http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21756567

This is hardly surprising, really, and I can see that since I left the DHSS almost 25 years ago, nothing has changed with respect to the average claimant’s ability to manage their money. Given that they have so little of it, some have to juggle paying for food one day with putting money in the electricity meter for heat.

There are also those who are just incapable, and you can try to teach them all you want, they just can’t manage their money. And, yes, some will see it as an excuse for a spending spree - but they fall into the “can’t manage their money” category.

When I started at the DHSS, we were paying out the Supplementary Benefit. Part of this had what was known as “voluntary savings”. Your claimant could opt for a small sum to be deducted from their payments. If they wanted that money for a lump sum payment, they would ask for it, and we’d pay it out. Some used it for christmas money, some used it as a backstop, pregnant women would invariably use it for baby equipment. What was going on here was that people knew that they would spend all the money they had, and if they took away that initial temptation, they could actually budget for something. I felt that this was a pretty good idea. However, it was abolished when Income Support was introduced. We got quite a few complaints about it in the local office. People had to save themselves, and I am sorry to say that not everyone succeeded.

This system was replaced by loans - they could apply for a loan for something (note this had to be an approved item, not to allow people to go on a booze fest), and they would then have to pay the money back. It sounds similar, but I think the psychological idea of being “in debt to the state” was disquieting for some. The loans were more discretionary. I didn’t do any work in that area, but you could refuse to hand out a loan far more easily than you could to set up a voluntary savings deduction.

Supplementary Benefit also had a system called “single payments”. These would be generally for emergency purchases. For example, the tramp who came in with his balls hanging out of his jeans because they had holes in the (yes, really) got a single payment for a new pair. You may be able to have swung the the price of a pushchair if your old one had broken. With Income Support, again, more discretion, and they became either loans or the soon to be abolished “crisis loans”.

Another area I worked in was for handling fuel and rent arrears. If someone had fallen behind on their payments, we could liaise with the revenant outfit and get the arrears paid off a bit a week direct from the benefit. Again, under Supplementary Benefit people could elect to pay direct like this more freely. Under Income Support, IIRC, you had to go into arrears before this was done, and once you were out of arrears, it would be terminated (though the really vulnerable would be kept on). Again, a system that was designed to help people budget in very tight circumstances was made harder to use.

Now, all this sounds well and good for normal, right minded folk. They should be able to manage their finances, budget for gas bills, save for a pram without any help. But there are people who just seem incapable of doing so and they need mechanisms in place to that their money goes where they it needs to go.

So, I think that moving paying housing benefit direct to claimants is a bad idea. People won’t pay their rent with it, they will get into arrears, and become unstuck. A private landlord is going to be less forgiving than a council when it comes to arrears, and unless there are systems in place where this money can be clawed back by making benefit deductions, then I expect more evictions on the horizon.

Yet the government are squeezing their meagre incomes even more harshly than any other group. It will get worse before the end of the year as it is extended to all claimants. For example council tax benefit will no longer cover council tax fully so many will also have an additional drain on what ever funds that they have. Then housing benefit will be insufficient to cover accommodation so there could be serious problems for councils having to rehouse people because poverty is not an excuse for declaring someone intentionally homeless. So the costs will be transferred to bed and breakfasts accommodation which is anywhere between £300 to £500 per week, which is far higher than the housing costs that that caused them to lose their homes.

Isn't that so blindingly obvious that not even a damned fool would be stupid enough to change it..?

I think calling the current administration 'damned fools' would be incorrect. I think they're perfectly aware of what their changes will bring about.

And they simply do not care.

Oh they care. The only conclusion I've been able to come to looking at some of the decisions that are being made is they're doing it on purpose. There are patently members of the coalition who are intent on making being poor as utterly horrible a state as is humanly possible without literally going round setting fire to anyone who can't afford a Bentley. They are going out of their way to make dependance as sh!tty an existence as can be, while offering few or no ways to get out of dependance. It's not negligent, it's vindictive.

They dumped the mansion tax while reducing benefits for people who had more bedrooms in their state provided properties than the absolute bare minimum. They lowered corporation taxes while capping benefits. The made it much more difficult to claim invalidity benefit while doing nothing effective at all about tax evasion.

The message is clear - if you're not rich, they hate you and want you to live in misery.

The only problem for the middle classes who support this policy is that many of them are unbelievably close to suffering the same consequences if they lose their jobs. A friend of mine who is a solid Tory supporter struggled for a while when he lost his last contract/job. Though because he was self employed that made a big difference. In the end he had to take a big pay cut to get back to work. Though like most they doubt that they will never need it or cannot claim it, and so despise those who claim benefits.

It seems to be a well used right wing tactic - you find something not to like, demonise it and ensure that as many people follow suit. With the Tories, they’ve done it with clever story telling. Osborne’s man walking to work past the drawn curtains is a good example.

The thing is that these narratives are designed to be very compelling. It’s a shame that the opposition seem incapable of debunking them with solid arguments, or even creating their own narratives which people could identify with.

There are many who quite legitimately have curtains closed as people go to work. They could be on night shifts or some shift work. DJ's and bar staff might not get in till 5 am if working. They could be disabled and waiting for their carers to arrive to open the curtains. There could be a multitude of reasons for the closed curtains. Even those on benefits might find that a long stretch in hellish conditions simply prefer to sleep through as much of the day as possible to cope. Though that will change as their conditions improve. It could be a supermodel who has only had an offer of £9000 to get out of bed, and she refuses to get out of bed for less than £10 000. You are right that Labour have not attacked this narrative, but I think art of the reason is that they are also fixated on the same small tiny demographic that they perceive is crucial to the next election.

I failed to consider that. I usually go with Hanlon's razor.


That's a really nice example of social science in action.


lol. No supermodels here. Not sure I'd want one to be honest, from the little I've seen of them.

My curtains are frequently closed at this time of year simply to keep the cold out! It's sunny today though, so open to let the energy in.

That was a valid reason for anyone to keep curtains shut. I remember one home I lived in had lots of south facing windows. So the bedroom curtains were closed all day because you could not see the computer screen over the sunlight especially in the evening as the sun was setting. It also kept a very well insulated house cooler. During the winter you could do the same to keep the heat in.

I'm a big fan of it as well. And if it were once or twice that they introduced policies that made life for the poor worse off, I'd say 'OK, coincidence'. But it isn't. I can only think of one relevant reform that's happened/been announced in their tenure so far that doesn't make life worse for the low paid/unemployed. And that was a lib dem policy in the first instance that was guaranteed by the coalition agreement.

If someone does something once or twice, you can say 'well, they probably didn't mean it' but if they keep doing it, at what point do you have to assume it's intentional? Hanlon's razor equally implies that if someone does something repeatedly, it's intentional - because a series of accidents becomes increasingly improbable.

If you look at all the changes the coalition have made they are looking incompetent as well. I suspect that the prime objective is to slash spending so that they can cut taxes for the rich again.