Better off on benefits: state blamed for UK’s lazy unemployment cycle
Published: 13 October, 2010, 11:27
Edited: 14 October, 2010, 11:01
TAGS: EU, UK, Politics, Law, Economy
Nearly one in eight British households has no breadwinner. The new figures, from the Centre for Policy Studies, rank the UK top of the household jobless table, compared to other major EU countries.
“Long-term unemployment is growing as a proportion of total unemployment, but a bigger problem is perhaps hidden from the official unemployment statistics, and that is the proportion of workless households in Britain,” said Professor Philip Booth of the Institute of Economic Affairs. “One sixth of all children, for example, grew up in workless households, which is the highest figure in Europe by some measure.”
Part of the blame is being put on a welfare system that means the unemployed can be better off on benefits.
Sandra Hague, 39, has never had a job. She had her first child at 16, and went on to have three more. None of the fathers are around. Sandra gets the equivalent of more than US$ 20,000 dollars a year in benefits, but she said it is barely enough to stay afloat.
“I am not doing anything, I am just existing,” she said. “Because I cannot go anywhere, I cannot do anything with the kids because I have never got any money.”
Sandra also gets incapacity benefit because of a problem with her legs. She admits that many people less able than her do go out to work but the country’s generous benefits system means it is often more lucrative to stay at home than to get a job. Critics of that system also say the dependency culture is passed from one generation to the next.
Sandra is a grandmother, with the state paying for her granddaughter’s nursery care while her daughter goes to college. She talks of the moment she found out her daughter was pregnant at 17.
”Devastated. Devastated. Because she had just got a place in college, and then she turned around and said she was pregnant. My children keep asking me, what am I going to do when I am older but I am already old, I think.”
It is a cycle that the cash-strapped coalition government is trying hard to break as it tries to save money. That is a tricky balancing act between protecting the vulnerable, and not allowing people to take advantage of the system.
“We change it with the mixture of carrot and stick,” said Conservative party MP, Dominic Raab. “The conditionality is that if you do not accept a reasonable job offer it has got to be the case that you cannot go on claiming benefits and have every other tax payer picking up the bill.”
The government is taking steps to address the problem of long-term unemployed by restricting the amount of benefits that any one family can claim, and carrying out more rigorous tests and checks on people who want incapacity allowance. However, many of the people those reforms are aimed at have never worked, and in a crisis hit economic climate, there are few jobs available.
Unexpected fresh meat: official finds worm in his saladDinner at the Kremlin usually offers the very best for those lucky enough to be invited. But a recent banquet had a rather unexpected guest: a worm made its way onto a platter. |
13.10.2010, 12:48
2 comments
“We forgot that Germany has interests of its own” – authorIt is not the people of Germany but rather the political class, that wants to support the euro, said business consultant and author, Professor Max Otte. |
You miss a key factor, which is that there is now a two wage earner economy in the west, which means that a single mother is far more disadvantaged competitively than when the one wage earner family existed. The two wage earner family has feminized poverty. In a single wage earner economy a single working mom competed with the male and made 2/3 of what he did; now she competes with both the male and the female and makes less than 1/2 what the family she has to compete with for housing, child care fees, etc.. Quite obviously, mortgages are almost entirely based on the two wage earner family income now, so single working moms cannot possibly get a mortgage yet they have to pay rents that are based on two incomes! This is really quite impossible and causes many women to go on welfare where at least they can be with their children. Frankly, the only reason I worked was to give my child a good example and hope. However, if I had had two children when my husband left, I'd never have been able to afford the child care. I lived so frugally, you would not believe it, and my babysitter was kind enough often to give me food! Still I went into great debt for the absolute necessities and was not able to get out of debt until my child got a job and stopped asking me for money! It is really an impossible situation. Yet the left will not even speak of it, apparently for fear of offending rich women concerned with the glass ceiling. However, this is the real situation, and it is also the source of much of the anger that the right wing addresses subtextually. The divorce rate of 50% so every family has experience directly or indirectly with the economic devasation that accompanies single motherhood.
It's complicated, JG. They want you to have children, even if you are unfit, because it latches you into the system and creates a possibility and a replacement. I'm poor, but I'm free. I don't have anything keeping me in the state. The people who succeed are usually just lucky and the rest of us rise and fall at various times. Eventually, something will come along, but it's not "fair" if we don't all have kids. Unfortunately, I'm a primate and have been stressed past the dream to where I'll kill any female I get and abandon any child taht isn't perfect because they have taken my control and trapped me with no future. In most states, children are like the lotto.












The political climate is stale and recessive - the majority of cabinet positions are dominated by 'the elite' millionaires whom were fortunate enough to have a rich daddy. Their is no working-class representation within the political establishment; such a disproportionate social makeup is not allowed and prevented through positive discriminate for gender, ethnic background, sexuality, but does not ensure each social group is fairly represented.
On the subject of welfare: This country is bust. The socialists (Labour), whom should be nothing more than a fringe party, have thrown money, rather than ideas at every problem area - pensions, welfare, education, healthcare...nothing improved and the private sector deteriated.
The abhorant nature of the socialist allowed for populist policies which allowed for re-election - knowing that their bill would be taken up, not by the incumbent, but their successor - the Conservative Party.
Welfare is wrong. There should be a safety-net formed by the charitable sector, but nothing more than a safety-net. Unfortunately, the welfare package is the equivolent of a £250 per week job (JSA, housing benefit, free dental, free prescriptions, free opticians, free childcare, free school dinners....) without having to do anything for the money. This has made families better off and more stable than if they had gone out to work.
Do not blame the people for their idleness - blame government intervention - they have steared Britain into a quagmire, which is soon to become a cesspit. I would just wish government would get out of the way and allow people to take responsibility for their own lives. Although it's rhetoric, Cameron is right when he says it is unfair on the people on benefits. This is true, they are locked into the system, regardless of their will to change.
I agree with the breeding thing: the underclass are breeding like rabbits, while the middle-class are finding it difficult to pay the bills, thus family-planning is pressurised. Our population would probably be recessing if we didn't have such a high rate of immigration and underclass-welfare-driven-breeding. This underclass breeding has allowed for an environment of social squalor.
The ticking time bomb is about the explode.
Conservatives will get the blame, but in reality, the socialists perpetuated the problem.