read the BBC News, which is put together with a giant slice of Beeb funding. Some £120 million. Some of the comments on the mail online have been 'approved/disapproved by up to another 8-9,000 readers. Astonishing.}

As is to be expected most can't believe that this family of non workers, never workers, has been given a brand new house to live in. A nice house, not the usual council seconds.  Many can't believe that the father's are nowhere to be seen. Others that the council has gone mad building a new house.  

And I have to say I agree.

Not with the attacks on the council, who have no choice. They have, by statute, to adequately house their tenants. Nor with the attacks on the mother, who having been a fourteen year old pregmum, has no hope of having a good job, and has been bringing up a football team sized brood ever since anyway. Nor with the large number of comments complaining about having to pay a large mortgage while Mrs F pays about nothing. Your own mortgage has nothing to do with the government. You choose what you can afford. And the comment making the headlines, that 'she will inspect the new house to see if she's satisfied with it, or she won't move in' sounds suspiciously like an out of context remark.

What is making me angry..no more than angry..furious, is that this situation has been allowed to happen in the first place. 

I am stunned that over the last fifteen years no one has explained to the mother that people have responsibilities, and she has to  live within her means. If she wants to have eleven kids or eleven hundred its up to her. But the state should not be the provider.  If she had a child at fourteen and wanted to be a mum, well..that's her life choice. 

But it should have been made very clear that the maximum benefits allowable are 'X, irrespective of the number of dependents and that if the family was unable to cope, children would be taken into care.. That the maximum sized house is x bedrooms and that she must be aware that its necessary to live within those rooms, or rent / buy her own place.

That rents may rise and that energy bills, food bills, clothing costs may too. That benefits may rise or may not. That her tenancy will be a five year renewable agreement, subject to revision, and not for life. That anti social behaviour would not be tolerated. That the children are expected to attend school each school day and are suitably clothed and fed.
That unemployment benefits are paid on a decreasing scale and in order to receive them, after x months/years, voluntary work will be required to be undertaken, if no suitable jobs exist.

In short.. she should have been told that she was damn lucky to have got one of the limited stock of social housing in the first place, that the state spends more money than it actually has,  so don't take the proverbial.

I'm not claiming that Mrs Frost's children ARE ASBO street kids and she is a feckless parent. They might be model pupil, high achievers for all I know. What I am suggesting is that future households planning to have 10 kids will be aware that their are limits to welfare and that benefits to suit circumstances are not an automatic right.  The minimum 1 bed flat on the top floor of a tower block is a right. Everything else must be earned, and may be withdrawn.

 There aren't many people in Mrs Frost's situation. But there are some 40,000 families, out of work with 5 or more children.  And it had been on the rise since 2008, because benefits were not capped.  How many are long term and how many recent recession victims isn't known. But surely even 1,000 families of 5 children, where no family member has EVER worked, is 1,000 too many.

Ian Duncan Smith's reforms are attempting to prevent these extreme cases occurring.   The nasty party wants to impoverish the poorest and most dependent in society. They have been widely condemned by many as Victorian era poor laws.

But they aren't . They are trying to bring some sanity back to a system that has gone absurdly wrong.









22 comments:

Blue Eyes said...

Agreed.

People have a tendency to compare their own mortgage or even tax rates with the "feckless". I am more concerned about the effect on my own economic future. All this stuff causes a huge drag on the rest of the economy meaning that middle-income people like me find it harder and harder to break through to the next level. It's even worse for the younger people.

There's a genuine generation gap going on, where if you started on the career ladder twenty-plus years ago the same level of skills and effort will have got you much much further than if you took the same route ten years ago.

And it's all because of the number of people being supported by redistribution of one kind or another.

"Can we reform?" is the question. Because if we can't more people will be clamouring for a rather nastier version of wholesale reform.

CityUnslicker said...

In the very long-term, the strange thing is that we can't run our of money because we can print it. Labour will be elected and continue the benefits madness.

The real cap perhaps will come in a decade or more when real inflation rips and benefits do not keep up with it - making them more manageable but also hitting the deserving and undeserving equally.

MR Q has it right though, the cap is a good idea, it sets a limit on financial assitance available, it is then up to the government to make this clear. £26,000 a year is still way too high, but at least it is a start.

Jim said...

Its ironic that the Left support such rampant individualism, because the very basis of socialism is that the rights of the collective outweigh those of the individual. And the bed rock of a welfare system is that it has to have the support of the many paying in, in order to be able to continue to pay out to those in need. Without the support of the masses the programme is in danger of collapse. So a truly socialist solution would be cull such tall poppies, in order to maintain the integrity of the overall system, even if it caused hardship to the individual affected. The ends justifies the means etc etc.

In some ways its pleasing to see the Left supporting the rights of the individual. Strange that they don't seem to support the rights of the individual taxpayer paying in to the system tho................

Blue Eyes said...

CU, absolutely. Something has to give in an unsustainable system. Either the "middle" will accept a flatlining economy for the long term or the same "middle" will demand action. Politicians will then have to work out whether they have the stomach for proper reform (Thatcher) or whether they are going to paper over the cracks until the economy collapses (Heath/Wilson).

IDS has made a start. Will the voters allow him to continue? I am hopeful, given the popularity so far of welfare reform.

andrew said...

Sort of agree and sort of dont

As a civilised person I am caught in a trap. The list of true options is short.

(a) She chooses to raise N kids and I help pay for it where N is up to her

(b) The council spays her after M kids - or 'removes' the excess children.

(c) After M kids we take the extra into care

I dont want to live in a country that even considers (b).
(c) will end up costing me more than (a)

Limiting the amount of money spent on Ms Frosts family is (c) - and I do not think the sins of the parents should be visited on the children.

I do not like it, but for me, just putting up with it is the only reasonable option.

Blue Eyes said...

Andrew you are doing the lefty thing and forgetting that the mothers know perfectly well what they are doing, they have a choice. If the government said "OK from tomorrow there is no child benefit for children born nine months from now, no extra housing if you have more kids and no extra tax credits" then the birth rate would collapse.

I don't think BQ is talking about punishing people retrospectively, just setting a structure that is clearly set against career motherhood.

Timbo614 said...

It's a quandary for sure. Having allowed the situation to develop where people like Ms Frost exist, we are unable to retrospectively change the rules of the game.

However it not beyond our ability to change the rules to try and prevent these situations developing again in the future but even then, what are we (as a civilised country) going to do if it does? Let them starve?

It's the attitude that has to be adjusted via education and opportunity. But then again.. where is the mindless work that working people used to do going to come from? In manufacturing, robots are doing a lot of mindless stuff already and that will only get worse.

The only place for them to be trained and work, seemingly, is (ironically) building, when that sectors is fully supplied that would only seem to leave "making the overall environment better" as in better for everyone, but as a bonus/sop to those that are inventing/manufacturing/"working in industry" This "betterness" could include not only generally tidying the place up (gardens, cites, pathways etc) but arts and entertainments that would enrich all our lives. The question on that front is: are "they" up for the challenge? and if so, who is going to educate/train them to fulfill it meaningfully?

9 to 5 (or 8 to 4) working seems to be unsustainable (oh I hate that overused word) in the future. Attitudes to "the working day" and "work" itself need to change in this particular brave new world.

Bill Quango MP said...

Andrew: Blue is quite right. Its not retrospective. Even IDS isn't proposing that.

On the same mail comments page there were quite a few hysterically foaming that this family will soon be on the street. No they won't. The cap on Housing Benefit won't really touch them. The total cap on benefits might. But its set at a very high level for the present.

There were also people going on about bedroom tax and disabled children who need their own room. Disabled people are excluded from all benefit changes too, except for the disabilities test for entitlement.

Dianne Abbott, lousy parliamentarian, pretty good local community representative, once told the story that about some local residents.

They were very angry that the council had refused to house them in a 3 bed house and that they had 4 children and lived in a small two bed flat,i9n a tower block and it wasn't suitable.

She said, along the lines of .."I remember helping you to get that flat when you were pregnant Mrs S. It was quite difficult, but we managed. Now, what made you think you would automatically get a bigger, better home when you had children? Didn't you consider that if their isn't any available then you will have to live where you live now?"

The answer was no.

hovis said...

I see this as dog whistle misdirection (Congraulations to the Dm by the way for beuing so successful - espeially as it get the droning metropolitan types so frothy at the mouth.)

This is an outlier and indeed not a sustainable situation, but that's what you will always get to a lesser or greater exent with a welfare state. The funny thing is many who berate Mrs F, are likely themselves recipients of giant amounts iof corporate welfare - think defence, civil service Quango, energy, Pharma .. the klist is endless .. of course they are "respectable" so deserve their larger (and often less explicit subsidies ...)

mote .. beam eye

measured said...

Where are the fathers??

She won't have much time to tidy up the garden if she has thirteen children.

Tewksbury, brace yerselves for a flood of newcomers, it being used to floods.

Blue Eyes said...

The best bit of the article is the last sentence:

"Tewkesbury councillor Derek Davies said: ‘This is a great example of how we work with housing providers to ensure affordable housing is provided for all our residents’ needs.’"

I'm guessing he puts himself on the "compassionate Conservative" side of the fence.

Nick Drew said...

this is all down to the most dreadful piece of legislation of our times, the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act of 1977

passed, of course, by OldLab, but not repealed in 18 years of Tory government

its inevitable consequences were clear from the start to anyone involved in local government (I became a local councillor in '82) - and of course Thatch came to power in 1979, long before it had really begun having major sociological effects on behaviour and attitudes

she was advised from a very early stage it should be repealed, but she wasn't interested

Red Ed said...

I knew it was Thatcher's fault.
Everything always is.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

More dog-whistling this morning - it turns out she keeps a pony as well.

Brilliant.

Topographie beni mellal said...

That's true.Today, people are more interested in mailing webpages than reading the BBC News.And the story of the young woman Heather Frost knew many comments.She lives in two houses.She has seven children in one house, while the rest live with her in the other.Besides all these things she is jobless mother.So, she asked for a five-bed eco-home from the council Tewkesbury who has agreed to accept her request.The father of her children is in the prison.

Electro-Kevin said...

BQ - This has happened because people such as your good self have been duped into dismissing widely held views and common sense as being too 'Daily Mail'.

This is how the Left have completely outflanked the Tory party and the 'forces' of conservatism (ordinary people.)

'Middle class' has become a term of abuse.

Why has it taken you so long to work out for yourself what we have been telling you for decades ?

We are exactly where we've been warning you we would be. On this and many other issues.

We told you so.

This really is at the root of our cultural and economic decline so is not about mere 'scum class' hating.

The most maligned people in this land, in fact, are the Daily Mail readers and those who dare to hold similar views. Many lies and distortions are told about us - many allegations levelled and not least against our sanity.

So where is the BNP support given the 5 million buyers of the DM and the millions of others who read it online or second-hand ?

Thusly I debunk the wicked lies told about us.

I'm a Daily Mail reader and the tone of your post makes me feel uncomfortable. The Blairist marginalisation of us has been devastatingly effective.

Your embarassment at the mere risk of being associated with such views - hence your long winded disassociation from the Daily Mail readership - means that there is little hope of remedying our country's ills. In fact I'm pretty sure we've had it.

These things cannot be stopped while majority opinion is suppressed by such withering fire. In fact I'm pretty sure it's all too late anyway.

This is what I predict for our future henceforth (having been proven correct previously)

- More crime
- More dependency
- Continuing economic decline
- More taxation
- Relentless criminalisation of the middle classes.

Oh. And the Tory party are not your friends. About the best you can do is vote Ukip for what it's worth ... or emigrate.



Electro-Kevin said...

Clarification: 'Where is the BNP support ... ?'

Meaning the BNP has little in the way of votership.

Bob said...

"Ian Duncan Smith's reforms are attempting to prevent these extreme cases occurring. The nasty party wants to impoverish the poorest and most dependent in society. They have been widely condemned by many as Victorian era poor laws."

No, IDS is a loathesome scumbag as you well know.

roym said...

Are we sure all the fact are presented here? It's the daily heil, so probably not.
For a start, it's not her house, as the kids grow up, they will all move out and the new unit, owned by the housing assoc, will use it for other families.

40,000 families? Talk about marginal, Does it really keep you up at nights?

Anonymous said...

I don't like the Daily Mail.
Its a terrible paper for distortion and faux outrage. It often has conflicting and contradictory stories on the same pages. "New WOW look for super slim Katie!" - "Young woman today under pressure to conform to unrealistic stereotypes"

Just another pander paper.
Like the Mirror or even worse, the Express.



john in cheshire said...

At least they are all white and not muslim. Who knows, one of them might just be our Charles Martell.

Agence communication said...

"" Not with the attacks on the council, who have no choice. They have, by statute, to adequately house their tenants. Nor with the attacks on the mother, who having been a fourteen year old pregmum, has no hope of having a good job, and has been bringing up a football team sized brood ever since anyway. Nor with the large number of comments complaining about having to pay a large mortgage while Mrs F pays about nothing. Your own mortgage has nothing to do with the government. You choose what you can afford. And the comment making the headlines, that 'she will inspect the new house to see if she's satisfied with it, or she won't move in' sounds suspiciously like an out of context remark."