A Distorted Reality.

I was going to write a post about the Conservatives’ Breakthrough Britain policy suggestions this evening, but I then realised that the report is 861 pages long. So, tonight I shall take the easy way out, and just comment upon the delightful fifteen page report commissioned upon only problems in Birmingham (entitled Breakthrough Birmingham); which is apparently the hotbed of ‘worklessness’ of all of the UK’s main cities.

The report starts as would be expected really: a short introduction from Iain Duncan Smith followed by some initial ’state of the city’ declarations: as of May 2007, 21% of Birmingham adults were claiming key benefits being the main point standing out to me. Key failures in Birmingham’s educational system are pointed out reasonably objectively and rationally. Then, as would be expected of a report commissioned by the Conservative Party, the inevitable descent into description of the moral decay intrinsic of non-conventional family structures is hit upon:

Family breakdown

• At the time of the 2001 census, there were 37,696 lone parent households in Birmingham – almost 30 per cent of all households. This figure is 34 percent higher than the national rate of 21.8 per cent.
• In Birmingham, more than one in 20 girls between the ages of 15-17 will become pregnant – this is above the national rate of one in 24.
• In Birmingham 78 children per 10,000 are looked after by the Local Authority – this compares to 55 per 10,000 nationally.

Having a working role model at home increases the chances of a child being in work in adulthood. The worklessness rate for lone parents nationally is 42 percent, compared to 5 per cent for couple households with dependent children. Strengthening the family would have considerable impact on the number of children living in a household with a working role model and would therefore improve their future prospects.
This would also have much broader implications. Children from families that have experienced family breakdown are also much more likely to become teenage mothers or get involved in crime. The family environment is instrumental in the physical, emotional and psychological development of a child and the pressures of economic dependency put considerable strain on its stability.

The shorter version: Birmingham is pretty fucked up, basically. Teenage whores and single mothers abound, producing children bound to be nought but a burden. I must admit: I am biased here, being the product of a single-mother family myself; but their points are made moot by reality. Worklessness is higher amongst single parents in order that they are able to look after their children more readily in many cases: would they rather have the children lack even this supposedly ‘unbritish’ stability? The children’s ‘future prospects’ are not bound by the origins of their parents, but rather the capabilities and support of parents: and that is the true issue, not this structure snobbishness so popular with all three of our centrist parties.

The two areas of Birmingham chosen as case studies are known within the city as being amongst the worst: Sparkbrook and Balsall Heath. Most inhabitants of the Birmingham/Greater Birmingham area would also be aware that these areas being chosen would be indicative of the Conservatives’ slight xenophobic bent, having the highest Asian and Black populations in the city. Educational failure in these areas is put down mostly to English being a second language for many students: surely this is more of an immigration issue than a social one.

People living in deprivation and experiencing multiple pathways to poverty are more likely to be involved in crime, or addicted to drugs and alcohol. Marginalised in society, self belief and aspirations are significantly reduced. People therefore turn to negative sources of affirmation and inclusion.

I call bullshit: I doubt there to be any marginalisation other than that caused by the proliferation of the tertiary sector: if not for the strong desire for supposed ‘professionals’, even the uneducated would be able to find work as, for lack of a better term, factory-fodder. They’d still be living in deprivation, but they’d have work: something which is genuinely lacking in Birmingham.

The supposed solutions also leave a little to be desired; it’s all just advice bordering on ‘throw money at the problem’. Welfare-to-work schemes are hardly a new idea, with the entired organisation of the Job Centre being (admittedly haplessly) in existence solely for this task. An idea (and nothing more) of reinventing the welfare system is suggested, with only the core tenet of ‘incentivising work’ – it’s nothing concrete. Of course, the suggestion is made that the institution (archiac as it may be) of marriage should be recognised and rewarded; and that a two parent foundation should be blessed: I see this as nothing short of a veiled promotion of traditionally Christian values.

They still want nothing but to help those who ‘help themselves’.