Latest post from The Welfare State We're In. It concerns Karen Matthews and some of the 'opinion' she has provoked. I will assume you already know who she is. (My own brief comment appears at the end);
Karen Matthews 'a one-woman advertisement for urgent welfare reform. '
It is astonishing the way that news and opinion work in Britain. Today, suddenly there is a focus on the idea that the welfare state created Karen Matthews, the woman who arranged for the kidnap of her own daughter.
The key to this seems to be that one of her lovers asserted that she had given birth to more babies to increase her welfare benefits.
In my book, I put the argument that the welfare state had undermined the morality of those most affected by it, namely those at the poorer end of society. I suggested it had damaged our culture and caused misery on a massive scale.
It is fascinating to see the arguments I put very carefully and with as much relevant evidence that I could muster put now in a really pugnacious and blunt way.
I don't want to associate myself with all the views expressed in the Sun today but they certainly overlap with mine. I agree that Karen Matthews is a creation of the welfare state. I certainly agree with the Sun that the need for reform is urgent. Sadly, the beneficial effects of reform would take a generation to come through. When views such as these are expressed in the Guardian and by presenters of the Today programme on Radio 4 or on Newsnight, then there will be a chance of reform actually happening.
From the Sun editorial:
If ever there was a story to make you hold your head in disbelief, this is it.
How could a MOTHER have her own little girl drugged, kidnapped, tethered like an animal and stuffed in a drawer under a bed?
Vile Karen Matthews is a product of the sink-estate underclass of chaotic families that loaf away their days on easy welfare benefits.
She is a one-woman advertisement for urgent welfare reform.
Slumped in front of her big TV, chain-smoking 60 a day and stuffing herself with pizza, Matthews didn’t give a damn for her kids.
By 30 she’d had seven children by five fathers and was raking in £360 a week in handouts.
One of her grubby lovers said: “She used us just to get pregnant so she could grab more child benefit.”
From John Gaunt's column:
The tragedy is that — just as there will be another Baby P case — there are plenty more Shannons being dragged up in a life of grime that leads to a life of crime.
To blame are the feral parents who couldn’t spell the word parenthood, let alone know the meaning of it.
Whole estates are infested by this underclass. They are not working class — the clue is in the title — they don’t and won’t work.
They have no pride in their homes or areas. They have no respect for themselves, let alone their neighbours or children. They have a moral code that would make an alley cat blush.
They have a lawyer’s expert knowledge of their rights but, sadly, no idea of their responsibilities to their kids or society in general. This is an underclass that New Labour have allowed to fester with their lax “non-judgmental, all kinds of family are equal” social engineering attitude.
But these people aren’t equal to you and me, and they need to be told so before they are allowed to breed another generation that will only be more irresponsible and useless.
Welfare
We have a sickening situation where those of us who actually work spend more than £170billion of our taxes on social security. That is in addition to the £16billion spent on incapacity benefit.
It’s ironic that Matthews was convicted one day after Labour promised ANOTHER crackdown on welfare dependency.
Scrape beneath the surface of this new “get tough on benefit fraud” policy and you see it is the same old Labour spin. The depressing reality is that, even if the Government were serious, they have left it too late to crack down on the feral, feckless and long-term useless.
In large parts of the country people like Karen Matthews have won, and TV programmes like Shameless aren’t fiction but documentaries of their lives.
The welfare state was set up to be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice, and it is time to return to those principles.
Only those who have paid into the system through NI or tax contributions should be allowed to claim anything out of the pot. If this were applied, it would soon rule out junkies, new arrivals or people like Karen Matthews.
We should also time-limit benefits, as they have done in the US, to force the shirkers back to work.
We need to break the cycle.
These people have chosen a life of benefit dependency because they have been allowed to do so.
Never before, with the world in economic crisis, has there been such a need for urgent reform.
With hard-working people facing the prospect of losing their homes and their savings, I don’t see why the decent majority of Brits should shoulder the responsibility of the bone idle any longer.
Just as the death of Baby P must signal a complete change in social services, so must the conviction of Karen Matthews lead to a change in our Benefits R Us society.
If you have read this through it is pretty tough stuff. It goes without saying that there are deserving instances of welfare receipt. People like me would support them willingly through taxes or charity.
But every year in New Zealand around 5,000 babies are added to existing benefits. Try as I might I can't find any excuse for this or any reason to condone it. The idea that it should be stopped is only now just starting to seep into the collective consciousness. Writing like the above may be quite unpalatable to some but it is absolutely vital these ideas are expressed.
Dr Eric Crampton: Adventures in consumer protection
35 minutes ago
9 comments:
"I don’t see why the decent majority of Brits should shoulder the responsibility of the bone idle any longer."
Because they have voted for it, and will go on voting for it, in the UK the same as in NZ. The outcome you are witnessing is down to the left's abuse of our language, whereby the destructive drug of welfare is seen as "compassionate",
..and this deceit works so well. Most people I know have been too cowed by PC to confront the people who use this term.
But its nothing more than the perversion of language for the sake of a political goal.
We must get nasty with the left. You and other liberals won't though, because you're too hidebound by the false niceties of the socialist construct. You won't confront the people bringing this destruction upon us, and you join with the left in criticising those who attempt to do that.
When are you going to wake up? Its war out there. You won't win any battles if you're not shooting at the right people. One of the most important strategies in the struggle is that we must break down completely the left's grip on language.
Never fight them on the ground they choose. But seeing as (according to Libertarian mantra) there's no difference between left or right, how the hell are YOU ever going to know??
As long as there is a "buck" for the taking, The enlightened will take advantage. Be they rich or poor.
Dirk
Lindsay
It goes without saying that there are deserving instances of welfare receipt.
No it doesn't. It really really doesn't.
People like me would support them willingly through taxes or charity.
There is a huge difference between taxes and charity. Taxes=left, Charity=right. Never ever confuse the two!
But every year in New Zealand around 5,000 babies are added to existing benefits.
Post-birth abortion.
We must get nasty with the left.
Never a truer word said. The Labour party and it's allies need to be stamped out of NZ. Stamped out legally, banned, their leaders jailed - what have we come to when Thailand is more democratic than Kiwiland? But that is where we are! Stamped out financially - removed the protections from unions so that employers can get damages from unions for every cent that unions cost their businesses! And stamped out literally, on the streets and in the gutters.
Inflation's up, enemployment's skyrocketing, ACC and the health boards are now effectively bankrupt., and the leftist workers are still agitating and striking.
Feels like 1913 all over again. As Redbaiter said: time to get nasty. real nasty.
You guys who want to 'get nasty' don't live in the world I live in. I tried that. Then I realised that if you don't want the govt doing it all, then you have to roll up your own sleeves. Which is what I do and I won't explicitly attack the people I am trying to help. Or constantly harbour an attitude that throws a blanket over them all. So yes, I attack the system but not the individuals.
Anon, don't make the mistake of thinking I can't tell the difference between taxes and charity. I AM happy to pay for deserving cases through taxes. However I don't think there are that many of them. Originally the dole, sickness and invalid benefits were not abused. But the system is corrupted and I don't think it is possible to go back in time. Severely time-limiting public aid in the short term and privatising welfare in the long is my best pitch. I doubt charity alone will ever be enough.
I AM happy to pay for deserving cases through taxes.
Right. Well we are not!
Originally the dole, sickness and invalid benefits were not abused.
By definition they are abuses.
Which is what I do and I won't explicitly attack the people I am trying to help.
I'm pretty sure Redbaiter and I are not interested in "helping" anyone at all. We don't think people should be helped, except, perhaps, to take the honourable way out.
In which case I don't know why you bother with this blog, knowing that it is only going to wind you up.
I do resent taxes being used for social ends and redistributive levelling, but that is secondary. That those processes are not achieving their objectives, and never will, is primary and needs exposing. That's my motivation.
If you don't want to help people of any shape, form or fashion - in any shape, form or fashion - fine. But I am not in that camp.
" I doubt charity alone will ever be enough."
Despite the majority of people being so 'worried' about the poor that they vote in pro-welfare govts to ensure the poor are supposedly looked after? Surely if they are all so keen to ensure the poor are helped then charity will easily be enough as there would be no difference between them giving the money voluntarily and having it taken from them.
Or perhaps instead those pro-welfare voters are cruel and heartless and vote for more welfare purely in order to hurt those who earn more than them and don't give a damn about the poor. In which case it is just a little hypocritical to complain about the plight of the poor.
The moral case for charity via taxation is utterly bankrupt. I am surprised to hear you saying you are happy with it.
Gekko
I am not happy with 'charity' via taxation. But in considering people born with severe handicaps, people who develop debilitating diseases, children who are born to incapable parents etc, either there is insurance via government (taxation or dedicated fund), insurance via private enterprise or reliance on charity.
What I am saying is I don't mind if my money is used to support certain people but it doesn't follow that via govt is the right way.
Effective charity requires far more than just giving money. It involves giving time. That is what I doubt is on offer in any abundance.
Part of the problem is the system is dealing with 3rd 4th and 5th generation families which have only ever known a benefit as a source of income. They dont number in the hundreds, they number in the thousands and are multiplying as i write this. We supply welfare in the vain hope they will see the "light" and "find their way."
Of course I stopped believing in Santa Clause a long time ago.
Dirk.
Post a Comment