The DWP's Valentine's Day Message

On Valentine's Day, the DWP charmingly sent this tweet out:

Claiming to be living alone is one of the most common types of benefit fraud – don’t ruin #ValentinesDay by failing to declare your true circumstances https://t.co/tZuNYZ5fer pic.twitter.com/ahutOO6NUy

— DWP Press Office (@dwppressoffice) February 13, 2018

And my friends, I took umbrage.

Long ago, in the distant mists of 2012, Tom moved down from Newcastle and in with his parents. He didn't move in with me straight away. We hadn't ever spent more than a week together in one go. We hadn't been together two years. He had just got a job but we didn't know it was going to work out at that early phase. It would have been foolishly optimistic to move straight in together. When you already have two very small children, you do not want the upheaval of a 'new daddy' moving in only to move out a few weeks later when you realise that actually, you can't fucking stand each other.

So, we lived apart. I assiduously tried to find out the cohabiting rules from the DWP, about what counted as living together and what didn't. This was ludicrously difficult information to obtain. You cannot just phone the DWP and ask them because this will arouse suspicion, and provoke scrutiny and you get enough scrutiny on income support as it is. You can find the current rules here. You may notice that they are OBSCURE AS HELL, and there is no more palatable version for the recipients of affected benefits. These rules can be used to define almost any sexual relationship as living together as a married couple, whether the sexual relationship persists, whether or not money is shared, whether abuse is present, whether the relationship is happy. I wouldn't let Tom sleep here more than three nights in seven, I wouldn't let him keep any of his stuff here, I wouldn't let him contribute to any of the household expenses. Even though he categorically was not resident here, I was still terrified that the DWP would decide he was and force that arrangement to become permanent before I was ready, or worse, prosecute me.

When Tom did move in, after a year of this anxious situation, I cancelled my income support the same day. It was the greatest relief.

Here's the thing. There is no room in the DWP's rules to allow you to have a trial run, to make a mistake in relationships and undo it quickly, unless you have considerable external financial and practical support - the sort where your boyfriend can live with his parents without issue, or where you can afford to run two households while you get to know each other. You either declare that you're living together immediately, or you break the law.

It is overwhelmingly single mothers who are prosecuted for breaking this law, as they are claiming the benefit in the first place. Those who are prosecuted are usually in abusive relationships. The partner is not prosecuted. The partner is blameless according to the law.

Single mothers are a great target for abusers. Income support doesn't really give you much money, and usually the shortfall is made up in tax credits when you begin to live together if your income remains low. However, income support automatically entitles you to maximum housing benefit for your house in your area, free school meals for older children, and maximum tax credits as applicable. It is a useful gateway benefit. And it can be held over you by a man who wants to live under your roof for free, abuse you, spend your money, and then threaten you with "If you try and leave, I will shop you to the DWP". This is not recognised or allowed for in DWP rules - they are very clear about an abusive cohabiting relationship still counting as living together as a married couple. Financial abuse is often one of the first signs of an abusive relationship developing, and being on benefits means you are additionally vulnerable to partners exploiting the anxiety and dependence inherent in that way of life.

Since the two child tax credit rule was brought in, there is an additional very real risk of declaring cohabitation too early in a relationship if you have more than two children and have been single since before April 2017. You WILL lose tax credits for any more than the older two. You will NOT get those tax credits back if the relationship fails.

There are some advantages to being on income support. There is reassurance in knowing that you get a certain amount of money at the same time every week or month. There is reassurance in that safety net, particularly when the rest of your life is a mess. You don't get much, and there is almost no financial room for anything to go wrong in this situation. You can't save up for a crisis. But it's more reliable than a zero hours contract, more reliable than hoping someone will swoop in and save you, particularly when someone you loved has let you down. It may be the first time you've ever had to manage your own money, the first time you've truly lived independently.

But in return, you surrender your freedom to run your romantic life as you choose. You surrender your freedom to decide when to make a casual living arrangement permanent. The state decides if you're living as married, according to a set of rules that could apply to almost every single relationship I know; serious or casual, with children or not.

It's a hell of a price to pay for being a single mother.

Stewart Jackson: Redux

It's election time once more! Last time, despite my pleas, Peterborough foolishly elected Stewart Jackson as MP once more by a scant 1950 votes. And, as his leaflet dropped on our doormat the other day, let's take a look at the Life and Lies of Stewart Jackson.

So, the front page. Stewart Jackson stands with Theresa May, as you'd expect really, considering he's a Tory. He's hardly going to claim he hates the bitch and would make a much better PM. There's also a photo of him beaming in front of Peterborough guildhall and supporting a bee protection charity. That's ironic since he's consistently voted against climate change protection measures.

Within the leaflet, he marks out the work he's done for the area, like blocking the solar energy farm that was going to be built on Newborough fen; raising a petition about Werrington freight line  - he doesn't mention it submitted before GE2015, went unanswered, and the plans went to the secretary of state three months ago - and trying to improve the A47, which is underway, notably with the FUCKING AWFUL traffic lights at Wansford A1 junction. Such a trooper. In fairness to Stewart Jackson, he does write to the cabinet with questions pertaining to Peterborough (most of which already have answers available in the public domain), and voted in around 85% of all votes. He pushed for Brexit, which is no surprise, and he's even curbed his expenses a little. He's very proud of Peterborough's low unemployment rates. He also claims that the NHS is his top local priority, which is an absolute joke considering his voting history.

His voting record remains a catalogue of misery for anyone who isn't an older, healthy, white, heterosexual, salaried, homeowning British citizen.
He has consistently voted against gay rights, race laws, benefits being raised in line with inflation, and increasing jobs for young people. He has voted for the bedroom tax, for restricting disability benefit, for restricting disability benefit to those who have been disabled from birth/youth. He has voted against limiting letting fees for tenants. He has voted against people with cancer receiving extended ESA, He voted for the tuition fees raise, for the academy system, and for the various bills undermining the NHS. He has voted against ID cards, but for mass data retention (the Snooper's charter). He voted against a right to remain for EU citizens. He has voted against special provision for military families in the welfare system. He has voted against slowing the rise of rail fares. He has voted against nationalisation of public transport.
Of course he has, he's a Tory.


The rest of the leaflet is given over to the words of The Great Leader Theresa May. Theresa swears she has set out a clear approach to Brexit, which...has she? Really? She says she has a strong negotiating hand. The Tories have been openly mocked by the rest of the EU and Theresa May has demonstrated that she couldn't successfully negotiate a child's bedtime. We have nothing to negotiate with, except tax haven status,
And then, in a rehash of the last election, we are told our election choice is Strong and Stable Leadership in the National Interest OR A COALITION OF CHAOS with Jeremy Corbyn and Tim Farron. DO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME, CONSERVATIVES, THAT A COALITION GOVERNMENT WITH THE LIB DEMS IS A BAD IDEA???

The leaflet then tells us that Trump winning was a shock, even though Theresa May fell over herself to rush over there and hold his grubby, orange mitt. Brexit was a shock, even though the Tories definitely wanted it and it's gonna be amazing, honest guv. And Corbyn winning two leadership elections was a shock.

Maybe Britain is fed up of your lying bullshit about caring, Theresa. Maybe hardworking British families, who are also apparently irresponsible benefit scroungers, have had enough of your shit, of your punishing the economically weak for the faults of the strong, of being told if they would JUST WORK HARDER, they too could be RICH. Maybe normal British people fancy someone with a bit of integrity, someone who is decent, who inspires faith in the politically inactive. Someone who hasn't promised on national TV to NUKE THE WORLD, you fucking bloodthirsty maniac. Maybe the national debt going from five hundred billion pounds under Gordon Brown to a staggering ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND THIRTY BILLION POUNDS in just SEVEN YEARS of Conservative government doesn't inspire a lot of confidence about your FUCKING ECONOMIC NOUS, which has always been the Tory selling point.

People are dying under this government, unnecessarily. The NHS is being stealthily dismantled, as is the social care contract. We go headlong into Brexit, fronted by a vindictive racist who couldn't lead herself out of a paper bag; who thinks you will vote Tory because you think they're a safe pair of hands. They aren't.


All voting information from They Work For You. Economic information from UK Public Spending. Leaflet published by Matthew Dalton on behalf of Stewart Jackson. Vitriol my own. 

Tax Credits

So, I signed the petition to repeal the 'rape clause' that forms part of the tax credit policy now. And today, I received a government response which amounted to "you should have complained about this eighteen months ago, tough shit". But one paragraph absolutely INCENSED me:

LET US PARSE THIS STATEMENT

"Families supporting themselves solely through work" are either not claiming the tax credits they are entitled to, or earning more than the income threshold (£25000 for one child, £35000 for two). Look at those thresholds: they are Quite High particularly as the average annual income is £27000. The vast majority of working class families qualify for tax credits. Remember the 'hardworking families" trope? That's them.

"do not see their incomes rise automatically when they have more children". No, but by earning more than the income thresholds for tax credits, they already have a considerable scope for a much higher income. Two children on £35000 a year is very different to two children on £45000 a year. There are always people who fall into the cracks of being just over the threshold, but frankly if you struggle on £36k p.a. with two children (as one who has been doing so on much less for years) learn to budget better. A great deal of necessary public sector jobs have low and locked in salaries - an MAU staff nurse in Peterborough can expect a starting salary of between £22 and £24k; a newly qualified teacher's income is capped at £22k in their first year - which automatically classifies them as both poor and according to this government, an idiot with no idea how to control their fertility unless you threaten them financially.

"The policy encourages families who receive benefits or tax credits to make the same financial decisions about the number of children they can afford to support as those families who support themselves solely through work"

WHERE TO FUCKING BEGIN? The fucking PATRONISING language - "we ENCOURAGE the IDIOT POOR PEOPLE to STOP BREEDING". The whole idea that Only Rich People are sensible enough and rich enough to have more than two children. The idea that people have children for tax credits - yes, the difficult pregnancy, birth and eternity of care I invested in my third child is definitely worth the £50 extra a week. And separating those who claim tax credits - 4.43 million households out of approximately 18 million in the UK at the last ONS count - from those who don't need to as though that is a fair and just way of dividing the nation's fertility choice. Previously, those who were on income support or JSA were the Undeserving Poor of the nation. Now, apparently, it's to be extended to anyone on a low income regardless of how much they work or what classification of job they have.

"while protecting the vulnerable by retaining extra support for families with disabled children." DON'T MAKE ME FUCKING LAUGH. I have a disabled child, and believe me, I had to TAKE THE DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND PENSIONS TO COURT AND THEN THREATEN TO DO IT AGAIN to get them to pay the money rightfully owed to my disabled child. They don't give a single solitary fuck about disabled children.

None of this stops me or anyone else from having thirty two children if I want to, but the fact is that most low income households have included tax credits as part of their forecast income when deciding to have more children, and now they will have to stop doing that. There is an uncomfortable element of eugenics inherent in this policy that reminds me of the Victorian era when it was widely believed that poverty and poor moral behaviour were genetically linked. Stop the poor people having loads of kids and maybe there won't be any more poor people to worry about! Never mind fixing the causes of poverty and social inequality, just financially sterilise them!

But for a whole host of women, this family cap is going to be a real fucking issue. You see, it is applied to children born after 7th April 2017 and to "any new claims". So, if your circumstances change in the near future, and you suddenly find yourself applying for tax credits for the first time, little Imogen the Third Child won't be counted. If your partner moves in, or out, that counts as a new claim, so you may be absolutely fine now as a single parent of four, but if your boyfriend moves in, you will suddenly find two of your children are apparently not eating all your food, requiring clothes, using energy etc.

My situation six years ago was nothing uncommon - boy meets girl, boy marries girl, boy impregnates girl, boy fucks off without a backward glance. I only had two children when I was dumped, but had it been another two years down the line, it could have been three. We could have easily afforded three children - indeed, we both now have three children - but I cannot stress enough how terrifying it was to suddenly lose 4/5s of my household income. My monthly wage didn't cover the mortgage, nevermind anything else. I relied on tax credits. Nobody should have children they cannot afford, but having children when you can afford them does not act as insurance against any financial or personal misfortune in the future. Women with more than two children in abusive relationships will have to think long and hard over whether they can afford to leave their partner.The Tories have also cut bereavement benefits, so if your husband or wife dies leaving you with more than two children, you are doubly fucked.

It will be women who suffer the most through this tax credit amendment. Two million lone parent households exist in the UK - that's just under half of all tax credit claims - and 91% of them are headed by women. Not only do women suffer the brunt of single parenting, they also have this fucking rape clause bullshit to overcome, where their third child only gets benefit if they are a product of rape. Never mind marital rape, never mind the ethics of being obliged to report your rape just to secure a little extra money, what sort of fucking government decides the only reason a poor woman might have more than two children is because she was raped?

It is a toxic, classist, eugenic and misogynist amendment and I loathe it and the party that instituted it with all my heart and soul.

How To Appeal A DLA Decision In Eight Easy Steps

One of the things that has struck me most over the last four months of fighting this appeal is how bloody archaic and unnecessarily difficult it is. I suspect this is deliberate to discourage people from appealing. So here's how to appeal, and what happens when you do.

1. Ask for a reconsideration

If your child is turned down for DLA, they don't tell you why. You have to ring up and ask. I rang the number on the letter, spoke to a helpline operator, and a lady called me back that afternoon. You have to give reasons as to why you want a reconsideration,  but they won't tell you why they turned your claim down until they call you back. So it's easy to get flustered. Your reasons are used in issuing the reconsideration and are used in your appeal, so make sure you fully explain to them why you want one.

2. Wait for the reconsideration decision to come through

For us, this stage took five days. If you're lucky, they will reinstate your DLA immediately. If you are not lucky, you will get a letter that tells you how to appeal, and, separately, a Mandatory Reconsideration Notice. You get two copies of this notice, and you must send one in with your appeal.

3. Do your appeal paperwork

THIS IS THE CORRECT LINK TO ACCESS APPEAL PAPERWORK (valid April 2016). The link in the letter was wrong, and it took me ages to find the right paperwork. You need form SSCS1, which is the first listed. You then download it with a left click:

Courtesy of justice.gov.uk

The form is reasonably simple to fill in. You are your child's representative, so you don't need to fill out Section 4 unless someone else is helping you with the appeal and willing to deal with the paperwork for you (e.g. a social worker). You have a small box to fill out with your reasons for appeal. You can write as much as you like: just attach it on separate sheets, with your child's name and date of birth at the top.
My advice is to write the reasons you are appealing in as much detail as you can. If you can get people to write supporting statements (e.g the consultant, the teachers and SEN staff from school, psychologists involved in care) then attach those as well. Take the reasons the DLA have given you for turning your claim down and refute them. We were turned down for mobility and care allowance, so I contested both separately.
You also need to decide if you want to go to the tribunal. Since Jimmy is autistic, there is nothing additional to be gleaned from the courts seeing him, so I decided not to go. If your child's disability is obvious, or you are more eloquent in person than in writing, it may well be better for you to attend. It is entirely up to you.

All this paperwork must be submitted within one calendar month of receiving the Mandatory Reconsideration Notice. You need to send:

 - The form, signed and completed

- Any additional supporting documents

- A copy of the Mandatory Reconsideration Notice

Send it by recorded delivery.

4. Wait

First, you will get a letter from the DWP acknowledging your appeal request and telling you which tribunal court your case will be heard at. It all gets a bit legal at this point. You should receive a letter from the tribunal court asking you to confirm what kind of hearing you have requested.

Within a month of your appeal being acknowledged, you will receive a truly terrifying wodge of numbered paperwork from the DWP. In it will be a copy of your original DLA application, all the supporting documentation you have sent, a copy of your reconsideration request, and the DWP's arguments against your appeal.

This huge wodge of paperwork is your case, as it will be presented to the tribunal. Keep it: you need to take it with you if you go to court, and it is also useful for reference.

5. Wait Some More

About two weeks later, you should get more information from the Courts and Tribunals Service. If the DWP are being particularly shit, they will demand an oral hearing and you will get a letter inviting you to attend. This completely threw me - I didn't realise they COULD do that, but they did in our case.
I did not attend. I did send a final statement, however, which refuted each of the DWP's reasons for not awarding DLA, systematically and concisely. You can do this, and also send through any additional evidence you might have gathered in the interim, as long as it reaches them at least a week before the court date. Send it recorded delivery though.
I also spoke to the Court twice and found them to be absolutely lovely and helpful. If you have any worries, ring them! If you do go to court, there's lots of information in the letter about how to claim your costs back.

6. Court Day

I don't know what happens if you attend, because I have other things to do smack bang in the middle of the Easter holidays than blush and fluster through a hearing, but rest assured, I sat worrying all day. The hearing consists of you (if you go), a DWP representative (if they turn up), a disability expert, a clinical expert and the judge. They decide the outcome there and then. The court write up the decision and send it out to you by first class post. Our tribunal was Tuesday, we had the decision on Friday.

7. The Decision

The decision is on one side of A4 paper, which came as a bit of a surprise after all the bumpf we got before. It tells you what they decided, and any extra notes. Ours was super short - it told us that the paperwork and case was in order and safe to be heard, it told us what they had decided to award our son, and that was about it. There is a lot of detail in the extra notes about what happens if either side dispute the ruling, how to appeal the appeal, and that the tribunal court cannot enforce the decision.

8. Next Steps

We won. The following Monday, DWP rang up and asked a few questions to confirm the rebate of funds and said they would be with us within ten days. I also phoned Tax Credits to get that part reinstated - they can decide whether to backdate your payment four weeks or for the full amount it was stopped, but if they're kind, they'll give you the full amount.

I Fought The DWP And I Won

DLA is a non-means-tested benefit awarded to children with disability based on their physical care needs. There are two parts - care element, which is awarded according to high (24 hour), medium (all-day) and lower (intermittent) care needs, and mobility, which is awarded according to either high (cannot mobilise) or low (cannot safely mobilise) mobility needs. These needs are compared to those of the normal age cohort - so you wouldn't expect a two year old to be able to wash their own hair, but you would expect a twelve year old to be able to. You would expect a six year old to be able to go to sleep on their own and sleep through, but not a six month old.

Last year, Jimmy was awarded high level care and low level mobility for two years duration. This was because, in addition to his daily care needs, he was waking up repeatedly in the night and needing supervision to be safe and get back to sleep, and because he can't safely go anywhere on his own because of his sensory and communication issues. 

In October, I was sent a new form in order to apply for a renewal before his old award ran out in February. I filled the form out, I asked the school to write me a letter to send in with it to pre-empt them asking the school for more information, I attached all the hospital letters we have (albeit, no new ones since his last application since he was waiting for his autism assessment) and I sent it off.

Filling out a DLA form for your disabled child is fucking hard work. The only way to get through life as an autism parent (indeed for any parent of a disabled child) is to focus on the positives. So that's what I do. Yay, Jim has finally started sleeping in his own bed, he's sort of making friends, he's not been in trouble at school for a week, he can READ!, he doesn't hurt himself so much. 

But when you write the DLA form, you have to focus on what they CANNOT do. He can't safely walk down the road on his own. He needs 24 hour supervision to stop him hurting himself or (more likely) others. He isn't generally aware of other people. He won't get dressed for school without help. He won't brush his teeth without help because he hates the tingle of toothpaste. If he wakes up in the night, we ALL wake up in the night.
The DLA form is not read by a medical professional, who might understand the condition you're describing. Instead, it's read by an administrator who has a handbook of useful phrases to help categorise your application. Now, I used to be a clinical administrator and you learn a hell of a lot about care needs and medical conditions when you read about them nonstop, so I don't think that's inherently a bad idea. Well, I didn't until I sent the DLA form off.

Within five days of them receiving it (compared to the four months it took the initial claim to be sorted), they had written to me not just not renewing his DLA but stopping it completely, effective immediately, three months before it should have been. 

I phoned them, confused. After all, his needs have changed a little since originally applying, but not to the point where he's entirely able and normal. Autism doesn't get cured overnight. They said someone would phone me back within two days. 

Astonishingly, they phoned back on the same day and I spoke to a pleasant woman who told me the reason his claim had been rejected was because he hadn't been seen by a doctor in almost two years, ergo there's clearly nothing wrong with him. (The exact wording was "No hospital evidence to support intermittent behavioural problems" - INTERMITTENT?) I don't think they even read the form, since I had written on the form that he was awaiting assessment, his appointment date (received the day before I sent it in) and included a recent letter from the neurodevelopment team stating he was on the waiting list for a full assessment. 

Pleasant Woman was very pleasant about it. I explained that he needs full adult supervision, self harms, hurts other people, and has no road sense (all important parts of the needing-care element of DLA) and that his autism assessment appointment was THE NEXT DAY. She said that I would need to submit the written verdict of the autism assessment as soon as we received it and they would reinstate and backdate his claim based on that. 

I have real issues with this. You see, I get that care needs can be transitory, and that a long absence of hospital information could mean someone is trying to get substantial money they don't need. I understand that all non-means-tested benefits are open to being abused, because bitches love money and they're less financially scrutinised that means-tested ones. 

But DLA is not supposed to be awarded based on a diagnosis: it is supposed to be based on real time care needs (as the DWP told me, patronisingly, in their own appeal paperwork).

The enormous gap in time between referral and diagnosis for autism patients is a known issue, and as CAMHS and the school keep arguing amongst themselves, diagnosis doesn't make any fucking difference to the daily life of the child. They were autistic before, they are autistic after. A diagnosis is not a doorway to treatment and cure, it's just a label that is useful for getting more help, and many children with well-managed autism don't see clinicians for years at a time.
We use Jimmy's DLA money to fund educational resources to keep him up to date during school holidays and to broaden and personalise his learning. We use it for holidays themselves; for days out, and for the various sensory toys and tools we use to keep him happy and calm. It also takes the financial strain off us, which when you're fairly poor anyway is the difference between autism being part of life, and autism being too much to cope with.
I had to phone them to find out why his claim had been stopped - they don't tell you in the letter - because I knew based on the information I'd given them, it was a bad decision. Imagine how many parents DON'T QUESTION IT because they don't think there's any point, or they're scared to question it and be scrutinised, or they think it's set in stone. When I wrote about this on social media, friends who work in social work and medical fields said it now seems normal for claims to be rejected, and require appeal for reinstatement. I'm not sure whether this is a bid to cut the benefits bill or if that's just cynicism. I did make a FOI request to try and find out how many DLA claims were declined, and how many of those were appealed successful, but apparently this is information the DWP simply do not have to hand. My arse.

After a week, I got another letter. My request for reconsideration had been denied. They detailed why, and to be honest, it was a load of bollocks. He had his mobility stopped because his care needs outside were the same as any six year old. When was the last time you saw a six year old run off because of a horn, stop dead, walk into people, lie facedown on the floor because of a dog, in the street?
He had his care allowance stopped because
1. He hadn't been to the doctors in two years
2. A letter from school said he was a pleasant child who struggled with transitions

Now, as mentioned, he hadn't been to the doctors in two years because they told me there was nothing they could do until he had an autism assessment. He needs occupational therapy to cope with noises? Nope, needs the ADOS. He's biting himself because he's so anxious? Nope, ADOS first. I literally don't know what to do anymore, help me? Wait for ADOS. Three separate times I phoned the hospital asking for help, over the course of a year, and three separate times they told me to wait. So, what would be the point in going to the doctors?
Then the letter from school. In the week I received the decision on reconsideration, I had been called in by the teacher because Jimmy had kicked a chair into a teacher and he'd ripped a display off the wall. Schools always want to believe the best in children, and have been open about not really believing Jimmy has autism. When they say he struggles with transitions, they mean he has a loud meltdown everytime it's time to change activity or move to another area. He's better at school than home, because of the routine, but he's still unsafe and difficult.

So, how to appeal this decision? The letter said I would need to go to justice.go.uk/tribunal and download a form to send off for appeal. So I went to the link, and found nothing useful. I had to search the government's site for ages before finding the correct form, and downloading it.
I filled out the appeal form as concisely as possible, and asked the school to write another letter describing his more negative behaviour. I had a diagnosis by then, so I could include the psychologist report as extra information. This, I should add, was the day before the end of Christmas term and I had one calendar month to get the appeal submitted. Stress central.

I got the appeal submitted. I then waited. After a month, I received a huge sheaf of paperwork from the DLA. And dear reader, in my vexation, I didn't read it properly. I read the first two paragraphs of the covering letter (which said it explained the decision), then read the first few pages of the paperwork (declining his DLA) and assumed the tribunal had ruled against us. I cried. I sobbed. I worried. I stressed. I drank. Six hours later, I read the letter properly and found that actually, it was just the Dept of Work and Pensions' response to the appeal, and the case prepared to send to court. Erm. Oops.

So. Let me preface their reasons with a note about the ADOS assessment. It is one 45 minute, constantly guided play session, used to grade behaviour on the autistic spectrum. It cannot be used as a diagnostic tool in it's own right, hence the FOUR HOUR ADI-R that followed a week later.  Jimmy scored highly on his ADOS in terms of communication and reciprocation, but lower on the restrictive and repetitive stereotypies element that is characteristic of autism. Jimmy has a strong history of stereotypies, repetition and restrictive behaviour WHEN HE IS ANXIOUS: when he's happy, he doesn't demonstrate them so much. Aside from to talk constantly about food, to stuff his face all the time, and to chew himself up in lieu of food. And anxiety tends to be triggered by doing anything unpredictable, like go outside, go to someone's house, go out for the day, etc.

With that in mind, and being aware that I repeatedly referred to these elements in all the letters I sent them, here are the DWP's official reasons for not awarding DLA:

1. Autism does not mean an automatic right to DLA. 
Well, I never said it did. I did say that he's autistic and his lack of hospital appointments in the last two years doesn't mean he's magically cured, but that's not the same as demanding DLA because he's been diagnosed.

2. Jim stops in the middle of the road and has no road sense and that's totally fine because his ADOS demonstrates he has no 'temporary paralysis of will' (their words)
No, I have no idea how they made that leap either.

3. Jim needs guidance when out and about and, because he didn't show any evidence of stereotypies in his ADOS, that's fine.
No, seriously DWP, how do you make this leap? What do stereotypies have to do with the constant unpredictability of going out?

4. Jimmy doesn't need enough help during the day to qualify for the care rates because he didn't demonstrate any self harming behaviour in his ADOS appointment. Although he needs some help at school, he is also a nice child and thus does not need substantially more help than a normal child of his age. 
However, his ADI refers constantly to his patterns of self harm and injuring other people. But apparently, that doesn't count because HE WAS FINE IN HIS ADOS! The amended letter from the school also states that he now has a one to one TA all day, but that's TOTALLY NORMAL AND THE SAME AS OTHER CHILDREN. As is requiring sensory circuit therapy every day. Totally standard.

5. Jimmy is not at risk of sufficient danger during the day/night to require constant adult supervision because his ADOS doesn't demonstrate any self harming or repetitive behaviours. 
No really. That's it. That's their whole reason.

And so...we waited.

After a couple of weeks, I received a letter from the Tribunal service telling me what date our case would be heard and that if I didn't attend, it would be decided without me. I was a bit surprised, since by this point I had told the court twice that I wanted the case decided on the paper evidence, so I emailed them for confirmation. They rang me a few hours later and explained the DWP had requested an oral hearing, although they don't often turn up, and I didn't have to go but I could submit more evidence in writing as long as I got it in a week before the court date.

I can only assume the DWP do this to bully people. Honestly, it is BAD ENOUGH doing this as the able parent of a disabled child; I cannot imagine how shit it must be if you are claiming for yourself. I felt like I was on trial for the whole of this case, like I had done something terrible rather than try and get my son's disability money reinstated.
So I wrote a long essay based around the points listed above, but more academic, better referenced, and with less sarcasm, to submit as my final statement on this case. And the waiting recommenced. A lot of lovely people offered to help me go to court, and encouraged me to go, but I couldn't. By this point, it had built up in my head to a terrible demon that I would rather not face. After all, if I didn't go, I couldn't fuck it up and be blamed for any bad outcome.

When the tribunal date came round, I just kept myself busy, constantly aware of the time, and then came down with a terrible virus that stopped me thinking about anything for three days. Which just so happened to be the same amount of time it took the court's decision to be sent to us. I got my husband to read it; I couldn't bear to look.

We won.

Jimmy's lower rate mobility has been reinstated from the date it was stopped, for the next three years. His care rate has been reinstated at the highest level up until February (when it was due for review anyway) and now reduced to medium level for the next three years. It means we have to potentially go through all this again in another three years, but for now, we are done.

The relief is beyond compare. The vindication. The feeling of pure, righteous joy. This was a few days back now, and I am still elated. The court judgement is rather plain, but does say that the DWP didn't attend the hearing it demanded, and the case could have been (and was) determined by the paperwork alone. I wonder why the DWP decided to waste taxpayers money in such a way? Is it really just an intimidation technique? If it is, it's genuinely a worrying tactic. Nobody claims disability benefits for a laugh and a doss, not in the current political climate of LOATHING THE DISABLED, so to target and bully vulnerable children , at the taxpayers expense, seems extraordinarily underhand.

But we won. WE WON! I don't need to write any more 3000 word essays on what Jimmy cannot do and why. I don't need to rail at friends, family and passers-by about how fucking crap the DWP are at legal reasoning. I don't need to sit during every meltdown thinking "well, if the DWP could see you, maybe they'd believe me". I don't have Jimmy screaming he will KILL the government for taking his special money, after I explained that's why he couldn't have a tablet for his birthday. I don't need to doubt my own ability to reason, or whether I'm qualified to actually DO this because I'm a sociologist by trade, not a bloody lawyer. No financial decisions need to be held off, or just abandoned, because of waiting. We can live again. For four months, I've been holding my breath, flinching at every brown A5 envelope that's come through the door with (Appointee) after my name in the address line, worrying, being furious, feeling like a fraud, feeling fucking hard done by, feeling aggrieved on behalf of Jim and every other family that's been through this.

It's done. Until next time.

Benefits - A True Story

This is a true story.

In 2007, two young people got married. They'd been together for six years precisely, and owned their home. He was an electrician, she worked in administration. Their joint income was around £40k, so plenty of money for the mortgage, bills and frivolity. Eighteen months later, their first child was born, and she cut her hours at work to take care of him. Childcare was provided, for free, by his mother, so the overall change in income wasn't too bad. Sixteen months after that, she was pregnant again, but things weren't so good. He left her in her 15th week of pregnancy. There was no hope of reconciliation. 

Overnight, her income went from around £40k+ per annum to £6k per annum. The mortgage and bills still needed to be paid, but he was reluctant to help since he didn't live there anymore. A solicitor's letter was sent, some money was acquired from him, but it in no way made up for the massive shortfall in income. She couldn't take on more hours, and even working full time, her annual income would have only been £13k. There was no safety net, no rich family to fall back on, not even to lend her money.

So the benefits system, quite literally, came to the rescue. She could only claim additional tax credits to begin with, as housing benefit only applies to rented accommodation and she worked too many hours to claim income support. The tax credits bumped her up to a survivable income, but it was not what most people would consider liveable. After going on maternity leave, she moved away from her free childcare source, and gave her house up to relocate to an area with better transport links as she couldn't drive. He continued to live in relative affluence, even after the chunk of income handed over in child support.

She went on income support after her maternity pay expired. This entitled her to more housing benefit, and she managed well (although lost £200 total a month from moving from working to income support) but was still poor. Meals and shopping had to be planned with military precision. New clothes for her were a luxury (the children's were often supplemented by their father). The house she chose to live in turned out to be in rather poor repair, with a somewhat dismissive landlord. When things broke, they were replaced with the cheapest possible option.

Things got better. She met someone else, they're married now, they still get some benefits but nowhere near as much as of old.

Obviously, she is me. But I'll never forget the stigma of going to the jobcentre, of being publicly told I should spend my time volunteering instead of being 'lazy', of having my educational achievements disdained because we live in a culture where employment is the only value, of being ashamed of my clothes full of holes, my feet getting wet because of holes in my shoes, of turning to empty cupboards and trying to conjure meals out of nothing much. Even tiny things like not being able to get to the doctors because it's a bus ride away and I had no spare money for the bus. You don't forget. You don't stop feeling poor even when you're less poor.

I was totally reliant on benefits for one year and nine months. Not long. Not my fault. Not my choice.

Nothing makes me angrier than people who claim they would never stoop so low as to depend on benefits. I was in a situation where we would have been homeless in a very short space of time if the benefits system had not been there for us. I chose to survive. I chose to swallow any remnant of pride I had and look after my children. I paid tax and national insurance for eight years, and was still paying tax for eighteen months after my first husband left, but this is ignored by the government. The electioneering is all about putting the tax payer first, as though people on benefits pay nothing. What of the thousands of families working, paying tax, and being topped up by tax credits? Does that not count?

What many people don't realise is how close to needing benefits most people are. One redundancy. One bad injury. One bereavement. One marital breakdown.You don't think it will ever happen to you, but when it does, you are fucked. Not only do you have the trauma of whatever event triggers it, you also have the trauma of suddenly not knowing who to phone, in what order, what to say. The sheer quantity of admin you have to do makes many people quail in fear - the half hour income support phone interview before they'll even send you an application form is one such horror.You fall to the bottom of a very big heap of similarly fucked souls, and you have to find your way back up. You have to wait for your money to come, if they decide you qualify for it - I had to wait five months for a change in housing benefit to go through when my husband first moved in. Thankfully I had planned for this, and didn't desperately need the money, but if I had, no "Sorry, you're in a queue" would have saved me from the debts.

The benefits system is not a bad thing. It's flawed - and even as a grateful recipient, I can see countless flaws in the system - but it is necessary. And, unless you're extremely rich (in which case good on you, vote Conservative) you're not immune to needing it.

The reality of living in a deprived area

Wealth and health correlate - the more money you have, the better health you are likely to experience.
I happen to live in a deprived area, in the red on this handy deprivation index map. So, what's it actually like? How does it impact on our ability to make healthy choices?

First up, diet. Everyone knows poor diet is linked to numerous long term health conditions and obesity. There is a lot in the media about choosing to be fat, but how much choice do you actually get in deprived areas? All distances are courtesy of Walkit.com, and are fastest route, so mostly along dual carriageways.

CLOSEST SHOP: Cornershop and Nisa. 0.2km
CLOSEST SUPERMARKET: Morrisons, 1.1km
ALSO AVAILABLE: Marks and Spencer 1.1km, Farmfoods 1.1km, small Tesco 1.7km.

The food choices are varied. The cornershop sells mostly sweets and newspapers, with a small amount of essential daily purchases, like milk.
The Nisa sells a very poor selection of 'fresh' fruit and vegetables, at slightly increased prices. I have never had an unmouldy onion from there, but it will suffice at a push. There is no fresh meat, just sausages, bacon and ham, and no fresh fish at all. There are four whole aisles dedicated to sweets, crisps and cake. There's also a large frozen food section. One whole side of the shop is full of alcohol. There is also a large variety of cigarettes. The deals offered by Nisa are usually focused on cheap multibuys of packs of sweets, alcohol and fizzy drinks.
I'm sure you're acquainted with the produce sold by Tesco, Morrisons, M+S and Farmfoods.
Cost wise, it is cheapest to get a full shop, including fresh produce, from Morrisons or Tesco However, this requires transport, on which more later. The nearest greengrocer is approximately 4km away. There are food banks all over the city, with supermarkets regularly collecting for them. The nearest one is about 2km away and open once a week, accessible by voucher.

Now, exercise. The opportunities for exercise here are limited to walking/jogging, children's karate and gym membership.
BANNATYNES: Costs more than £600 a year, 2km away
COUNCIL FUNDED GYM: £8 a session, 1.7km away
PERSONAL TRAINER: £25 an hour

There are three parks within walking distance. One has lots of broken equipment, countless enormous rabbit holes, and is a popular haunt for drunks. One is much bigger, with better equipment, but is sited right next to the nastiest pub in the area. The last one is a proper landscaped town park, but last time we visited the park, it was full of dust and fumes from the housing estate being built behind it. The general area is well provided with pavements and trees, at least on the main thoroughfares. Once you get into the residential areas, it's less of a concern.

Education is a key determinant for health. The better your education, the better your job prospects, the better your later income, the better your health. The schools here are not great. There is only one primary school here, which received a good rating at its last Ofsted inspection. There are two secondary schools with catchment here. The closest is inadequate according to Ofsted. The other requires improvement, and is 1.7km away. Thankfully, the nearest preschool has an outstanding rating, but is oversubscribed by the entire city, as it has excellent special needs provision.

Transport is not amazing. In fact, my city is apparently the worst in the country for public transport, a particularly damning statistic for a 'new town'. There is a bus service every ten minutes into the city centre, which costs around £4 for a dayrider. Theoretically, this allows travel across the services in the city all day, but it's usually cheaper to get a dayrider than a straightforward return (it's £2.10 for a single to town). A taxi is between £5 and £7 each way, depending on where you're going - it's £5 to go the almost 5km into the city from my house, and £5 to go to the next suburb along. The bus is a five minute walk from my house. My husband is out of the house working from 10 to 12 hours a day. We can only afford one car, and all the families round here are the same. This means doing the grocery shopping has to be done either on foot, or at the weekend. Thankfully, we do the majority of our shopping online, as we can both afford both the technology, and the delivery charge. Access to the internet cannot be taken for granted.
It also means going to the doctors (which is 4km away) relies on public transport or friends. This is great fun when you've got a sick child on the bus.
One nice thing for the city in general is that it does have comprehensive cycle lanes and footpaths. The only problem, as a lone female, is that some of them seem designed to make you fear attack. There is one underpass here that goes under one road and over another. It terrifies me every time I go through it, even when it's the middle of the day, because it is totally invisible from the roads and surrounded pathways. Subways and leafy, murder-alley type paths are de rigeur. Good lighting, and CCTV are less popular.

Employment opportunities are slim to none here. You have to travel either into the city, or to the outskirts where the factories are. Unless you want to work in retail, but retail never paid anyone's living costs by itself. Or you could be a dinnerlady, or a cleaner. Which...same. If you work outside the area, you better hope you earn enough to run a car, or face the awful buses, or be healthy enough to cycle.

Housing conditions are poor. My house, which is a little older than average, is a terraced Edwardian villa. It features original windows in the kitchen and bathroom, which means no double glazing. All three exterior doors are originally, and not weatherproof. They also let in an unseemly number of slugs. The heating is inadequate for the size of the house, and the gas costs approx £1 an hour to run. The walls are lime plaster and keep falling down when you put nails in them, and there's no cavity wall to insulate. The damp gets really bad in the bathroom. My landlord's attitude is that it's an old house, it's not worth the work. Many landlords and rental agencies will not countenance your application if you are on benefits, because as ANY FULE KNO, people on benefits are going to ruin their house, and never pay their rent. I do not know how this is legal. How does it MATTER how you pay your rent, as long as it is paid? We claim minimal benefits now, but would still have trouble getting a new rent because of this ridiculous ruling by most agencies.

There aren't many opportunities for socialising. The primary school have craft mornings for parents (which aren't advertised, so how you're supposed to know it exists is beyond me). There's a large immigrant population here, which has no apparent provision from anyone. There are no language classes in the area, and no advertised groups for those who have recently arrived. The nearest Surestart centre was closed as part of budget cuts (to make way for the £120 million city centre redevelopment, which has so far pissed off everyone who lives here, and attracted very new visitors) but the preschool who occupy half the site has managed to open a few groups for families, as so far the plans to turn it into a disability outreach centre have not been implemented. The nearest fully operational Surestart centre is a little over 2km away, and includes a KS4 pupil referral centre that may put off some parents from attending. There are two pubs locally, and plenty of outdoor drinking spaces, as well as a Costa, but as far as making friends go, opportunities are somewhat limited if you don't already know people here. You can travel out to other areas, if you can bear to navigate the awful bus system. But that's a big if. Being part of strong social networks is one of the best ways to protect your health.

Health services need to be easy to access. I speak as someone who feels rubbish at the moment, but cannot face the bus journey, and then half mile walk to the doctors' when struggling with sickness and pelvic pain. The nearest doctor's surgery is actually in the next suburb along, and would take me 25 minutes to walk, or I could get off the bus in front of it. The reason I joined my actual doctor's surgery is because they have a branch surgery at the top of my road. Alas, this has been out of use for six months, although they claimed it would reopen after Christmas. I have personally never had a problem with getting appointments because I have inside knowledge on how the system works, and thus don't object to detailing my health woes in great detail to a receptionist. Dentists are also a problem. I have a very good dentist, who I love, who is only about 2km away, but who will only see me as long as I have a prescription exemption certificate. Thankfully, I've had one almost constantly for the last five years. However, when I lose my exemption, as I will around a year after my baby's born, I will either have to pay astronomical private dentist fees, or re-register with an NHS dentist miles away. Bad teeth is an image of poverty, because many people either cannot reach, or cannot afford, a decent dentist.
The local hospital is an originally PFI funded, highly modern, highly in debt, new build about 10 minutes away by car. I have to say, I've used them regularly since it opened, and I have never been less than impressed with their care and service. However, to try and get there by bus is a nightmare. You have to catch the local bus into town, going PAST the hospital as you do so, then transfer to a DIFFERENT bus which will eventually drop you off right outside. The local link community bus service that linked up directly from the north of the city to the hospital was dropped as part of the council cuts over a year ago.
My son is autistic, and is still waiting for his assessment, one year after initial referral. Thankfully, the council-run educational psychology team is a lot more efficient than the NHS-run neurodevelopment team. I imagine other disabilities and services are similarly hit and miss, though thankfully we don't need to access them.
On a slightly different note, midwifery services are also taxed, and I have been warned that if I have a homebirth (this is the plan, I'm sure I'll blog about it at some point), the midwife on call may be coming from up to 64km away. However, homebirths are being encouraged to reduce the load on the maternity unit.

Now, a lot of these problems are things that could be (in fact, can ONLY be) solved by a forward-thinking government, or some well informed local councillors. The local councillors here are mostly concerned about things like parking on grass verges, and tree trimming. I know this because they send me the most unintentionally hilarious newsletter every now and then. They do nothing about improving the general local services, aside from repeatedly shutting down attempts to open YET MORE takeaways on the main drag into town. I imagine actually fixing the structure of the area takes considerably more red tape than people in a four year term of government can be arsed to go through.
And some of these problems are circumvented by moving away (if you can afford it), owning a car (ditto), or taking on the 'Big Society' initiative and trying to set things up yourself. Again, this is not easy.

In a few months, I've got to propose an improvement to my community as part of my dissertation. And just writing this has given me so much to think about how much this community COULD be improved. But where do you START?

Benefits Britain: A look from 1825

In 1825, ish, a doctor named William Turnbull wrote the following on the poor of Britain:

"Many a decent family, which has long been maintained in comfort by the exertions of the parents, has been brought to real misery by the sickness of the father or mother; or as is frequently the case, the earnings of the parents are all consumed in the means of cure, or in alleviating the anguish of child suffering [...] A poor family is driven, during sickness, to depend for the very necessaries of life upon their credit with their neighbouring Shopkeeper ; and a system is thus introduced, which, more than any other tends to degrade and demoralise the character.
The feeling of compunction which at first arises at running into debts, which they have no prospect of discharging, wears off by degrees; and when the possibility of supporting themselves creditably is gone; when hope, the great stimulus to exertion, is no more, all further effort is palsied, a sort of moral despair succeeds and they are contented to leave their debts unpaid, to forfeit all their independence of spirit, and idly to rely on a Parish for the future: thus they become useless, if not hurtful, members of the community."

Nothing really changes, does it?

Turnbull, W (1825) An Appeal on Behalf of the Intended Hospital at Huddersfield, Huddersfield Library

Benefits: the blessing and the curse

I have long held the belief that nobody should plan children they cannot afford. This isn't because of people using children as a salary, but because it's not right to simply hope someone else will fund the raising of your child.

But things don't work out that way. In a stereotypical family, the woman looks after the children while the man earns the income. With very small children, many women choose not to work full time. Childcare may be taken on by family members, or by a nursery or childminder.
If the parents separate, the onus is usually on the mother to have residential care of the children. The father continues to work full time, and a percentage of his income routinely goes to his ex for the upkeep of his children. The father would have to be an exceptionally high earner for this percentage to pay for all the costs of caring for children.
The mother is left in something of a quandary. It can be difficult to go from a part time role to a full time role in a job. It is even more difficult to get child friendly, flexible working hours, as single parents often have nobody else to call on if a child is sick or injured. If suitable hours can be found, childcare is excruciatingly expensive. Family childcare can be cost effective, but it is tricky to find a family member willing to look after a child full time for nothing. Then there is the tradeoff between working and seeing your children. The children may spend every weekend, or every other weekend, with their father. Once preschool and primary school come into play, a mother may end up seeing the children the least, despite having the residential and financial burden.

Benefits act as a safety net, to empower single parents (male and female) in deciding how to look after their children when things go wrong. But there is no right answer. Staying at home means you're sponging off the state. Part time work often means crappy jobs with no upward progression, and low wages. Full time work means less dependence on benefits, but less time with children.

I hate needing benefits to raise my children.
I hate knowing so many people think I am subhuman, by association. I hate knowing that George Osborne thinks I've 'gone wrong' to end up on benefits in the first place. I hate that I conceived my sons in good faith that I would be able to raise them without financial assistance. I hate not knowing if the government are going to change things and make life more difficult. I hate having to justify my unemployment by saying I'm a student, instead of saying that I'm a full time mother of two small children.

But I also am grateful that we have a welfare system that allows us to be caught. The welfare system in this country fails many people, but it has kept me afloat for nearly three years. Without it, I don't know where I'd be now - homeless, sacked, and financially wrecked forever, I expect. Thankfully, I am coming to the end of being on income support, after 18 months, and I sincerely hope I never have to be on it again.

Benefits and Public Perception

The other night, BBC1 showed a programme called "We All Pay Your Benefits". I didn't see it, but from what I gather, the attitude of some of the claimants infuriated people across the internet.
Public perception of benefits is quite some way from the truth of it. Most people claim a benefit at some point in their lives. However, it is apparent that there are 'good' benefits, and 'bad benefits'.

Good benefits include child benefit, maternity allowance, state pensions, winter fuel allowance, and tax credits. Most people are unaware that state pensions are classed as a benefit - the idea behind them being that your national insurance contribution pays for your pension at the end. Alas, this is not so. Considering your NI contributions also pay for your NHS and several other benefits you might have to claim one day, state pensions are heavily subsidised by the government and thus included in benefit statistics. Approximately half of all benefit expenditure is on state pensions. Bear that in mind next time you see a shocking "£X amount spent on benefits this year" statistic.
Child benefit is now means tested. It's means tested in a completely unfair way - in a household where one resident parent earning more than £50k p.a, no child benefit will be paid. If both resident parents earn £49k p.a each, they'll still get it. People who earn more than £50k may still opt to receive it, and be taxed on it, in order for it to count as national insurance cotributions. Many parents in lower income brackets are entitled to claim tax credits, at varying rates depending on amount of children, and income.
Maternity allowance is paid if you don't qualify for statutory maternity pay because you've had interrupted employment. It's based on your NI contribution for the year before. It is virtually the same as SMP, but classed as a benefit rather than an employment right.
Winter fuel allowance has been in the news recently because they are talking about means testing it. Some old people freeze to death because they're terrified of their heating bill. Some old people, rolling in cash, claim it anyway because they can. Plans to stop people living in hot countries claiming have also been put forward, with mixed reception.

 So, that's your good, socially acceptable benefits. These are considered a 'right' and any attempt to change them is seen as compromising that right.

Disability Living Allowance and Personal Independence Payment are viewed with some suspicion, not helped by ATOS and their tyrannical screening process. ATOS have declared people who can't walk 'able to manage stairs' without ever asking them to do so, cleared the terminally ill for work and generally are making a total hash of things. People who have to attend such interviews are terrified of doing so. The concept of the man with a "bad back" who hasn't worked for 28 years, when you see him doing his garden every weekend is endemic. ATOS is not helping this. 

Now, the bad benefits. These are mostly based on household income. Income support, jobseekers allowance, housing benefit, council tax benefit, council housing, and employment support allowance.
Income support is highly frowned upon. It is a pitifully small amount of money - £71 a week at present - with which you're expected to feed and clothe yourself, top up housing payments if necessary, and pay utilities. However, the screening process is incredibly strict and few people qualify - it is only for people who are pregnant, a lone parent of a child under 5, a carer or unable to work through disability or sickness. This means the majority of people on income support are likely to be women, going from lone parent and carer statistics - women who are either pregnant, parenting pre-schoolers alone, or caring. You have to go to the jobcentre every six months, to talk about what might happen if you go back to work. It is a box ticking exercise.
JSA is for people looking for work. There are two types - contribution based is linked to NI payments. Income based is linked to household income. This is the bad benefit people usually end up on at some point in their working lives. You have to go to the jobcentre every two weeks to sign on, fulfil the tasks assigned for claiming (applying for jobs, going to interviews) and woe betide you if you don't turn up, or haven't done enough work. You get sanctioned, you lose your benefit for two weeks and you're done. I have heard grown men weeping in the jobcentre because they've been sanctioned and can't feed their children for two weeks. It's their own 'fault', but being on JSA essentially enslaves you to a routine of interviews, application and failure until you get a job, however shitty. If you're under 25, you get £56.80 a week. How can anyone live on that? If you're over 25, you get the same as income support.
ESA is what you get if you're too sick to work, but don't qualify for DLA or income support. Once you are on ESA, you are drafted into a similar programme to JSA, of interviews and work programmes. 
Then there are the housing-based benefits. To get a council house, you have to be on a low income, to be unintentionally homeless (i.e. evicted, rather than leaving of your own free will) and to have a dependent child. The waiting list is long, the housing available usually limited, limited further now by bedroom tax. Housing benefit is for people who rent, to pay their landlord. In some cases, the money goes direct to the landlord. It varies in amount by council and by how big your housing need is - I have a three bedroom house, but I only get housing benefit for a two bedroom house as that is all I need. Council tax benefit was originally 100% for people on income support, but now everyone has to pay at least some of it. It is linked to housing benefit, but you can claim one and not the other.


I do not understand why some benefits are perceived as being good and acceptable, where some do not. The ones that are unacceptable are the ones related to living in poverty. If poverty is unacceptable; GOOD, so it should be. But being poor does not make a person inferior. It does not make them a moral outcast. It does not make them a workshy loser, a fraud or a whore. I've mentioned before that I went from home owning, financially solvent, working mother to unemployed benefit claimant literally overnight. We should be pleased that we have a safety net in this country, even though it fails many people - most often single men, and families who live on the very borderline of poverty. People working in the lower tiers of employment  - manual and unskilled - don't get the same working benefits as those in higher tiers. No pension schemes, no additional sick pay, no death in service benefit, so the slightest accident or setback can lead to serious financial problems. Far more investment in infrastructure, in education, and in working opportunities needs to be done before the "Problem of Benefits" can just be made to disappear. The government could start by introducing a living wage, so income top-ups weren't necessary....but that is for another post methinks...

The rage

Hello, my name's Soph, and I'm on income support.
I can hear your gasp of dismay from here.
I am poor. I am workless. Somehow, this has evolved to mean that I am also degraded and depraved. I am without feeling, and stupid. I am not contributing the economy, I am not useful. I own some luxury items, proof (according to Katie Price, fount of all knowledge on degenerate lifestyles) that I am secretly rich. I spend all my benefit recklessly, on cigarettes, alcohol and drugs. My children are not as good as your children. My community is not as good as yours.
If only I would just get a job, society's problems would be eradicated.

Let's start with the most common bugbear of the media and facebook, when judging the poor. I have a plasma TV. I have a leather sofa. I even have an Xbox. How can this be? Who have I murdered to get such luxury items? How do I afford such things? Easy - I bought them years ago, before I had children when I was still working full time. These things don't need replacing annually and may last for years. They're not a mark of being a benefits cheat. The outrage at my possessing them seems to be a product of deep snobbery. These are aspirational products, beyond my income. Perhaps I should have sold them when I signed on, just to reassure the government that I was taking my newly poor status seriously.

Next up, I don't smoke. Never have; it's a filthy habit and I'm asthmatic. Even if I could afford to smoke 70 cigars a day, I wouldn't. I drink a bit, a couple of units a week, on average. I don't do drugs, they are beyond both desire and income.

Now, why don't I have a job? Well, I'm a single mother to two preschool children. Childcare is excruciatingly expensive. If I worked part time, about 70% of my wages would be sucked up by childcare. It is subsidised by the government, but that's a benefit. The government would give me working tax credits, but again, that's a benefit.
My children, already splitting their time between their parents, would see me less than they do now. I would achieve nothing much beyond not seeing my children. I'd still be claiming just as much money from the government as I do now, but with almost no gain financially, and at a definite loss personally.
Work makes absolutely no sense; getting a degree does. I think that one of the best investments I can make is in the upbringing of my children. So I give them my time and energy, and hope it pays off when they grow up.

Some of you know my circumstances. I did not choose to become a single mother. I really resent George Osborne saying benefits claimants have 'done the wrong thing'. I'm not sure what I could have done to make things different, personally or economically, unless I'd married a sheikh on the rebound.
Due to being in the lowest income bracket, I am automatically at a major social disadvantage. I don't drive, which saves me a fortune, but makes transport a headache, and restricts access to health services. I have to live where housing is cheap, so I don't live near good schools, for which my children will suffer. Luckily, I have the internet and can do my shopping online, or I'd be extremely restricted over where I could shop. In turn, this would limit my choice of food. When I return to work, I will be limited as to where I can go due to lack of transport. Poverty is about far more than a simple lack of money; it affects every area of your life.

Hundreds of thousands of  families in this country are claiming some type of benefit. Many of them are working. George Osborne made a speech this week that demonised every single one of them. Iain Duncan Smith claimed he could live on £53 a week if he had to (he'd be dead in a year if he tried, it's starvation level income). The Daily Mail did not ascribe Mick Philpott's awful crimes to his abusive, sociopathic personality, but to the fact he was on benefits. Benefits make you a child killer, and don't forget it.

The government are eroding social equality - did you know legal aid for civil cases has now been cut? This means that the very poorest members of society can no longer get help in court in matters of divorce, child custody, clinical negligence, welfare, employment, immigration, housing, debt, benefit and education. So, no more funded appeals against benefit decisions - funny that. Civil justice is now the preserve of the rich, and they have criminal legal aid in their sights too.

The government are making scapegoats of the poor, and they are doing this because they can. The poor depend on benefits, as they have for hundreds of years, and thus belong to the government. Our voice cannot be heard against the baying mob, screaming at us to get back to work. Unemployment is not at an all time high because of benefits being more desirable; it is at an all time high because there are No Jobs.

The government are making us hate each other, trying to distract us from the reality of the situation - the financial crash was caused by greed and gambling, not benefits spending. People are on benefits because there is no work, and being on benefits is depressing and demotivational. It gives me the rage.

I think the ConDems must be absolutely terrified of a united Britain, because the only "them and us" that really exists is between this government and the people.

"I didn't mean YOU!" Oh yes you did...

"I wish I could sit on my fat arse watching Jezza all day, like those benefit dossers"

"There is another feckless actor in this dysfunctional family drama — the mother, who may be having children by a series of different men." (Daily Mail, 20th June 2011)

"Get rid of benefits and make the lazy scum work"

"My taxes pay for you to sit on your arse"

"In 2009, 6.7 per cent of the households in Britain were led by single women with children under 15, or older children still at school or college." (Daily Mail)

"By conceiving, [young women] are willingly making themselves unemployable and should receive reduced benefits!" (Daily Mail reader)

"Although single mothers don’t automatically mean filthy ignorant feral underclass scum offspring, the vast majority of filthy ignorant feral underclass scum offspring spawn from single mothers."

These are some opinions I have found on the internet about those nasty, evil, benefit scroungers. There are millions of others, usually voiced on Facebook by people who are barely above the underclass they revile. "FUKIN DOLE DOSERS SHUD GET A JOB!" is the illiterate howl of those who consider facebook a valid place to voice prejudiced hate, regardless of who might be reading.
As a dreadful dole dosser, I take these frustrated cries of the overtaxed very personally, and respond, only to be told "Oh, we don't mean YOU. We know why YOU'RE on benefits and you're OK".

Why? I'm not some sort of special case. I had my children relatively young, getting pregnant at 23 and then again at 25. Not a teen mother by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly younger than many of my peer group. My children have the same father - my former husband - and have a good relationship with him. I didn't choose to be a single parent, I was abandoned. At no point did it occur to anyone involved that my ex should get custody of the children, because that is not the way society works. Neither do we have joint custody, because that wouldn't work either. So, I am literally left holding the baby. I gave up work because it wasn't financially viable, if I also wanted to look after my kids. Some women can do it, I'm not one of them.

It suits the government to push this image of the young woman, using her womb as a mealticket, but the truth is somewhat different. Most women become single parents through desertion or death: few indeed decide to simply BE a single mother.
For a start, having children is INTENSELY hard work, even more so as a single parent. The knowledge that if something goes wrong, you're on your own, is tremendous responsibility. The ultimate job of a parent is to keep the child alive until adulthood. If you begin to fail to do this, social services rightly take your child away. I miss work because it gave me an opportunity to get away from that ominous responsibility for a few hours a week, as well as be recognised as a person other than 'Mumma' and get some adult company. When my eldest had a vomiting bug early this year, I did not leave the house or see another adult for six days. Six. Days. Single parenthood is isolating, difficult and exhausting. It is not something vast amounts of young adults choose. It is certainly not something I would have chosen.

The single mum, in her free house, surrounded by a variety of children with different fathers persists as the default image of single motherhood. It's not true. For a start, getting a council house is a massive ballache, often involving periods of either living in an overcrowded house with extended family or living in a hostel until a house becomes free. In Peterborough, there are about 1000 council houses up for auction each year, but a waiting list of 3000. The alternative is private renting, but this is a headache too because landlord's HATE benefits claimants. Most letting adverts bear the ominious "NO DSS". I have no idea why they're allowed to be so prejudiced, but it is their fault that social housing is so in demand. I privately rent, because I got my house before I technically stopped work. If I'd waited til my maternity pay finished, I would have struggled.

That is the real core of living on benefits: everything is a struggle. Benefit provision is at subsistence level. They give you the minimum you need to live, according to their research. I have enough to live on, purely because I can't drive. I do not get enough money, even with child maintenance factored in, to run a car. Most people consider a car essential to maintain an average standard of living. Not I! Every purchase I make has to pass the 'do I really need this?" test. If the answer is no, and I haven't paid the rent yet, it doesn't get bought. This extends to things like repainting the living room, buying a hedge trimmer to sort my front garden out, and even buying clothes. If I splurge, I feel guilty. Food prices are soaring, and when a bunch of bananas costs almost as much as a Happy Meal, you can see why so many people on benefits have such a dreadful diet. The worst thing for expenditure is energy. I have a gascard meter. It costs me about a pound an hour to have the heating on, and if I run out of money in the night, the gas keeps running, putting me into debt. Since I moved into a dual-fuel house, my energy bills have tripled. The choice is to have cold kids and more money, or warm kids and less money. The gas meter wins, every time. Trying to achieve the basic trio of shelter, heat and food is not easy on a low income. I often hear people say they are too proud to be on benefits. When you have children to look after, there is no such thing as pride. If my pride had stopped me claiming benefits, I'd have been homeless two years ago, despite being in work.

When people assume that everyone on benefits is on the highway to luxury, it makes me angry. When people assume that everyone on benefits is a workshy, babyfactory, that makes me angry. And when people say "Oh, we don't mean YOU", I get REALLY angry. The stigma extended to those on benefits is universal, from the top down. I get blamed by the government for the deficit, I get patronised by the jobcentre, I get judged by my son's preschool (because he has subsidised lunches), and everytime someone bitches about dole dossers, I get insulted. 

****

Now, you'll all be pleased to know that I've finished K101 and am now moving onto K203, which will doubtless mean less benefit-related bitching, and more perceptions of childbirth bitching.

The Conservative Conference

The government like cuts. They REALLY like cuts. Someone (with a lot more patience than I) has compiled a list of all the cuts here. It makes for disturbing reading. The services that are being cut are primarily in the health, social and education sectors, and almost nobody will be unaffected by them. We're all in this together, according to David Cameron. However, it soon becomes apparent that this Utopia is quite Orwellian. We may be all in this together, but some are more in it than others.

For example, George Osborne wants to cut 10 BILLION pounds EXTRA off the welfare output, to rebalance the deficit. He thinks limiting the amount of children a family on benefits is allowed may help this. How, exactly, I'm unsure. I have two children. They were concieved before I required benefits to live on. If I'd managed to have five children without needing assistance, and then found myself needing it, would I be expected to have a cull? Put some in care, maybe? What is an acceptable amount of children for Mr Osborne? Two, like him? Or four, like Mr Cameron?

This country needs to stop punishing the poor (who are in increasingly less position to be able to contribute to the economy at all) and start taxing the rich. Our economy collapsed due to the greed of bankers, playing games with the country's money, yet mansion tax was scrapped because, apparently, it will soon spiral out of control, and people who have saved and worked hard will resent having to pay for their houses. Their enormous houses, that they cannot possibly NEED, that use up huge swathes of land. A worthy target for taxation.

However, the con-dem party aren't interested in this viewpoint. It is preferable to pretend that the enormous amount of people living in poverty are to blame. Iain Duncan Smith declared that "Now we are toughening up the penalty for failure to seek work." (BBC News). How does he define failure to seek work? There are no jobs to be had for many people, and most jobseeking benefits ARE stopped if you fail to seek work.
He also said "Gone must be the days when governments spent money to buy their way out of a problem." (ibid) but this is the problem. The only way to fix the amount of people on benefits is to invest. Invest in creating jobs, in improving areas of deprivation, in removing social exclusion. A child born into a debt-ridden, workless household will only have that to aspire to, unless social change happens.

This government are deliberately targeting those without a voice, in their benefit cull. The rich spoke out in droves against mansion tax, and were heeded. The poor have no choice but to accept cap after cut, because the government own us. In blaming us for the recession and deficit, the government are alienating and excluding us from society.

However, that's no longer enough and they're beginning to attack the workers as well. The minimum wage for over 21s (because, despite paying tax, you're not an adult til then in the government's eyes) is just over £10k a year. Can anyone live on that, without help? Can anyone support a FAMILY on that, without help? No. Yet, there's no call to introduce a living wage, and working families are resentful of those on benefits because they apparently have more money. This isn't true: for a childless adult, working is more profitable than being on income support. When I was a single, working parent, I got £200 a month more than I do now, overall.
In addition to this, Mr Osborne wants to remove people's employment rights. How humanitarian of him! Instead of allowing people to be protected from unfair dismissal, be permitted maternity leave, training and have a right to redundancy, they will get er...shares in their employing company. Aside from the legal ramifications of trying to enact this, it reduces employees to money-magnets, not people.
The new target is childless people under 25, who dare claim housing benefit. Apparently, these people should continue living with their parents. At what point did 25 become adulthood? At what point did income tax and national insurance start only applying once you reached 25? Oh, that's right, it doesn't.

The coalition government has no sense of what it's like to live in the lower classes. Instead, they fear and blame them and increase the distance between us and them, hoping that nobody notices. Legal tax loopholes mean that the rich are not paying into the economy, only taking from it. There is no push to close these loopholes. Instead, the lowest strata of British people are punished repeatedly, and vilified.This is not an acceptable way to run a country.

The Welfare State

Today, I went to the jobcentre plus for my Very First Interview.
And dear God, what a dispiriting place it is.
In my city, the jobcentre is on the corner of a busy intersection, and the building has turrets (presumably to give an air of gravitas). The building wastes it's time. Outside stand the great unwashed, smoking and otherwise passing the time until they have to go to an appointment, catch the bus, or wait for a lift. I cannot blame them for preferring to wait outside, smoking or not, as I've rarely been in a place with such a condemnatory atomosphere.

As regular readers know, I'm a single mum of two. I officially stopped work in January, and since then have claimed income support to live on. I don't like being out of work, but I'm unlikely to find a job I like with hours to suit my kids while they're so young. The choice seemed to be investing in my children, or investing in work, so I chose the kids and started a degree so when they're old enough for me to work, I can get a decent job.

Anyway, back to the jobcentre, with a lower case j. I dislike such typographical absurdities. There's something demeaning on being given handouts by an agency that doesn't even recognise it's own name as a proper noun.
I went to the wrong door at first, and somehow ended up in their offices, where I was patronisingly redirected by a man in a suit. Everything about his face, his manner and his tone said "You do not belong here".
Once I found the right door, I was faced by a busy reception, and one woman directing the human traffic, flanked by two G4S security people. Up the stairs I went to a room full of desks, and a line of phones along one wall. I passed a temping agency recruitment desk who brightly asked me if I was looking for work, and looked utterly baffled when I said no.

There was no privacy, but more security. One woman was crying into the phone because a cockup with her benefits had left her skint, another man was loudly abusing a staffmember because his own mistake meant he hadn't been able to feed his children. I was directed to a sofa to wait for my appointment, and could hear every word of the conversation happening at the desk a few feet in front of me. It was noisy, it was hot and it was uncomfortable in atmosphere. Claimants were either distressed or ill at ease, staff members forcing jollity to try and bridge the gap, security guards on the alert for anyone kicking off.

I was called to a desk, in the middle of the room, where my allocated job advisor (let's call her Helen) went through my personal details. My full name, phone numbers and address were broadcast for all to hear, not because Helen was indiscreet, but because of the design of the place. She explained the purpose of the interview and then asked about my previous job. It went something like this:
Helen: "It says here you worked in administration, can you tell me more?"
Me: "I worked for the NHS, doing data analysis"
Helen: "Oh...is that office management?"
Me: "No, clinical coding - you probably have people here that do something similar, gathering information and then writing reports on the statistics"
Helen: "Oh...boring then"

She meant to lighten the tone, but it wasn't the best start. Neither was it her fault that the computer system lacked a category to put data administration in, so I ended up being classed as 'office manager'. She then asked how long I'd worked there, and on being told 8 years, looked amazed.
We continued on to my current plans and I described my intention to gain a degree and then return to work at a higher level than I'd previously worked in. She asked if I needed to do a degree for such work, and I explained it varies vastly by organisation. She then asked what qualifications I had
Me: "GCSEs and AS levels"
Helen: "How many GCSEs? Have you got maths...?"
Me: "Eleven, A* to C"
Helen: "Oh"

She told me, at length, about her daughter who is currently struggling with her AS levels. I gave her the names and ages of my children, and she asked if I wanted to look at taking part time work. I said not at the moment, and she said fine, and I'd be recalled in six months for another interview. She told me how the benefits are different for single parents in work, and I pointed out that I know this as I was a single working parent for fifteen months.
She sent me on my way with a sheet about benefits for those getting back into work - essentially, some cash if you take a job of full time hours for more than five weeks.

I left feeling faintly depressed, even though I'm lucky enough to know that living on benefits will be a short term thing for us. I cannot imagine how people who have to go every month must feel, having to admit that once more, they have failed in the eyes of the government.
We are lucky to have a benefits system to catch us when bad luck befalls us, but must it be so designed to make us ashamed? It's not my fault I ended up a single parent, I didn't PLAN my life this way. Twenty months ago, I was married, well-educated, comfortable financially, owned my own home, was working, had a beautiful baby and another on the way. Now, I am allegedly among the dregs of society, living from government handouts and aware that everything around me conspires to keep me on the borders of society, with rehabilitation masked by bribery.

There must be a better way.