Tuesday, 10 August 2010

Crapita, Crapco and Crapian over the moon with Dave

Welfare benefits (but not short-term national unemployment insurance claims) should be administered and awarded at neighbourhood level, by local benefit officers who know their claimants better than anyone. A local panel of lay assessors who live in the neighbourhood should confirm all awards, and local officers should have absolute flexibility in making awards and exceptional payments within a fixed annual area budget. The closer, smaller and more transparent the system, the less likely fraud, error and benefits dependency.

Instead of devolving welfare, instead of implementing the 'smaller State' he kept promising, Dave has fallen into the arms of Crapita, Crapco and Crapian, those corporate and oh-so incompetent Statist dags.

Let's be clear. In two years when it emerges that the government have paid £20 to Crapian for every £1 in benefits saved, when Crapco's benefits bounty hunters are found to have targeted not the feral underclass but the confused middle-class elderly, and when Crapita are shown to have violated the privacy of millions of innocent citizens it will be too late.

It didn't last long, did it? The honeymoon? Now scorning the voters, with every single suggestion recently invited from the public ignored by government, Cameron can jump into bed with the true love of his life - big Statist corporations. They must be creaming their strides in PWC towers.


Guthrum said...

It was bound to happen,Dave was always a policy free zone, the Public sector and Big business have just moved in to fill the void.

Libertarians kept shouting, we are now in a world of shit

Anonymous said...

A panel of lay assessors - yes and i will tell what may well happen. they will act as if the money was theirs - including moral judgement.
I needeed my broken arm treated when I was about 5 years old- back at the beginning of the war and remember getting 'assessed' by an almoner.

Raedwald said...


Yes, moral judgement - to ensure that the 'deserving poor' get their fair share but we're not paying for the feral underclass - the 'undeserving poor' to use our taxes to corrode us. Why not?

Edward Spalton said...

This is basically a return to the system of the Elizabethan Poor Law where the Guardians (usually the parson and Church Wardens) looked after those unable to support themselves and raised a rate on the parishioners for that purpose. The failings which Dickens pointed out so effectively occurred with rapid urbanisation, population growth and mobility of people. In my day any O level schoolboy doing history could have explained this without benefit of Crapita!

Switzerland operates a system of national insurance which gives quite generous unemployment benefit under strict conditions for a limited period. When that runs out, people are "on the parish" (local commune) and know that the money comes out of their neighbours' pockets. Also the local officials are better able to distinguish between deserving and undeserving cases. Switzerland's unemployment and "economically inactive" rate is vastly better than Britain's.

The very idea of doing this was declared anathema here in the social work teaching of the Sixties - when perverse incentives were also introduced for women of low attainments to make a career out of single motherhood. The very idea that there were "undeserving poor" was abolished.

As an employer I had dozens of youngsters resulting from this policy through my hands. They were mostly not unpleasant but had little stability. State education had succeeded in inculcating a strong sense of self esteem but had omitted to give them basic literacy and numeracy. They were not unintelligent and tended to regard money from "the social" as a sort of basic salary with casual earnings as a bonus - and the more nearly criminal the casual work, the better paid it is.
As we were offering full time employment, we had great difficulty in finding reasonable production workers.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure that "localism" in the sense that you describe it, would work that well in this case. Where it could be made to work is at the assessment level - right at the point of assessing whether or not the claimant had a genuine case.

An independent (locally based or locally branched) organisation could be paid to assess fitness for work - and there is plenty of work to go around - even menial but necessary work. If the claimant doesn't want to turn up for the assessment, then he or she has the benefit stopped until they do...or they get back to doing some real work.

That would put a stop to benefits being a "lifestyle" choice.