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.

ssd - good for you. I also have worked to get a better life.

The thing is that many benefit claimants have got it RIGHT. Would I, as a SAHM, go off to work to be worse off? Course I wouldn't. So many people are making a clear economic decision. They are better off on benefits.

And for people to talk about poverty and lack of money is just inaccurate. There is often no shortage of money in benefit-dependent households. The point is is that if that household became a working household (assuming an ordinary sort of job) then they WOULD become poor.

agree with you there tiredemma, we would be in the same situation as you(dh's brother)

and the welfare system should be there for people as and when they need it, we might all need it one day

but it is definately a lifestyle choice for some, hopefully not many, but some nonetheless, who make it harder for the rest of us

right, kids are at school and I'm off the earn my £3.67 an hour (whoopeee!!)

ssd- your posts speaks volumes about the type of person that you are ( but you already know that I think that you are fantastic)

Your children are very lucky.

actually my dad would lose out on the criminal ting too

my dad's tale:

1 of 16, 2 siblings have criminal records.

dad- worked since he was 5 (used to push wheel barrows of coke- no not the hard stuff lol- and shopping for people on his estate; Nan was disabled, Grandad an alcoholic.

used to work each and e very houe God sent in order to buy us the extras- school trips abrouad etc.

made redundant 10 years ago at 55, most of his friends went into benefits claims as 'early retirement'; Dad, as former factory floor manager, took a job cleaning sausage amchines. yay him. Still doing it, will until he retires next year- had planned to keep working but factory can't afford to keep him on PT any more, credit crunch etc.

paid massive pension payments all his life; for one job then another.

Both pension funds were lost because of problems involving the way American law is applied in a by out (in America funds are considered assets and go with the company- in one case this was done deliberately for the firm to avoid a large asbestos claim. Alledgedly)

The European corts awarded the staff abck pensions earlier this year; pro rate but Dad would have something like 90%.

would.

problem is the other younger recipients are appealing every step, as they know the more older co-workers that die before the payout the better, as they will get a alrger share.

dad in the meantime will be on housing benefit / etc etc. maybe he will see oney from his pensions, maybe some other cheating bastard (sorry, but!) will get all his money. He already has heart disease and high BP, I suspect the latter myself.

So tell me why dad should be penalised for having dragged himself out of the gutter he was born into when his siblings diod not? To me, my beloved dad is the most deserving non-disabled (debatabe, I know both my aprents would qualify for mobility but they're too proud) person I know

Sorry- rant over

custardo, your post about the vast cultural changes required and - crucially - the tax revenue required to do so, rings very true.

Whenever I think about how a real 'rights and responsibilities' culture could be generated, my head begins to implode at the enormity of structural change that would be required. And even were there resources and political will to do so, it would be incredibly difficult to protect those who must be protected (children etc) whilst we pulled down the old structure, and built the new one.

how many required are required, i wonder? Sorry that last post doesn't make a huge amount of sense, but I'm sure you get the picture.

Forcing families to live on the streets due to a family members criminal activity would push people to commit more crime and as they would steal to eat and live. If you really see this country forcing families to starve or steal through draconian measures that really is a sad view. We have as a nation come a long way in the last 150 years and are living conditions are far far better, to revert backwards in a way that PolPot wanted is in itself criminal and sadly sickening

the criminal thing is stupid. it doesn't even warrent discussion.

so here we go again: persecuting women as 'single mothers' but without first going after the men who fathered these children and targetting them for these welfare-to-work programmes.

typical misogynistic bullshit.

tiredemma, you are far too nice to me

thank you

BTW my mum is still going, well, not strong,!, but she's still here which is what counts! hope all of your family are well!

So, a good Work Ethic is to work all hours you possibly can, putting extreme strain on your relationship, handing your kids over to someone else for a large chunk of the money you have earned, being substantially worse off financially than if you were claiming benefits, being so tired at the end of the day you can't enjoy the benefits of working - not that there actually is a single one if you are on minimum wage anyway...

I can see how that would be a reason to call long term unemployed Underclass and uneducated.

It doesn't make sense that travel expenses and full childcare costs aren't factored into the Tax Credits system, and that in many, many cases people are working for less than the government decided they need to live on. What on earth makes you think that's good?

I hope you aren't refering to my posts?

These threads always kick off when things are tight, nationally. This country has a long history of blaming the poor as if it were contagious. We've always had social problems, we've always had problems with women getting drunk and spending the food money (because that's what causes the social problems, to be honest, we've never really trusted men with anything important enough to fuck up so royally it ruins a generation). But then we have easier times, and people forget, and luxuries become rights.

Then, when things get tight again, and the luxuries have to go, people feel like their rights have been taken away. And people who feel like their rights have been taken away are angry people, and angry people want to kick someone.

I'm not married. I have two children and I've never been married. It wouldn't have made any difference if I had been married, I still don't know when to keep my gob shut and take a punch, so I'd still have kicked the ex out. But my children are not bastards. They are little boys. Squeakypop, you have been belligerent, insensitive, needlessly spiteful, derogative, judgemental and cruel. If anyone on this thread is failing to live and think and speak as a Christian, it's you. I have met kinder shoplifters than the views you have displayed on this thread.

Godzrest ye I agree with some tings in your post- travel for example, costs us a fortune and there were times when he firstwent back to work after time off that the petrol cost almost broke us; I don't agree with 'you can't enjoy the benefits of working - not that there actually is a single one if you are on minimum wage anyway.' though- because when I was on a real y low wage, pre-minimum and well below the minimum level now, I did feel pride that I put the second hand clothes on my back. Silly? perhaps

I don't think there's anything wrong with secondhand clothes. When the twins were born the charity shops were a godsend - if they weren't there my children and i would have been starkers (), though now clothes from primark and supermarkets are almost as cheap. We would still be relying on them if Primark and Asda hadn't moved into town.

That said, if we had even less money i would not be moving house ever, as we couldn't afford to pay top up on the rent. This is not an option for me, neither is reducing money on food, or heating, or water. The very small amount we spend on trivial things per month is what keeps us (semi) sane. I refuse to let my pride come before my family.

I am not trying to say people shouldn't want to provide for their family without claiming full benefits, because i would love to do the same, but to imply that every person who has been unemployed for a long time is lazy and doesn't even want to work is basically wrong.

I didnt think yu were implying that- just excplaining what I got from low paid work. Oh I agree about 2nd hand clothes, well i'd better or i'd be nekkid LOL and nobody wants that I can assure you!

Totally agree that not every person who is out of work is lazy, I certainly didnt mean you to think I meant that if I did, gawd my Dh attended over 200 interviews in his longest period of time off, besides am on benefits myself (carers) and although I am naturally lazy chance would be a fine thing!

Truth is I know there are the lazy ones out there but I suspect they are a very tiny number; I suspect the greater number of people that could be called 'underclass' if you were so inclined had sky high hopes of a fine future- and it got destroyed bit by tiny bit until there was no belief left in anything much. You only need to speak to any child about the future- rocket scientist, artist, dancer..... not yet heard claimant.

Didn't mean you particularly (can't remember who's said what now anyway) Peachy! Just the atmosphere in general. The first two pages of this thread nearly made me cry, so i skipped most of it until the actual point i joined in!

The sad thing is, there isn't only a small amount of fraudsters. When DH is on his Work Placements or in the jobcentre he finds out there are more and more people claiming and doing work on the side, or/and drug-taking or/and being alcohol dependent or/and neglecting their kids (spending their money on illegal substances rather than food for their kids).

I will not be lumped in with scum though, hence the angry sounding posts.

Ah fraudsters are different to claimants though; one is legal one is a criminal

I know what you mean about being lumped in with scum, ws accosted by an old lady today and called a fraudster- apparently all us mums of disabled kids do is tell the GP kid is Sn then phone up DLa and ask fro cash

Bad timing too- we've got a possible dx meeting for ds3 on Mnday (after 3 years wait) and today I was n my way to his last school concert before going to special school as he can't cope any more

And the reason for her aggression? Apparently the help the government gives fraudsters like me is the reason she doesn't get interest on her savings any more (My Dh works and we save a few piounds- we don't get it either!)
There is karma though; she's alone and we were going to ask her for Christmas drinks. were. Now I know why she is alone.`

Mmm. Sounds like she's one of the people Colditz mentioned who blames anybody else for her problems - even if there's nobody to blame.

Poor DS3 - i'm not clued up on what you mean by dx but ikwym about not coping with the mainstream school anymore. Hope it wasn't problems caused by the other kids. There was a girl in my DDs' school who has Down's Syndrome and was a few years behind the rest of the year, but she didn't move because she couldn't keep up with the work, she moved because she was being bullied

sorry- dx is diagnosis, he's somewhere on the autism scale

the kids have been fab up until now- mothering the cute toddler like one, as they age he's getting left behind which is sad but absolutely normal I think