Saturday 30 May 2009

Chain mail limbo dancing

Just a quickie to depress you further and to hammer your just prejudices deeper in.

A colleague of mine read a customer's letter out to us last week.
This customer had been trying to persuade a benefits decision-maker to give him more money to live on.
He complained that he only got such-and-such for Jobseeker's Allowance (the routine welfare payment for those fit young men too gormless to persuade some dippy doctor that they have panic attacks, agoraphobia, or Depression), and so much Housing Benefit to help pay the rent.
He didn't mention his Council Tax Benefit but then folk on Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance have their entire bills paid for them by the local authority and after a few years on the dole they forget - if they ever knew - that they have any Council Tax liability at all.
'I don't pay Council Tax' shall be the whole of the law. The Poll Tax rioters should be spinning in their graves.

So anyway he wrote; clearly and politely in prose that could have been that of a suburban housewife describing the high cost of living, that what with one thing and another he just couldn't afford to make ends meet, and so he hoped that the decision-makers could see their way to upping the payments made to him. Then came the clinching and final very matter-of-fact sentence which I paraphrase here only slightly.

'If you don't pay me more I shall have to shop-lift or steal money to manage, and I'll get even more fines and then how will I manage?'


Do you see what he did there?
He went straight from expressing in some detail his dissatisfaction with the Welfare State through to his sole conceivable option of breaking the law and violating the property rights of others, and then straight on to anticipating with self-centred regret how the consequences of his crimes would impact his own comfort and convenience.

It's my contention that the underclass are a kind of aristocracy.

The purity and blamelessness of their pain and their insoluble and eternal helplessness absolve them from all moral responsibility and especially the duty to ever, ever exert themselves for their own support other than by insisting that the tax base and the tax collectors do so.


We may well deserve it for taking the Half Crown ourselves, but welfare advisers in the bloated bureaucracy are on the receiving end of daily abuse and
why-me whiny self-pity as people complain that their benefits have been stopped because they failed to 'sign on' and how do we expect them to manage?

I love that one.
I fantasize about saying, perhaps the day after I see the Lottery jackpot clearing in my bank account (or failing that the day after a Conservative government announces that there will be no more 'hardship loans' and interim Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit payments based on 'nil incomes' for people who neglect to do the one simple, easy thing that they are expected to do to feed and house themselves, which is to attend the Job Centre for half an hour once a fortnight) that I never heard of them before today and therefore that I have no personal plans, opinions, or ambitions regarding their future managing behaviour and prospects.

No, strike that 'behaviour'. They don't connect their behaviour with outcomes in their lives at all, (' It's not my fault - the Job Centre messed up') except for their ability to browbeat or wheedle some bureaucrat to simplify and indeed to perform the task of supplying and filling in a new claim form and suggesting wordings whereby a decision-maker might change their mind and allow benefit payment back to the start of the sanction.


The other one I like is when someone - usually young and single and childless and gormless complains that they've rented a flat and that it turns out to cost twice the maximum amount of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit that they are entitled to due to their age and state of health. How do I expect them to be able to afford to live?
What were their expectations, I wonder, when they signed the lease?


The underclass are an aristocracy: an aristocracy of weakness and failure.

They aren't subject to the same laws as we are and they are absolved lifelong from personal responsibility for their subsistence, breeding, housing, clothing, and entertainment. They are surrounded by brow-beaten and servile lackeys who seek to extort from some distant and unseen peasantry (that'll be you, dear reader), the means of their subsistence and pleasure.
And the threat is there - always there - of violence: violence to the lackeys or, failing that, to anyone who insists that they pay their fines, attend interviews, return overpayments from fraudulent claims, or to reply to correspondence.


The Normans: ruthless and murderous looters though they were, at least got around to building great cathedrals and endowing monasteries and universities. I suspect it'll be a long time before the country feels any lasting benefit from this aristocracy from importing
Chinese-made trainers, Burberry caps and plasma-screen televisions. Forever, possibly.

This lad could only think of theft to support himself in the absence of more generous welfare payments, and so I wondered who set the bar in life so low for him?

Who persuaded or taught or showed him that if 'they' didn't support him, he'd have to start shoving burgers or vodka or iPods into his tracksuit pants to make ends meet?

It was someone who met him long before us advisers and the other lackeys.


So - apart from me -
cui bono?

Perhaps they and he might get together and come up with better ideas of how he might support himself in the future. They might do it best if they went off on some outdoor pursuits event together, to provide themselves with lots of healthy fresh air, inspiring countryside and the bracing exercise that comes with taking part in extreme sports.







Might I suggest wireless bungee jumping?

8 comments:

Goodnight Vienna said...

The boy's conclusion made my jaw drop, my mouth gape and my eyebrows shoot up - not a good look! Why I should be astonished I don't know since we read or hear about such things every day. It isn't going to correct itself: someone has to grasp the nettle by the stinging end now before even more generations are blighted by this in-bred fecklessness. But, I'm not sure Cameron has the guts to be even more unpopular with some sections of society than Thatcher.

JuliaM said...

"It's my contention that the underclass are a kind of aristocracy.
The purity and blamelessness of their pain and their insoluble and eternal helplessness absolve them from all moral responsibility and especially the duty to ever, ever exert themselves for their own support other than by insisting that the tax base and the tax collectors do so."


Better not read this blog. It won't do wonders for your blood pressure:

http://winstonsmith33.blogspot.com/

North Northwester said...

"I'm not sure Cameron has the guts to be even more unpopular with some sections of society than Thatcher."
Goodnight Vienna, it's not even as if this need be an electoral problem for Cameron. Sure, the whole Guardianista class would rise up in arms, but Mrs. Thatcher went over the Left's intellectual heads again and again and was repeatedly re-elected. She spoke to the fear of the working-class of crime and the Soviets and the unions, and bolstered their desire for better lives. Funding-out the underclass will appeal to 'hard-working families' in just the same way.
Few men who are obliged to leave their wives in bed at six AM to reach a lousy factory for eight, and who never see their kids go to school are going to weep if the street-fighting doleys down the street find themselves forced to find work. Few women are going to worry if their squalling, cosseted neighbours whose brats bully their children have to do likewise.
Conservatism is about trusting the peoples' feelings as true and real.

Julia, thanks for the link - it looks like WS33 and I are in the same racket. Another good turn I owe you.

TDK said...

even more finesSuggesting that he "suffers" from being fined by us heartless buggers at least once or twice before.

If so it seems that he expects the state to actually pay his fines for him.

Why not? The logic is that he has actually learnt the lesson at school - his poverty is caused by other people's relative wealth. [We'll gloss over the fact that the urban poor are statistically more likely to be victims of his crime].

I can improve his proposal in only one way. Rather than fine him and increase his benefits to pay the fine we ought to "cut out the middle man" and just fine anyone who has the temerity to actually be better off than him. Not only would that mean he wouldn't be fined at all, but we would streamline the process - everyone wins.

On that basis, can I just point out that fantasising about winning the Lottery amounts to criminal conspiracy.

North Northwester said...

TDK

we ought to "cut out the middle man" and just fine anyone who has the temerity to actually be better off than him.

Which is at the heart, I think, of the ideology of the very teachers, social workers and other fine, upstanding statists who generated his sorry attitude. Marxism the underclass can beleive in.

TDK said...

I've noticed on blogger that comments frequently lose a paragraph break after an HTML close.

eg. in my comment I started a new para after the first line.

This seems like a bug

paulo said...

Some of your writing is poetry but I'll not quote.

The powers that be will get you in the end - be careful.


paulo

North Northwester said...

Thank you Paulo for your kind comment, and welcome.
I suppose they will catch me one day, but my attitude is far from rare -even amongst the rock-solid Labour vote in the benefits advising world. All but a few of them are utterly cynical about this new nobility's worth to the rest of us.
Thye just can't step out of their outdated tribal collectibvism at election time to do anything about it.

 

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner