Will the poor pay for Thanet budget deficit?
Written by Matt B · first published 08/09/2008
I have said before that the way the council currently treats benefit claiments indicates a hole in the budget and now Labour Party blogger David Green has as good as said so.
According to the national average 21% of children in the UK are from families with out of work benefits. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (link) lists 12 wards where the percentage of children on benefits is at least twice the national average and Thanet figures twice on that list! Just under half of all children in parts of Thanet are likewise considered poor. 42.4% of kids in Newington and 42.1% of kids in Dane Valley suffer hardship.
The BBC (from whence come these figures) quotes Steve Ladyman being very upbeat about the prospects of lifting all Children out of poverty. I do not share his optimism and I will try to show you what I am so worried about.
Apparently the conservative group thinks "Thanet will Benefit from Conservative Family Policy" but what worries me is the implementation of that policy. Specifically the way Thanet Council's benefits department is reaction to the requirement that "budget managers indentify savings" which has a practical if unforeseen outcome that the benefits system is now somewhat like an out of control bucking mule and staying "on" is more art than science.
The increasingly aggressive attitude of benefits officers to the slightest exactitude of benefit rules has grown to the point of insolence and suggests to me that massive pressure is now coming from management to reduce costs. From what I understand customer service has been sacrificed for a "hard line" on benefits claims.
One gent carefully wrote down everything the officers might need to know on a single sheet of A4 and they acknowledged that they did not need any other information but would not accept the document (and therefore his claim) because it was not "signed". I am fairly sure (but am not a legal advisor) that should this go to arbitration the offer will find in the man's favour but it is the lengths officers are going to meet management requirements that worries me most.
Along with the mythical benefits "skiver" are thousands of families that can ill afford a few thousand pounds of additional yearly debt and yet it is these, the poorest people in Thanet, that are being forced to pay for the council's budget black hole.
Is this a party political action in rebellion to Labour's aim to make child poverty history, incompetent management or a failure to predict the credit crunch?
Another person I spoke to said he had their council tax benefit stopped because they were not able to prove (to the satisfaction of the council officer) that their five and a half year old was real in school rather than nursery. Frankly I fail to see how this is a "reasonable requirement" at all - it just seems like a mean and cynical way to save several hundred pounds by shafting a person unlikely to vote in the first place.
So I challenge the Conservative group - "say it ain't so" while to all I ask: "What are you doing to protect the most vulnerable in our community from the budget shortfall?"
As I have said else where - I am watching each of you councilors for the answer in real life and not only words. I may even vote based on what I see.
According to the national average 21% of children in the UK are from families with out of work benefits. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (link) lists 12 wards where the percentage of children on benefits is at least twice the national average and Thanet figures twice on that list! Just under half of all children in parts of Thanet are likewise considered poor. 42.4% of kids in Newington and 42.1% of kids in Dane Valley suffer hardship.
The BBC (from whence come these figures) quotes Steve Ladyman being very upbeat about the prospects of lifting all Children out of poverty. I do not share his optimism and I will try to show you what I am so worried about.
Apparently the conservative group thinks "Thanet will Benefit from Conservative Family Policy" but what worries me is the implementation of that policy. Specifically the way Thanet Council's benefits department is reaction to the requirement that "budget managers indentify savings" which has a practical if unforeseen outcome that the benefits system is now somewhat like an out of control bucking mule and staying "on" is more art than science.
The increasingly aggressive attitude of benefits officers to the slightest exactitude of benefit rules has grown to the point of insolence and suggests to me that massive pressure is now coming from management to reduce costs. From what I understand customer service has been sacrificed for a "hard line" on benefits claims.
One gent carefully wrote down everything the officers might need to know on a single sheet of A4 and they acknowledged that they did not need any other information but would not accept the document (and therefore his claim) because it was not "signed". I am fairly sure (but am not a legal advisor) that should this go to arbitration the offer will find in the man's favour but it is the lengths officers are going to meet management requirements that worries me most.
Along with the mythical benefits "skiver" are thousands of families that can ill afford a few thousand pounds of additional yearly debt and yet it is these, the poorest people in Thanet, that are being forced to pay for the council's budget black hole.
Is this a party political action in rebellion to Labour's aim to make child poverty history, incompetent management or a failure to predict the credit crunch?
Another person I spoke to said he had their council tax benefit stopped because they were not able to prove (to the satisfaction of the council officer) that their five and a half year old was real in school rather than nursery. Frankly I fail to see how this is a "reasonable requirement" at all - it just seems like a mean and cynical way to save several hundred pounds by shafting a person unlikely to vote in the first place.
So I challenge the Conservative group - "say it ain't so" while to all I ask: "What are you doing to protect the most vulnerable in our community from the budget shortfall?"
As I have said else where - I am watching each of you councilors for the answer in real life and not only words. I may even vote based on what I see.
Have your say (there are ) · read more items categorised Thanet · Don't miss a thing: Subscribe Today · Help: what's a feed? · This site is operated on set principles of policy and disclosure read them here
Rick wrote:
Take yourself on to entitledto.com
And take a visit to Gumtree (properties wanted to rent)
And you may well find adverts that are informative.
Like a recent one ... Wanted two bed house to rent by my son's girlfriend expecting their second baby. I want them nearer me so I can help with the baby. She gets full housing benefits.
On paper she and her two kids are in poverty ...
Now tap in to entitled to she is say working as an Avon girl (so she does not claim JSA and thus does not have to co-operate with CSA) then calculate her child tax and working tax credits and child benefits and council tax benefit and housing benefit and add what her boyfriend is really making working whilst officially living with his parents.
Now work out how much that typical impoverished household nets in a week. You should come out about 700 pounds net a week ......
The people who are poor on benefits are people who came to it after working for a living who are bewildered by the system. Those who make it a profession (nowadays aided and abetted by their parents) are on a good number.
Most of the people on long term benefits are in it for a way of life.
What I have run by the Social affairs Unit is what I call the "Lazy Susan" philosophy. (The fit dole clerk becomes unemployed and the incapacity benfits claimant takes his job ... thus replacing one sick person in the job market with one fit former underachiever ... the dole clerk)
I say that what is wrong with our society is that it rewards both indolence and low risk parochialism.
Hence the all work capability type testing for incapacity benefits claimants should be extended to all public sector employment. Those found guilty of low risk parochialism (taking work close to home, avoiding further education, avoiding private sector .. iE deliberately becoming public sector parasites like benefits clerks) opting out of meritocracy they would be sacked to be replaced by a disabled person.
Before we do that exercise of sacking public sector parasites we must outlaw redundancy compensation. Why reward a person for failing ? THus we avoid lump sums to public sector parasites and cut back the demand on the 700 billion pot we will need to pay their pensions.
Hence we can sack all fit admin clerks in the public sector, without comepnsation, and pay them reduced benefits for their lack of patriotism opting out of performing better service for their nation.
We have to stop rewarding low risk parochialism and promote meritocracy.