The 'Underclass'. Discuss.

[MrsSeanBean]

I am coining the term the media use to describe people living in similar circumstances to Karen Matthews - never worked, 7 kids, 6 dads, largely feckless and with no apparent aspirations.

Do we have one? Why?

Who or what is responsible?

When did it all go wrong?

What can be done to resolve the situation?

Answers on a postcard please.

yobbish behaviour, drug abuse and alcohol abuse aren't limited to the 'undercalss' you know. Its everywhere. Brother works in films so meets rich people and he reckons everyone is taking something, gets plastered at these bashes and many neglect their kids.
yobbish, anti-social, destructive and vile behaviour with the greed and me me me culture is throughout society.

Most of it has been quite depressing Wilf. It got sensible at around 6pm yesterday evening and then went COMPLETELY SWIVEL-EYED late last night, it seems...

Sure Start and the Council Housing in this area do make people think the worse you are, the easier it is to get things handed to you, which i why even though i am on benefits i don't bother with the Sure start schemes, as ime i take one look at the other parents attending, and run a mile in the opposite direction. Ok i may be judging the book by it's cover, but i'm normally right.

"Making people work for benefits would be IS a vicious circle. Our local branch of a chain store is currently receiving £30 per head for 'employing' staff from 'In Training', which means people on benefits who receiving an extra £15 per week. This store only employs it's actual paid staff for four hours each per week, and while they tell every 'In Training' worker "If you work hard you will most likely get a job at the end of the three months", they either say goodbye and that's it, or they offer you the four hour contract at the expense of one of their proper staff. So yes, slave labour ahoy.

they only employ their paid staff for 4 hours per week?
wtf is that all about? Some kind of legislation-dodging, I assume?

needmore coffee, who was the upper class son of a lord who kept getting his name in the papers in the 80's through spending all daddys money on drugs and booze and probably woman aswell? He was going to be disowned due to his bad habits and being a druggy

Dont know if he is still alvive or whether he would be dead of liver disease by now.

Jamie Blandford? He's still alive. Christina Onassis was his step-sister for a while and used to have to get him out of scrapes / lend him money etc... She came from a terribly abusive and emotionally bereft background

Lots of second, third, fourth marriages, tangled family situations and chaotic home lives amongst the upperclass now you mention it. Of course the children are more sheltered and have stability and continuity in the form of nannies and schools.

See thes urestart that funded my last job had the opposite problem to hat is described here- in that most 'good' provison was monpolised by the middle class mums who knew how to work the system, get their anmes on lists early etc. this was aprticualrly true of the nursery provisions and gardening classes- all allocated on a ward basis, a ward that was 90% in need and 10% affluent seemed to have the opposite make up if yu looked at the people we had attending.

Yes - Jamie Blandford (far from Bland) I couldn't think of his name, yet it was forever in the gossip papers back then.

Do you really think the dc are more sheltered in a family like this? They may have money, they dont go hungry for food but abuse is abuse and just as bad whether rich or poor. Often the behaviour can mean they are excluded or nanny changes as they cant cope with them, so stability may not actually be there either.

The money changes things, it stays hidden and money can pay of to keep things silent or people silent....

You are quite right. I should have said, "appear to be more sheltered". Princes William and Harry had two godawful parents and very difficult circumstances to deal with while they were still very young.

It was a genuine question, still tossing that about as to whether the money makes a difference and perhpas softens the blow r not (jusry is still out in my mind?)

money probably doesn't make any difference - except the ability to hide it better.

A poor alcoholic/drug addict will most likely look the part, whereas a rich one would be able to still afford expensive clothes, and someone to look after them.

Yes a rich druggy doesn't have to break other laws to get the money to feed their habit - not at the start. Even then they will steal from their own family when they need to and that can be covered up ,,,for a while at least.

I think the basic difference to the underclass and the working class is in the name, the working class will work, no matter what, as they have a strong work ethic and would rather earn a few pounds than get it in benefits

and before anyone starts screaming at me, I'll try to explain myself

we have been on very little money since ds was born, 10 yrs ago. dh worked shifts for the first 7 yrs and I had to work around his shifts, we have no family help so free childcare is just a dream here. so I childminded, worked in an ironing shop, cleaned pubs, basically did anything that would let me work flexibly and whenever dh came home I went out to work.

at the time we also got working families tax credit, as we had less than £15k, ever with both working. but any earnings of mine brought down the amount of tax credits we earned, so I sometimes worked for around £3 and hour, taking the loss of tax credits into account.

I've been working now since ds was 9 weeks old, I've tried everything, babysitting,cleaning,home help,pub work,everything I do I declare as earnings and so lose £'s in tax credits. now I work in a pub doing odd shifts and getting minimum wage. my neighbour hasn't worked for 8 years, lives with her partner (who workd casual cash in hand for a few months a year)and claims every benefit known to man. she told me she has her rent and her council tax
paid. she also told me she can't afford to work and see's no reason to get out of bed for a pittance and then laughed at me when I told her what I do. she thinks she has one over people like me, the working poor.

THAT is the difference between the underclass and the WORKING class.

no i dont think thats the difference ssd, part of it certainly.

underclass means the poorest of the poor. and was first used to describe the black ghettos created in america post war, becuase white firms wouldnt hire black people so you got poor jobless, no hope for a job, locked out f labout market.

if benefits and the benefits system is encouraging people to stay out of the job market then this needs looking at - but we must be very very careful here becuase it is my experience that the long term unemployed scrounger types are off on long term sick - not officially unemployed at all - i rather venture its quite hard to stay registered umeployed for long with out going on a scheme or something.

but what we dont want to create is [more]ghettos of uneducated and unemployed.

ssd, you would be entitled to paid childcare as well as long as you work over 16 hours a week and your OH works f/time. The problem is if your hours vary and sometimes dip under 16.

I agree with you ssd.

the job I'm doing now varies in hours, its not 16 hours every week, so we don't get help with childcare (but thanks for the advice )

custardo, I understand what you are saying, but to "stay registered long time unemployed" is something my neighbour and probably others are quite adept at, she has told me what I should say to the "social" when I try to claim jobseekers allowance (she gets this too) and she said she knows how long she can get benefits for before the social get on her case, then she does a short course to prove she is willing to retrain then goes back onto all the benefits at the end of the course

I hopetogod think there aren't too many like her, but to me she is the underclass, not willing but able to work and so try to improve her life

Ssd- Cant you get get childcare help if your hours average out at 16 hours over a four weeks period?

A girl who I used to work with at Bupa would work various hours but these would average out at 64 hours over the month. The Tax credits said that this was ok?

(hope you are all well btw xx)

Go and clean your house tiredmama. And turn Jeremy Kyle off while you're at it.

Sorry, emma. Can't read!

also this phrase is interesting "we don't want to create [more]ghettos of uneducated and unemployed"

how do we teach the children of my neighbour that it is better for your self esteem to get out of bed early, get dressed, go to a boring/menial job that pays £5.77 an hour, knackers you in the process, loses you a third of your £5.77 to tax credits (take home hourly pay £3.67 actual),pay your rent in full and all bills

or stay in bed all morning, claim all benefits and never have the inconvienence of a job getting in the way of what you want to do with your day, get help with your rent and council tax, have your dp work cash in hand now and then and drive a better car than your working neighbour?

I mean where's the incentive if you haven't been brought up with a strong work ethic to then get a job?

I know people didn't agree with what I wrote previously here but at least it would stop scroungers from sitting in front of their tv all day

hi tiredemma, nice to "speak" to you again!

TBH I'm so used to working when dp is home I don't use childcare, also I can't work so much during school holidays due to the lack of family help, so I don't think my hours would be 16 a week, they average about 13-14 a week

I know my situation is my choice, I'm trying not to complain, but I see the life my neighbour has and I know she'll pass it onto her kids and I don't see where it'll end

i don't doubt that these people exist ssd, buti think they are the minority. with the new workfare introductions she will probably have to work anyway.

so we will still have an unerclass culture with people working in low paid low skilled jobs.

the scivers that i know of are on long term sick, and aren't really sick at all.

i knowa family member who gets disability benefits because she can't read or write and has been termed as having severe anxiety.

it is not worth her while financially to work.

she can read - slowly - she needs help and encouragement. but she has no incentive to move from her current siuation

"If any member of your close family commits a crime then all benefits stopped for all close family members forever. This would mean parents might bring their kids up not to be criminals"

I have a problem with this statement ( you are entitled to your opinion of course).
My brother can perhaps be described as 'underclass' and has a criminal record. I have never been in a police station in my life, never broken the law, never fiddled the system.
Why should I pay for my feckless brothers actions?