Bye bye Bobby Womack

One of my all time favourites, Bobby Womack has just passed away aged 70. The Poet 11 was his best work. From that album here's American Dream:

 

 

 

"Horrible arrangements"

A version of the following column appeared in this morning's DomPost. An unorthodox view.

No matter how civilised a divorce is, it always makes children unhappy, says Penelope Leach, hurling a grenade into the cosy liberal consensus on the matter. The veteran child psychologist has infuriated fathers with her new book, Family Breakdown, in which she suggests that very small children whose parents separate should not stay overnight with the absent father (or mother). “You get situations,” Leach says, “where children are spending a week in Mum’s house and a week in Dad’s house and all kinds of horrible arrangements. I call them horrible because we do know that they are desperately wrong for children, who need the security of a place called home and who, when very little, shouldn’t be taken away overnight from what is usually the mother – the person they are attached to.”

Leach’s view flies in the face of evidence which shows, consistently, that it is better for the child to have regular contact with both parents, though she is right and brave to point out that divorce, which now affects nearly half of all marriages, is too often about the selfish interests of the parents, with children seen as property to be haggled over.

More

Very low tolerance for misuse of welfare funds

This is an intriguing story. 

Indiana spends $250 million on TANF (largely equivalent to our Sole Parent Support) in a population of 6.5 million. NZ spends 7 times more for a population 31 percent smaller.

But what really surprised me was the small numbers that followed.

$120,000 withdrawn from ATMs in no-go places like liquor stores in 2012.

$45,000 spent developing technology to stop it.

$400 a month to run the system.

These are highly motivated and efficient bureaucrats.

Of course there is nothing to stop people withdrawing cash elsewhere and still spending it on things like alcohol and tobacco. But TANF spending is already very low because the US moved towards a system of emphasis on in-kind assistance over cash. A lot of federal and state funds are spent getting people into work, job subsidies, Medicaid, food stamps, utility payments, housing subsidies, childcare etc. There's not that much cash splashing around.

Cutting Down on Welfare Abuse in Indiana

June 26, 2014
What has kept welfare recipients from spending taxpayer dollars on alcohol, slot machines and strip clubs? Very little, writes Jillian Kay Melchior for National Review, until Congress passed a bill in 2012 outlawing the use of benefits at such places and encouraging state governments to institute similar controls.
Indiana has been especially successful in its crackdown on unlawful use of welfare funds:

• The state passed a law requiring ATM vendors to block withdrawals of cash benefits at certain restricted locations.
• The Indiana Family and Social Services Administration spent $45,000 to develop technology that can match electronic-benefits-transfer (or EBT) transactions and track EBT users who have received warnings from the state's Alcohol and Tobacco Commission about unlawful withdrawals. Now, the technology costs less than $400 per month in monitoring, including staff time.
• Welfare recipients who withdraw cash at an unlawful location receive a strongly worded letter, followed by a letter and investigation after their second offense and action by the local prosecutor after their third offense. Beneficiaries found guilty of unlawful withdrawals face a $500 fine and up to 60 days in prison.

The state began a major media mail campaign to inform residents of the new rules affecting Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients. The new rules have been effective:

• In 2012, Indiana TANF users withdrew more than $120,000 from ATMs with their EBT cards in liquor stores, strip clubs, tobacco shops, casinos, resorts, golf clubs and amusement parks.
• In 2014, fewer than 15 first-time EBT violations have taken place each month, according to Indiana officials. Additionally, there have been less than 5 second-time offenses each month and only two third-time violations in all of 2014.

Of the $250 million in the state's TANF program, officials have identified less than $6,000 in unlawful fund use.
Source: Jillian Kay Melchior, "Welfare Abuse Almost Quelled," National Review, June 24, 2014.

Inter-generational welfare dependency

The statistical evidence for inter-generational welfare dependency is thin on the ground. But MSD has just released its Benefit System Performance Report (what a couple of weeks for reports).

Here's one finding that caught my eye:

About 90% of new 16-17 year old beneficiaries have been supported by main benefits at some time in their childhood

A lot of focus has rightly gone on young entrants because they have the greatest forward liability. Not just because of their age but the factors that contribute to their early reliance. When I delve into the actual report I may find data about just how long these newcomers had spent on their parent's benefit.

Some other findings:

• While the number of people on Jobseeker and Sole Parent benefits has also been declining at a faster rate than the 2012 valuation projected, there has been a higher than expected rate of transition from Jobseeker – Work Ready to both the Jobseeker – HCID state and to Supported Living Payment.
• A higher than expected rate of transfer to Supported Living Payment is also occurring from both Jobseeker – HCID and Sole Parents.

Essentially what this is describing is migration from work-tested unemployment benefits to non-work-tested disability benefits. It's the backlash to setting tougher work expectations.

The Future Focus changes were introduced from September 2010. They require reapplication for unemployment benefit every 52 weeks and place part-time work obligations on sole parents whose youngest child is aged five or more and full-time obligations if youngest child is aged 14 or more.
Both of these initiatives have led to a shorter average time spent on benefit for Jobseeker and Sole Parent clients of approximately one and a half weeks. There is no indication to date of an increase in the time spent off benefit for either group, which suggests greater focus is required to ensure off benefit outcomes are sustained.

More underwhelming results. If, for argument's sake, a sole parent is currently spending an average of 8 years dependent, the reforms have shaved off just a third of a percent.

Generally benefit numbers fell between the reporting dates - June 2012 and June 2013. Hence the estimated liability cost falls. But most of the decrease is in Jobseeker and Sole Parent and these are often the easy- to- place people. Many would have been temporarily unemployed due to the GFC. The 2014 (295,320 in March) numbers are still above what they were in March 2008 (255,754).

Doing National's job

National do little to explain or defend their 'child poverty'  position publicly. They'll answer questions in the house (which few people listen to) but don't strenuously explain why an employment strategy to reduce child poverty is the only effective choice. Avoidance of emotive, easily misconstrued or misunderstood issues might be a deliberate strategy.

Muriel Newman has never lost her determination to make change happen. And we regularly work together on expressing a view that is distinct from the Left.

My latest NZCPR article discusses Child Poverty in New Zealand, by Jonathon Boston and Simon Chapple.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, welfare researcher Lindsay Mitchell, has carefully read the book and shares her analysis with us. She refutes the claim that child poverty is the result of the benefit cuts in the nineties, demonstrating that supplementary assistance has risen at a faster rate than wages since that time. In particular she points out that increasing benefit levels would reduce the incentive to work.
“In my view, this is the crux of the matter. To maintain a margin between incomes from work and incomes from welfare, benefit payments should stay at their current level. However, greater efforts to get beneficiary parents into employment are paramount.
“It is particularly disappointing that the authors went back only to policies of the early 1990s to explain why child poverty increased so rapidly. I would take them back to 1973. After the domestic purposes benefit was introduced, the annual number of ‘unmarried births with no resident father’ grew from around 3,000 to reach around 12,000 by 1991. The numbers reliant on the DPB had rapidly grown to 97,000.  With a relatively generous benefit payment available the employment rate for sole mothers plummeted over the same period. When the state could no longer afford the same level of generosity and cut benefits, child poverty soared. Nevertheless, it was, and remains, the change in family structure that drove up child poverty.”

Muriel  takes on the Owen Glenn Report here.

The People’s Report is the first tranche of Sir Owen Glenn’s $2 million inquiry into child abuse and domestic violence.[3] Set up in 2012, the final report of the inquiry is expected to be published before the end of the year as a policy Blueprint.
While there will undoubtedly be some worthwhile policy suggestions from the inquiry, this first report (which summarises the experiences of around 500 victims, offenders, and frontline workers) appears to have been largely captured by ideological interests.
Three examples will suffice.
Firstly, the study seems to suggest that colonisation is a cause of domestic violence. It states: “Māori were once a people who held in high esteem their tamariki (children) and wāhine (women) because of the treasured roles they had in their whānau, hapū (sub-tribe) and iwi (tribe). Nevertheless, colonisation brought with it new ways, including privileging the place of men, which rendered women and children as their possessions. As Aotearoa was settled, new ways of treating children and women were introduced to Māori whānau and hapū, which included beating them. Some, but not all, Māori chose to adopt these new ways in their whānau as they were pressured to become assimilated with colonialists.”
It goes on to say,  the experience of colonisation is responsible for domestic violence, in that “these experiences broke down their wairua (spirit, soul) and their mana (status, control), making people feel whakamā (ashamed, embarrassed) and whakaiti (belittled) – some of which has survived in successive generations”.

A life we cannot comprehend

From time to time there are conversations and calls to talkback that justify why I listen. When the debate gets gritty most calls demand attention. But then one call will stop you still. It happened on Leighton Smith's show today.

The scissor attack in a Pacifc Christian South Auckland school, following a myriad of other recent violent incidents, prompted the conversation we have ad nauseam : Why?

A quietly spoken Samoan lady described her upbringing as seriously sexually abused and physically beaten by her palangi father from the age of three. Farmed out to father's friends for sexual gratification.

Leighton asked, where was your mother? She had left. Deserted the family to the father's custody.

When she confronted her mother years later, her mother said, "Better you than me. You were bred for him."

It gets worse. The caller went on to marry and have her own family.  But when her mother told the caller's  husband about the abuse, he declared her "used goods"  and walked out. Left her to raise the children alone. Which she has done well by all accounts.

How vicious and inhuman and self-indulgent and evil some people are.

(If you cared to listen her call crosses from the end of the 10.15-10.30 am quarter to the next)

Mallard's rejection of a list placing

It's understandable that Trevor Mallard has refused a place on Labour's list. Being dumped down the list sends an ambiguous signal to the public. Does the party have so much faith in him they think he's a shoo in for the electorate? Or do they not want a bar of him if he can't win the electorate?  I doubt it is the first. And bet Trevor does too. By refusing a place, the depth of the disrespect doesn't go public. And he salvages some pride. And frankly, why should he play their game? In fact, why not exercise some utu?

As a voter in Hutt South that's how I see it.

If voters want Trevor as their MP there is now zero utility in a Labour Party vote. They must give him their electorate vote leaving the party vote free for the government they want. It is not inconceivable that centre right voters would plump for Mallard (he isn't particularly left-wing) and give their party vote to National.
He'll be hoping that's the case. But it does nothing for Labour's total seats.

Yes, if he'd been low on the list a  party vote may also have been ineffective BUT most people won't check where he is. They will just know he is on it. This way Mallard can make a big deal about the electorate vote being the only one that will return him.

Trevor's choice is the right one for him. It's the wrong one for Labour.

Isn't this a great election?

Update

In the interests of fairness and promotion of quality fiction, Trevor's version of events:

Mallard, the Hutt South MP, said he made the decision not go on on the list before the moderating committee met "in order to give people like Kelvin [Davis] a chance to be higher".
He said he did not pull his name based on where he expected to be put, saying his caucus ranking of 17 out of 34 MPs gave an indication of where he would fit on the list.

"It just gives him an advantage."
The decision was made in light of this year's changes to electorate boundaries which he says caused him to lose "more than half" of his 4825 majority in Hutt South.
"I've never ever taken an electorate for granted but I also really like being a constituency MP and only being a list one has no appeal at all."

Never stopped him using the list insurance in the past.

Conservative Party policies

The Conservative Party launched yesterday with an emphasis on these policies:

The headline policies of this campaign will be:
1. That referendum become binding on government,
2. That we stop dividing the country on the basis of race. All New Zealanders should have equal rights and privileges under the law
3. That we stop discounting justice. Those who commit crimes do the time they are sentenced to, with longer sentences for violent crimes, and a requirement that prisoner’s do some hard work to repay victims and society.
4. Simplify the tax system, closing loop holes, and the introduction of a tax free threshold that provides a tax break for all New Zealanders, not just the wealthy.

1/ Tyranny of the majority

2/ Absolutely although I would prefer to see the word 'responsibilities' substituted for 'privileges'.

3/  I like the idea of shortened sentences for good behaviour and demonstrated efforts to rehabilitate. On the other hand we have a serious problem with paroling dangerous people. I recently visited someone in prison who talked about the number of people he knew would re-offend on release. They were hellbent on pay back.

4/ Another I can't disagree with.

I hope Christine Rankin does stand. She's colourful and outspoken.

Update ACT criticises The Conservative Party tax policy here.

Discussing Child Poverty with Jonathon Boston

On National Radio today discussing child poverty with Jonathan Boston. There are interviews with three Year 13 students who have experienced low incomes in childhood, followed by an introduction to the book and our discussion (18.50).

In celebration of Gen Y

And the beat goes on...

Wellington High School had their music evening last night. The range of talents was notable. Classical  singing, playing, through jazz through to reggae, rock and blues. One of the bands, Head Chef, has just won the Wellington Battle of the Bands.

Here are two peformances (make allowances for the poor visual and audio recording). All 15 year-olds.

Guitarist Wayne Williams playing Friends, a Sungha Jung composition and my Sam singing B B King's, The Thrill is Gone, with Lawrence, Thomas, Bill and Sean and a guitarist

What socialists don't get

 This is a great summary of the economics socialists don't get. Too good not to cut and paste from NCPA:

While today's political climate is tense, agreement on some essential economic truths could help lawmakers get things done in Washington, says Jeffrey Dorfman, University of Georgia economics professor.
Dorfman identifies 10 important economic facts that he says policymakers need to recognize:

• Government only reshuffles wealth, jobs and income; it cannot create anything on its own, as it has to take money from some in order to spend it on others. Any money collected or jobs "created" by government merely replace the private sector investment and job creation that would have occurred had people been allowed to spend their own funds.
• Income inequality does not harm the economy. While the poor spend nearly all of their money, higher-income earners save some of their income, which is just as good for the economy as spending, if not better. Saving leads to more investment and greater national income in the long run.
• Paying low wages is not corporate exploitation. Just as businesses have to set prices according to consumer demands, they establish wages based on the supply and demand for labor.
• Environmental over-regulation drives up prices. Because the poor spend a greater percentage of their income, especially on energy, such over-regulation acts as a regressive tax.
• Education is not a public good. While we publically fund K-12 education, it produces human capital that is privately owned by each person. While many defend public education because it is a "public good," it is important to realize that the ensuing benefits of education are not given away for free.
• CEO pay may be high, but so is the pay to athletes and movie stars. Such pay may reduce a company's profits, but it does not reduce the pay of other employees, as their pay is determined the marketplace.
• Consumer spending does not drive the economy. Saving more and spending less of our income will lead to greater wealth in the long run.
• "Free" things provided by the government are typically low-quality and unnecessarily expensive.
• Injustices happen. The government cannot correct every injustice, and every time the government steps in to "fix" something, it puts costs on someone else. Affirmative action policies, for example, grant college admissions only by denying admissions to other applicants.
• There is no such thing as a free lunch. "Free" government services cost money. Similarly, raising the minimum wage gives money to employees only by taking away jobs and raising prices for consumers.

While liberals often focus their policy arguments on compassion, compassion cannot trump basic economic truths, writes Dorfman. All too often, government policies have unintended -- and harmful -- consequences.
Source: Jeffrey Dorfman, "10 Essential Economic Truths Liberals Need to Learn," Forbes, June 5, 2014.

Maori spam

Received this in my in-box:

Matohi Haumaru

Kitea e matou mahi pāme-rite i roto i tō pūkete webmail,
i te mea ki to tatou Use Policy Whakaaetia (AUP).


Aroha pāwhiritia konei: ki te manatoko e koe te rangatira o te http://ffhfjg-kfgj.webs.com/
  pūkete me te kore he kaiparaurehe.

Tatarahapa tatou no te poroaki, tenei kia meinga koe.

"Team Tautoko Tukutuku"
Copyright © Admin tukutuku 2014 Rights Reserved katoa.

Fortunately (and to my surprise)  Google Translate can facilitate Maori translation:

Security Alert

We see the spam-​​like activity in your webmail account,
It is our Acceptable Use Policy (AUP).


Sorry click here to verify you over the http://ffhfjg-kfgj.webs.com/
   account and not a spammer.

We repent of farewell, this may cause you.

"Team Support Web"
Copyright © 2014 Web Admin All Rights Reserved.

How many people claim a sole parent benefit unlawfully?

I have now had chance to look at the report released today, Growing Up In NZ.
Last report the children were 9 months; this report they are 2 years.


Total numbers reporting:

9 months 6476
2 years 6327
 
Numbers reporting being sole parents

9 months 439 (6.8%)
2 years  319   (5%)

Numbers on an income tested benefit

9 months 1062 (16.4%)
2 years  980    (15.5%)

Now, easily the most common form of benefit for people with dependent children is DPB (or now Sole Parent Support.) In 2013, 77 percent of benefit-dependent children relied on the DPB.

77 percent of those on a benefit at 9 months would equate to 818 of the study recipients claiming welfare.

Yet  only 439 claimed to be sole parents. Stunning.

I can also tell you that the data gathered under the Household Labour Force survey is being checked against benefit data and showing some significant anomalies. More on that later.

(The numbers reporting being on a benefit in the study are lower than mine but the drop-outs could account for the difference. Data released under the Official Information Act shows around 22 percent of babies born in either 2010 or 2011  were dependent on a caregiver receiving a welfare benefit by the end of the same year. )

How myths begin

Not on line yet, this appears on page 3 of today's DomPost:

This mixes two sets of statistics with a qualification in tiny print.

The left and right statistics are official data from Police and CYF.

The one in the middle is from a self-selecting poll.

Whether the ethnic proportions relate to the poll or official data isn't made clear.

But it won't be long before someone conflates the two.

(Even the call-out rate  to family violence incidents is wrong based on the number given:
525,600/87,000 = 6.)

Very odd numbers

About the Growing Up In NZ third report, the NZ Herald reports today:

Families Commissioner Belinda Milnes highlighted the study's findings on changes in the number of women without a partner, from 212 in the pregnancy phase, to 439 at the 9-month interview and 319 at 2 years.

There is something very odd about those numbers.

Of 7,000 children followed, at 9 months the percentage was 6.3%.

Whereas there are consistently around 20 percent of babies dependent on welfare by the end of their birth year. Most on a sole parent benefit.

Additionally, Counties Manakau has a higher proportion of benefit uptake than nationally.

I know the study has a reasonably high drop-out rate but the numbers seem, as I said, very odd.

One implication is that a lot of people who have partners are claiming a sole parent benefit. A lot.

The report doesn't appear at the Growing Up In NZ website yet.

The Glenn Inquiry

Find below what I wrote about the Glenn Inquiry just over one year ago.

So it came to pass.

A large majority of submitters were female.

The resounding impression is that the overwhelming problem lies with men.

Oh and the colonist-blaming conveniently pops up.

Māori were once a people who held in high esteem their tamariki (children) and wāhine (women) because of the treasured roles they had in their whānau, hapū (sub-tribe) and iwi (tribe). Nevertheless, colonisation brought with it new ways, including privileging the place of men, which rendered women and children as their possessions (Section 4, p127).

(Interesting to hear what Bill Ralston and David Farrar said to Larry Williams on NewstalkZB here. )

It is grim reading and I don't intend to denigrate the submitters. It's the tenor of the report itself.

 

June 11 2013

I've been vaguely following the Owen Glenn Inquiry melt-down which the NZ Herald seem particularly pre-occuppied with, providing an almost daily instalment.

What I keep noticing though is the slant on the subject of abuse. For instance in today's Herald editorial:

Like most men, he will be unable to fathom how any self-respecting male can do violence to a woman or child. He knows it should not be happening in his own country. He wants to know why it happens, what the police and social agencies are doing about it, and how it can prevented. So do we all.

Then from another piece by Simon Collins:

 Waikato University psychologist Dr Neville Robertson, who said on Friday that the think-tank hoped to make a collective response by Sunday night, said he told other think-tank members by email yesterday that he used to think it would be possible to end violence against women and children in his lifetime.

This tenor has struck me at other times. Collins describing the recruitment of now resigned head, Ruth Herbert:

Ms Herbert jumped at the chance, and by the time the inquiry was announced in September its focus had broadened from child abuse to include domestic violence - the issue she has campaigned on for much of her life.
"Seventy per cent of the child abuse cases also have domestic violence happening, mostly the father abusing the mother," she explained.

In an earlier editorial not related to the Glenn Inquiry the Herald once again took this position:

 The vast majority of child abuse is perpetrated by men.

In the interests of balance here's a quote from Professor David Fergusson of the long-standing Christchurch Health and Development Study:

 "The proper message is that both gender groups have a capacity for domestic violence [and] women probably perpetrate more assaults on children then men do," Mr Fergusson said.
The ramifications are a public health system that tends to overlook male victims of domestic violence.
One example was White Ribbon Day, which he had been critical of because it focused on female survivors of domestic violence and there was "no comparable day for male victims".
"It is those biases which have been built into our system right the way through it, largely from feminist rhetoric that implies that males are always to blame"

And from Child Matters:

Myth: Most physical abuse is carried out by men, especially fathers.
Reality: Physically abusive acts towards children are just as likely to be carried out by mothers as fathers.

The inquiry is supposed to be officially about All Forms of Child Abuse and Domestic Violence in New Zealand

Calls to restore benefits to 1989 level baseless

A new book called Child Poverty by Simon Chapple and Jonathon Boston will be published next week so the pre-release media activity has begun.

On The Nation today Lisa Owen interviewed Children's Commissioner Russell Wills and author Jonathon Boston:

Headlines:

Children’s Commissioner Russell Wills advocates restoring benefits in real terms to where they were a generation ago.
Wills: “So let’s restore it back to where it was when we were kids. I don’t think that’s unachievable.”
Prof Jonathan Boston agrees benefit system needs restructuring: “..people who are wholly dependent on the benefit now are almost a quarter worse off relative to other citizens who are in work than was the case a generation ago.”

As most of the child poverty problem is generated by single parent children, let's check that. A 'generation' back would be 1989 - before the 1990s benefit cuts.

According to the 1990 NZ Yearbook

Any of the above benefits with dependent children (incl. Family Support)
Solo parent and one child	249.14
Solo parent with two children	280.87
Each subsequent child	16.00
Couple with one child	291.08
Each subsequent child	16.00

('Any of the above benefits' refers to unemployment, sickness etc but it is important to note the rates include Family Support).

 Family support. The maximum amount payable is $36 a week for the first child and $16 a week for each subsequent child. Family support is provided to people with dependent children who meet income eligibility requirements. It is paid to income-earners through taxation (see section 25.2, Taxation), but is delivered to beneficiaries and non-earners through the social welfare system.

 Family benefit. This is a universal benefit paid at the rate of $6 per week to the carer of every dependent child in recognition of the contribution of families to the care of children. Its value has been $6 a week since 1979, and the direction of policy in recent years has been towards supplementing family benefit with additional assistance to low- and middle- income families.

Let's use the sole parent with two children example.

In 2014 dollars $280.87 (which includes Family Support but not Family Benefit) would be $509.14

Accommodation benefit. Accommodation benefit is for people whose income and cash assets are limited and who have high accommodation costs. The maximum rates of assistance at April 1989 were $40 per week for a single person, and $65 per week for a married couple. A supplement of up to $20 per week may be paid for elderly people and people with disabilities who are in residential care.

So even at the maximum rate of $40 (or $72 in 2014 dollars) that brings the total to $581.14

Finally adding in Family Benefit - $12 (or $21.76 in 2014 dollars) provides a total of  $602.90

How much is a sole parent with two children getting today?

Straight from the Minister's mouth:

“An average sole parent with two children under thirteen, living in South Auckland would receive around $642 on benefit, including accommodation supplement and a minimal extra allowance for costs.”

For simplicity's sake I'll table a breakdown for a single parent with two children aged under 13. Figures are all in 2014 $. The 1989 total is about half way between the highest and lowest 2014 totals (left click on image to enlarge).

Youth crime blamed on poverty

About West Auckland apparently:

Family structures are being broken under economic pressures and the facilities are not there to stop children from falling into a cycle of violence and poverty.

Family structures are not even formed in many cases, let alone broken. If a society is prepared to reward the worst impulses and absence of positive values in people, it can hardly be surprised at the result.


I was asked to speak on Leighton Smith's show last Thursday about youth crime in general (sparked of course by the latest West Auckland incident) and what I thought was contributing and if we could turn the ship around.

I talked about how violent incidents tend to stay within dysfunctional families. In this instance it has spilled over. But the dysfunction has been there for decades. The dysfunction that comes from making children a source of income and allowing them to be held hostage to their parents lifestyles.

I talked about the fact that young men  in prison are much more likely to be fathers. Criminals have more children.

Can we turn it around? We will always have criminality but yes we can reduce the number of children who are being born to parents with no financial or emotional ability to raise them. At least the current government has identified young people as their focus and are making greater demands on them in return for support and that is showing some positive results (albeit the results may be simply correlated.)

But there is no point in treating the whole population to cure a problem that rests in a small minority. We do not need to monitor every child and we certainly don't need to pour more money into every home with young children.

(I have probably mentioned this brief paper previously but the links between crime and welfare have been researched and proven. Worth a read:

" There are many factors contributing to the rise in juvenile violence and crime, from the glorification of violence in the media to the failure of the “war on drugs.” But, today, I would like to focus on a factor that has received far less attention — the relationship between the welfare state and crime." )

Red Alert - not so alert

Blogs reflect the level of interest, enthusiasm and commitment the blogger/s feel.

Labour's MP blog, Red Alert, used to be a very active place.

In election year an upsurge in activity would be expected.

Since the election date was announced on March 10, there have been 4 posts.

In April there were 0 posts compared to 18 in April 2013 and 49 in April 2012.

And I don't accept that MPs are simply too busy campaigning to contribute. Social media is a hugely important part of the campaign.

So what do you take from this?

Does Labour look like a party remotely interested in winning an election?

Instinct and babies

"I brought a baby into the world but I still had no idea how to raise her, how to change her, how to feed her properly....I had no idea at the time Del-C was born that when she cried it meant she was wet or hungry."

I read this out to my 15 year-old daughter and asked,  Would you know why a baby was crying? Well, yes, she answered. Usually if someone cries there's something wrong so you try to figure out what it is.

What is that? Commonsense? Or instinct? I thought a mother's response to her baby crying was instinctive. Does everything have to be spelt out?

She then said, When I'm older I should get a job inventing lame, pathetic excuses for people. I'd be really good at it. Better than that anyway.