Interesting that it took an avowed feminist liberal called (name escapes me! Oona Cameron?) to point out on last week's Question Time BBC1 that the State pays teenage girls to get pregnant so they can receive council house accommodation.

Posted by: niconoclast at November 13, 2005 08:32 PM

As it has for years. When I was a rookie schoolteacher, about 20 years ago, I lodged with the Deputy Headmistress. She told me that she regularly had to try to talk 15/16 yo girls out of getting pregnant for the Council House that went with it. They were quite upfront with it. And this was a very quiet rural High School !

Posted by: Paul at November 18, 2005 11:12 AM

Is this for real?
Punish teenagers for the ills of society?
Get some history. 150 years ago the Isle of Dogs was a no-go area for ordinary Londoners. Riots were frequently spilling out into surrounding areas. That was alienation for you.
If you want to find out how to kill pregnant teenagers and their babies properly, go and see the new verson of "Oliver Twist".

Posted by: Richard at November 26, 2005 12:00 PM

I thank Richard for his comments. He suggests, as I understand it, two things: First, that alienation in British society was greater 150 years ago and, second, that the new version of Oliver Twist should be regarded as a good source for understanding of the level of alienation at that time.

I am afraid I do not agree with either proposition. I have dealt with Dickens as a historical source for 19th century England before (use the search facility and put in the word 'Dickens' for more on this). In brief, Dickens was writing about the first half of the 19th century, not the second. Secondly he was writing melodramatic fiction and not attempting to give a rounded, accurate, factual picture. In the case of Nickolas Nickleby, he actually had to withdraw the assertions he had made because they were so far from the real situation. He is not, in the main, a good source.

As for the real state of alienation - and crime - in 19th century Britain, the key historical point, I believe, is that the situation changed substantially during the century. At the beginning, Britain was pretty lawless and dangerous. By the end, it was remarkably safe. The trouble with much of the teaching of the 19th century in British schools is that it does not bother with this extremely important and interesting development.

In the 'The Welfare State We're In' I quote the specialist in 19th century history, Jose Harris, on this subject.

Posted by: James Bartholomew at November 28, 2005 12:36 AM

The key, in my opinion is an understanding of the benefits culture that has become worse and worse under labour. What I mean by the term “benefits culture” is that it has become both possible and acceptable to live one’s life entirely without working. James is right to suggest that this is because the working poor are heavily taxed. I would also emphasise the effect of both the level and the availability of benefits.

The truth is, that for many people, it no longer makes sense to do a low paid job. Walking down the street in which I work (Leicester), numerous boards advertise jobs paying £250+ pounds a week, that very few people would be unable to do. They offer transport, and the jobs require no qualifications. Why is there a problem with recruitment at this end of the market? Because if you can claim IB (for example) you’d have to be mad to work. The real benefit of a £250 wage compared to what you get on IB is significantly reduced when you factor in your free prescriptions, reduced council rent and council tax, and a whole host of other benefits.

The problem is that this clear logic dictates benefit dependency as a lifestyle choice; a ‘career’ if you like. When this occurs, perfectly healthy people begin to see benefits as a ‘right’ that ‘the state’ has to provide them. There is a failure to see that benefit consumption takes money away from other people, the NHS, education, and so on. The link between the benefit for the individual, and the sacrifice on the part of everyone else is broken. There is no reason for individuals to strive to be independent, self-improving citizens – what’s the point when all your hard work merely means a loss of benefit, and the chance to pay NI?

I believe that the economic and the social are inextricably linked. If we prevent vast swathes of society from becoming economically independent as they grow up, they will never become socially independent. They will never understand the way that a society has to work: fair rules and give and take between members. We must be (a little) cruel to be kind. We must break the dependency culture by reducing benefit levels so work makes sense. We must also implement proper tests of disability by independent medical practitioners.

Posted by: Ale at November 28, 2005 10:18 AM