Gorgeous pouting Blair babe, Caroline Flint MP, is shocked by her discovery, on becoming housing minister, that 50% of adults in ‘social housing’ (i.e. directly or indirectly state-subsidised rental property) are unemployed. She wants them to be forced to look for work on pain of losing their tenancies.
Leave aside the typical New Labour paternalism (“You! You, there! Do what we think you should do or we will punish you”), it is the apparent incomprehension of the life of the poor from someone who purports to represent their interests , was a trades union research officer for eight years, and has been in parliament for 10. Does she have especially efficient caseworkers who keep her well-insulated? Or is she just grossly innumerate, mimophantic and patronising, even for a member of the political class?
Of course a huge proportion of those in social housing are unemployed. It would be obvious to anyone not in receipt of massive tax-free housing benefits themselves, that if you have small income, then you will live wherever is cheapest. And social housing rents are the cheapest there are, even cheaper especially after housing benefit is applied. Even if you want to sleep on the streets, New Labour has probably tidied you up.
50% of those in social housing are unemployed naturally enough because nearly 100% of people who are unemployed for any length of time are going to end up in social housing as the best deal available to them. And available to them as a priority. I might be tempted to save £250 quid a week and move to the slightly less pretty environment 100 yards away – but it ain’t available to the likes of me. That is true whether their reason for unemployment is idleness, or genuine incapacity, or rational reaction to the benetax system making them worse off taking low-waged work.
Changing those conditions and letting people make a new set of their own choices is unthinkable. In our new age of moralitarianism, you are to be personally monitored, and if not doing whatever is deemed good for you, you shall be personally compelled. A British mutawa, a department for the suppression if vice and promotion of virtue, cannot be far away. The values of non-smoking, non-drinking, sexually orderly, cautious on-line, un-inquisitive, skill-seeking, non-migrant, safety-conscious, nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear, pro-social “hard-working families” must be defended against the pollution of those who practice other – a fortiori bad – lifestyles.
I don’t see what’s so wrong with this. People who receive government money (unemployment benefits or public housing) can be asked to do something for the money they recieve. They always have the option to not take government money, and then they’ll be free of government nagging.
I’m in favor of putting the maximum obstacles in the way of welfare recipients.
Living on welfare is definitely a vice, and it’s the task of the welfare authorities to fight this vice and save taxpayer money. I wish they would be more active in this respect.
What does mimophantic mean? That’s a new one on me.
Not me. I am in favour of abolishing state ‘welfare’ completely and finding social solutions (such as charity). By its nature, state action must be rules bases and rules can always be gamed. Private charity can be ‘judgement’ based, which is a far better approach.
Oh, Caroline Flint is an horrendous woman who has, needless to say, never done a productive day’s work in her life.
As to welfare; IMV libertarians tend to get the cart leading the horse, which is one reason we remain an unpopular marginal group. You can take out your bile on “welfare recipients” by abolishing welfare, throwing them out of their homes, forming them into chain gangs, kicking them out into an underperforming economy. Or, you can start off by freeing the economy up, allowing real economic growth, stop handing out billions to Ms. Flint’s social class (media studies, Penge Polytechnic, entire working life as nonjobbing parasite) then let the economy take up the employment slack.
It’s a question of which end of the stables you start clearing the shit out of first. Progressive collective socialist whatever creates unemployment and social dependency. Get rid of the broken ideology, and the consequent ills will in time be solvable. Using compulsion to attack the symptoms won’t free us from the cause. Flint and her evil kind (she is beyond doubt a living embodiment of pure evil; this is the woman who as a junior health minister decided that health warnings must deface bottles of fine wine) are the cause of problems which they then demand “tough measures” to solve; which won’t solve the problem anyway, of course, but that’s not the point- they stoke class hatred to avoid the population seeing that their true enemies are people such as herself, and to increase their control over the population.
Also bear in mind that this is only going to be directed against certain groups on welfare. There’ll be no demands placed upon their long list of protected groups. It’s the usual progressive hatred of the indigenous poor. There’s nobody a Fabian hates more than chavs.
Well, yes, but in the meanwhile…
Guy defines mimophantic thus:
Attributed to Koestler: “A mimophant is a hybrid species: a cross between a mimosa and an elephant. A member of this species is sensitive like a mimosa where his own feelings are concerned, and thick-skinned like an elephant, trampling over the feelings of others.”
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/008581.html#106522
(the jump to #106522 doesn’t seem to be working, just ctrl+f it)
What did we do before Google?!
Love “moralitarianism”.
Caroline “Skin” Flint is by no means “gorgeous”,but that is bye the bye.What Flint fails to understand is that the people she is talking about are not the cringing poor but the “look at them sideways and they will kicj your brains out ” poor.
The likes of Flint should keep her head down and her mouth shut,the Chavs are stronger than her class.At the present time the Chavs do not realise this,but when they do,the fierce anger at what has been done to them and their country will sweep the political class away.
Errm, worth looking at that number again. It’s not the number of unemployed. It’s the number of economically inactive. She mentions that the rate is twice that in the general population. No, no one thinks that there are 25% unemployed (even with incapacity benefit etc) in the general population.
The 50% number includes early retirees, mothers of young children, stay at home housewives etc.
Just to add to what I said earlier, about which end of the problem it would be more useful to approach- look at housing prices. These are ridiculously high, far above what should be rational market prices. This makes it hard for poor people to independently buy or rent private sector housing, and pushes them into the benefits system. The government uses state housing planning to keep prices high, to prevent cries of “Oh Noes, negative equity!” from people paying a £500,000 mortgage on a tumbledown broom cupboard.
So let’s campaign to end state subsidy of property owners by abolishing the planning regulations, thus allowing property prices to fall to a genuine market value. Any takers?
The 50% number includes early retirees, mothers of young children, stay at home housewives etc.
Thanks, Tim. No doubt Louise Casey is being sounded out as potential head of an uniformed taser corps to chase such slackers towards the nearest JobCentre Plus as we speak.
IanB,
You can take out your bile on “welfare recipients” by abolishing welfare, throwing them out of their homes, forming them into chain gangs, kicking them out into an underperforming economy.
Quite. Which is of course the government’s policy, too. For myself, I share the late Auberon Waugh’s distaste for the popular punitive urge. There’s more joy in heaven for a mid-rank bureaucrat moving to the private sector than a dozen welfare recipients bullied into soulless borderline employment. And in the taxpayer’s pocket, too.
Ian B,
Yes. You’ve got a taker for abolishing planning controls. If you own land you should be able to build whatever you want on it. The only law that’s needed is one that says you must have comprehensive insurance (against it falling down or being sued for blocking your neighbour’s view etc.)
My reaction was much the same as Ron Brick’s: the thought of a finger-wagging, lip-pursing, nannyish British Mutawa trying to coerce the Chavs into their view of “virtue”…
BWA HA HA!
Ian B is right. Free-up the economy and much of the issue evaporates. He’s also right about the assault on the chavs. I’d add that the chavs don’t like the likes of Ms Flint much either.
As far as the protected groups is concerned, I think this wins the cigar*. I’m really beginning to think these turds admire the sharia system and that Guy’s mutawa idea is not too far fetched.
Oh, this is rot from Ms Flint (just seen her on the telly and am now searching eBay for a scold’s bridle and a ducking stool) because, what exactly does “agreeing to look for work” or taking a state-approved course in applied crapology mean? Frig all. It can be (to quote Perry) “gamed” very easily. But let’s assume this does work. Well, local authorities are under a statutory obligation to house the homeless (at least with kids) anyway so DWP is just shifting the blame. Someone is going to house ’em and we’ll pay regardless.
Guy, can I vote for Dim and Disingenuous?
*Which of course you won’t be allowed to smoke.
“Moralitarianism” and “benetax system”. Two wonderful coinages, thank you!
I, too, applaud Guy’s neologisms. “Moralitarianism” is a word I hope now to use at least once per day 😀
“Benetax” actually sounds like something the wankers might actually enact. Remember the LibDems idea of negative tax-rates for the poor?
being sued for blocking your neighbour’s view
Au Contraire. I see no reason why someone shouldn’t be able, nay encouraged, to build a house in the shape of an enormous cock (with double garage balls) directly in front Gordon Brown’ gaff in Fife.
“[As] far as the protected groups is concerned, I think this wins the cigar*….”
That’s hilarious. Will the dole amend the forms to suit this newly introduced martial status or would they like to keep it hidden from the other applicants. I’m looking forward to the screeching of the tabloids should such a thing be introduced in my own neck of the woods.
As for C. Flint I’d say dim, then disingenuous as a way of covering up original dim, then dim again and so forth and so forth.
This is so obviously a piece of NuLabor bullshit, designed to get a few headlines in the Daily Mail. Council sink estates are the bedrock of the Labour Party, the idea that they will evict harmless doleites is laughable.
I have come round to the idea of the citizens’ wage. Three grand a year for everybody, rich and poor. No dole, no incapacity benefit, no housing benefit, no attendance allowance, no child trust funds, no tax credits, no old age pensions. We all get three grand, and any little job you get on top does not affect it. At present, if you are on the dole and getting housing benefit, you would have to be mad to take a part time job. Anything you earn would be clawed back off your benefits, and the paperwork would drive you mad. If you have a bit of get up and go you might do a bit of work for cash, at least my way is more honest. However, it would put a load of DSS data losers out of work in Geordieland, so it will never happen.
Guy
Re your last para:
Reports today say that consideration is being given to add fluoride to the nation’s drinking water. It wouldnt be too difficult to add something else as well to keep us all somnolent (akin to the rumoured bromide of our NS days).
Guy,
So, you think it’s better to be on welfare than on a “soulless borderline employment” ?
A strange view, I must say, very progressive.
In my old fashioned view, any employment is better than the dole.
Don’t get me wrong, I love to loaf around, did it a lot too, but not on somebody else’s money.
How very NuLabor. They are interfering with our purity of essence. I wonder what General Jack D. Ripper would do? These are the End Times it would seem.
I loved this quote:
Alan Walter, chairman of the Defend Council Housing pressure group, said: “This is obviously part of a long-running strategy to try and stigmatise council housing as housing of last resort. It runs alongside continuing blackmail on tenants and councils to privatise council homes, asset stripping public land for private development and forcing people into the private market.”
What can anyone add to that? The entire socialist mindset encapsulated into two brief sentences!
Gorgeous? her? You must be joking? Or are you just desperate?
Yes, I am sure Guy did not have his tongue in his cheek when he wrote that, Sherry.
Well she has a BA from The university of East Anglia in American Literature and History.
Nick M and I would give each other and old fashioned look about there, and vote dim.
She probably won it on the Sale of the Century too!
She has never met “poor” people. They exist only in textbooks for her.
She also has no idea that it is her socialist ideology that has made them the way they are, and now she wants to punish them!
Back in the 70s, if you signed on, if there was work available, the Social Security sent you for a job they thought you could handle. What happened to that?
Job Centres. And there was much higher unemployment back then.
I have mentioned this before, but worth mentioning again, as it relates directly to the dim and disingenuous one.And because it gave me such pleasure to hear.
She, the architect of the no smoking ban has been forced to move her office, because the Palace of Westminster has designated the area directly outside her office window as an offical smoking allowed zone.
But all the smoke is now billowing in through her office windows!
Gives me a glow almost a intense as Wales winning at the rugby on Saturday!
Well, I’d give her one. But I wouldn’t respect myself in the morning.
Ah, American Studies.
That explains a lot. It’s like doing a French degree except the language component consists of not putting a “u” in “colour”.
The Job Centre (Now Job Centre Plus). Last time I was in one they had a sign up proudly announcing that last month they’d got jobs for 48(!) people. This was a big dole office, there was probably about that many working there (if you include the back-orifice staff).
Coincidence?
I’m not sure about the unemployment rate from the 70s compared to now. A lot of people are not countered if they doing shitty training courses via New Deal and a lot of others are doing utter shite for UKGov. Example. There’s tons of IT courses on offer to the unemployed. Mot are dismal and qualify you for almost nothing… Except “teaching” similar courses. Ask any of the folks who put these on how they got into it and 95% will say they got the job after passing a similar course. And round and round we go. we’d be no better off if half the unemployed were paid to dig holes and the other half paid to fill them in.
That’s why I think the likes of Flint are thickies. I genuinely don’t think they see this. They don’t see that training isn’t something ordered by the square metre and that it has to be of some external usefulness or it’s of no more utility than paying people to watch Diagnosis Murder and have a wank of an afternoon.
Which brings us neatly back to American Studies.
What about Hazel Blears, Ian?
Harriet Harman?
Patricia Hewitt?
Clare Short?
Or all five simultaneously? (Think of it as a really bad Spice-Girls fantasy).
Flint isn’t even a Borderline Boiler (You Mind says “No!”, your nuts say “Go!”).
I have my moments of depravity but I can’t even conceive of such awfulness.
For shame, Ian. For shame!
What would they be called, Nick?
Moralitarian Spice, Moralitarian Spice, Moralitarian Spice, Moralitarian Spice and Bulldog Chewing A Wasp Spice, perhaps?
Hmm… surely this can be remedied by some ‘social employment’ (directly or indirectly state-subsidised job positions)? There is quite a lot of that already, or so I hear. Moreover, it would be great for the employment statistics, right? I am sure Caroline Flint would be quite comfortable with that.
Ian B – The Old Spice Girls?
I suppose if Ms Flint was that bothered about the unemployed she could sack her husband and give his secretarial job to a jobseeker. Surely they don’t need both wages to make ends meet?
Oh Gawd! She isn’t up to her elbows in that kind of thing as well is she?!
I think we should get Ian B to do a sketch or two of our favorite politicians, with our suggestions from Nicks list above, and favorite positions, hell, indeed combinations!
Clare Short is a right goer I’m told, after a couple of lines of coke, and doesn’t mind the bag in the slightest!
Good God RAB, even I have my limits!
Good for you son!
A man’s gotta know his limits 😉
But on the other hand,
Claire Short and John Prescott
could sell millions. With or without the bag on his head!
Think about it 😉
“High political office: getting ugly people laid since 1736.”
That would get you a royal Warranty if Charles were King.
Considering who he knocks about with 🙂
I shall refrain from commenting, RAB. Our new readership (see above) would consider such phrases as “like a welly top” sexist.
She is not bad looking at all, problem is that her personality shows through.
I’ll tell you what I want, what I really really want!
I am with IanB’s stance of improving the economy as a way of lifting people out of unemployment.
The real issue though is the State’s monopoly over subsidised housing. If it were a plurality of voluntary groups then the state would not have this idea that “their” housing is being filled by – and I agree with hints made by others – the indigenous unemployed. The remit of the State should be in regard to if the level of benefits received is warranted, and then that should be that – the voluntary providers of housing would be the ones who are final arbiters over who stays in their places and the State would, by the very nature of the arrangement, remain outside. We would also see a dramatic reduction in crime and low level disorder in such places IMHO if the true threat of eviction with no rehousing was a known consequence. The State, as landlord of last resort has created a rod for its own back…but it likes that kind of thing, I suspect.
Never you mind, the new rules on concubines and additional wives will not affect Council housing, for they do not make 6 bed des res’es. Expect the State to go out in typical imbecility right into the peak of the market to buy up a stock of mansions* so they can carry out their “duty of care” to their future masters.
As to Caroline Flint, she is a hatchet-faced harridan with the “angler fish” look about her the way she shoves her boney chin out all the time. I bet the end of her tongue glows in the dark.
p.s. CBI is all well and good theoretically, but it is not a question of where we want to be, but where we are and where can we go. A £3k CBI will not pay for anyone to live in the South East and to move people from the existing structure to that is a nightmare. Raise it to a level to take into account all the benefits, make it universal and income tax rates will become outrageous. Income tax shoudl be removed not entrenched due to a redistributive policy.
* from certain people not totally unconnected with the local authority…
RAB: Yes, Ms Flint employs her husband, and gets very snippy indeed when asked about it.
Alisa: I think that about nails it.
Roger: I’d like to do away with all so-called benefits, but that is not politically doable. Paying everyone a citizen’s wage could be. I think people might find they could live on the £3k if they could legally do other work on top, but if not, they could always move. Loads of Scousers live it up on the dole in seaside towns as it is.