"Do you remember that Daily Mail headline in June, 'David Cameron warns feckless parents who expect to raise children on benefits'? The one written by James Groves?"
I said I did not. Arturo tutted some more: "It quoted your 'Boy David' Cameron going on about some TV interview he had given. He said:
‘The biggest change I want to make as Prime Minister is to change the values where if people do the right thing, work hard and try to support their families we reward them and if people do the wrong thing they get punished.’Remember it now, do you?"
After Arturo's promptings, I did remember it. To read the Daily Mail article go to:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002195/David-Cameron-Families-children-afford-it.html#ixzz1fOqF6f6b
Arturo's reminder was very timely. The whole business of 'fecklessness' has reared its ugly head again, this week. Who raised it? None other than the 'Silent Man' Iain Duncan Smith. The pity is the man does not live up to his moniker. He just cannot keep his mouth shut!
The Guardian had an article written by Robert Winnett entitled:
Feckless parents would only spend extra benefits on themselves, says Iain Duncan Smith : Giving more money to poor families will not help the issue of child poverty because feckless parents will spend it on themselves, Iain Duncan Smith warned on Thursday night.
Really! Just how does he know that? Has a scientific study shown that 'feckless' parents rush straightaway to the bookies or the pub as soon as they have got their grubby hands on some dosh? Or is this a 'gut feeling', the same 'gut feeling' that 'Boy David' Cameron had in June? Maybe, 'Silent Man' Duncan Smith and Cameron just think through their guts - leaving their heads and brains for other things such as insulting the poor!
In his article, Winnett wrote:
The Work and Pensions Secretary said that increasing “benefit income” simply pushes the “family further into dependency” and makes it less likely that their children will ever escape from poverty.
He warned that extra money provided to dysfunctional families may simply be spent on drugs or gambling, rather than on helping children.
Mr Duncan Smith decided to intervene in the debate about child poverty amid growing controversy after decisions taken by George Osborne, the Chancellor, in the Autumn Statement were estimated to push 100,000 extra children into poverty.
It seems that the government is thinking about a change to the definition of 'poverty'. All I would ask is 'why would they want to do that?'. The answer can only be that they want to fiddle the figures so that children on the borderline of poverty are deemed as not being in need of extra help. Talk about 'Victorian Values'! No doubt, we'll soon have 'Workhouse Values' with the 'deserving poor' and the 'undeserving poor'. Oh, I forgot - can't have workhouses - we're cutting down on welfare! Duncan Smith and Cameron better just say: 'Let them eat cake' instead!
Winnett's article quoted from Duncan Smith's speech at the London School of Economics, in which he said:
I believe that increased income and increased well-being do not always follow the same track. Take a family headed by a drug addict or someone with a gambling addiction – increase the parent’s income and the chances are they will spend the money on furthering their habit, not on their children.
Winnett commented:
He (Duncan Smith) indicated that rather than ploughing more funds into benefits and other handouts, government money might be better spent on providing nursery school places and health visitors for disadvantaged households.
Similarly, providing relationship support or help for parents to return to work was likely to pay long-term dividends for their children.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8929809/Feckless-parents-would-only-spend-extra-benefits-on-themselves-says-Iain-Duncan-Smith.html
So there we have it - don't give the money to the families - provide nursery school places, health visitors and relationship support. What guarantee is there that in the interim between setting up the nurseries, health visitors and relationship support - young children won't starve? Also, has 'Silent Man' Duncan Smith not heard that his Lord and Master Cameron is hell bent on cutting public services? So, Clever Clogs Duncan Smith who will provide the support?
Arturo and I have mulled all this over. I suppose we could be considered 'feckless felines'. After all, we haven't caught a Downing Street rat for days; we've lived off sardines and turkey twizzlers discarded by the Interns. But, 'Silent Man' Duncan Smith! There's always tomorrow. When we see a rat approaching your trouser bottoms - we'll be there. So who'll be feckless then? Remember - given the opportunity and understanding even the so-called feckless do the right thing.
'Bye'
No comments:
Post a Comment