On Welfare Reform

Something that's been tickling me for ages is how many people seem to think that the Government's welfare reforms actually will make things better for vulnerable people.

I'll start by admitting something quite uncomfortable: there's quite a bit of it I agree with.  I cannot live in the Lake District- where my wife is from- or Central London because I cannot afford it.  I therefore don't see why people who have never worked should be able to live there, their rent paid for by me.  I had to move somewhere cheaper because of my wage, my wife the same, so I don't see why everyone else shouldn't.  That's life.  As for the argument about it affecting "larger families": good.  I have one child because my house is too small for more, and I cannot afford a bigger house.  I have one child because I can only afford one child.  If another person wants five or six children then fine, that's their choice.  Providing they pay for them.  If they don't then that's their problem.

However when you look deeper into things, the populism of that viewpoint starts to unravel. 

Take the reform into the "new simple" Universal Credit.  The way the benefit is calculated is amazing:  you take a personal allowance, an allowance for children, an allowance if you're unable to work (very different to being disabled) and an allowance for your housing costs.  You then have a disregard on your income of anywhere between £700 and £9000, depending on your circumstances.  Unless you have housing costs, in which case that disregard is removed at the rate of £1.50 for every £1 of housing costs help you get.  After the disregard you lose 65p of benefit for every £1 you earn.  Confused?  I am, and I'm an experienced welfare benefits specialist adviser.

When the policy idea first came out of one Iain Duncan Smith's "think tank", they reckoned that the minimum to help "hard working families" was a reduction in benefit of 55p for every £1 earned; I'd expect it to be a smaller reduction than that, unless taxation is radically altered.  So the Government have added 10% to that and expect people to swallow that?  The fact that people have, willingly, seems to justify Governmental pessimism about the nation's intelligence.

It gets even better with Personal Independence Payments (PIPs), the replacement for Disability Living Allowance.  This new benefit will help disabled people live their lives and engage fully in society, apparently.  There's a checklist of things they expect you to be able to do and, if you can't, you get points.  Points mean prizes.  So far so good.  What is surprising is what they award points for and how they define things.

Take dressing.  If you cannot dress the top half of your body, you get four points.  But if you cannot dress the bottom half of your body, you get three points.  You need at least eight points to get the lowest rate support or twelve for the higher rate.  So, at least according to this Government, a disabled person can engage fully in society whilst wearing no pants.  I'll let you know whether that ever stands up in court as a defence to indecent exposure.

Similarly, take "bathing".  If you cannot bathe then you get a shedload of points; if you can, you don't.  But they take bathing to mean washing your face, torso and underarms.  If you can wash yourself in an armchair using baby wipes then you're ready to engage in society without any help.  And the smell of your feet will guarantee you a seat on the bus, so all's well that ends well.  And because you're not wearing any trousers the drizzle on the wind will wash everything else down there.

The moral of the story?  Don't be so harsh on the man on the bus with cheesy feet and no trousers, the Government have told him that he's fine to be out in society.  After all, bankers' bonus pots and Vodafone's profit and loss account are far more important.  Remember how we're all in this together, folks.

Up to the rigs and down to the jigs in London Town

It's been a while since we have been away, so we trekked off to London this weekend. Ostensibly it was to visit the Queen (not really) but really it was to go see Sodbaby's Godmother M and comprehensively quality test her cocktail cabinet.

Well, Sodbaby had a wonderful time. She saw the Queen's house ("who's the fairest of them all? ME"), she saw lots of squirrels, she saw some lions and tigers at the Zoo. She saw Peter Pan's big clock at Westminster. She made friends on the train, friends on the bus, friends on the tube (city types playing boo FTW), friends in the canteen at HM Treasury. And she was spoiled rotten by M and her husband, who Sodbaby decided should be called The Postman.

There's just something about that girl and I'm really not sure what it is. She's clever and pretty (I'm her father, I would say that) bit that's not it. She just has presence, she makes friends everywhere, she gets strangers on rush hour tube trains playing with her. I don't know how she does it. I'm so proud of her. As her Godmother says, she's skipped the Princess stage and gone straight for Empress.

It was wonderful to get away and so nice to see old friends. It's this sort of weekend that makes me sad all my friends are scattered to the four winds. I just don't get to see everyone as often as I'd like. The only positive is at least that having a friend in every town saves on hotel bills, and I'm enough of a dab hand at rail tickets to snaffle a bargain. It's just finding time to see everyone.

On a tangent, Sodbaby will be two next month. She's not really a baby anymore, as anyone who knows her will testify. Ideas on what to call her? She thinks ma'am will do but I'm not quite ready for that yet...