WE have become familiar with the image of the bogey family on benefits: a huge clan of eight or more children whose parents are jobless or working the system.
Since the UK only has 2,000 families of that size, and a small fraction of those draw benefits, they are unlikely to be consuming a substantial slice of the welfare budget. But their stories are unavoidable. When in 2013 Mick Philpott, the so-called "scrounger", was found guilty of manslaughter after fire killed six of his seventeen children, he was portrayed by some newspapers and politicians as representative of a benefits culture in which parents milked the system by using their children as "cash cows". The Daily Mail described Philpott as a "vile product of welfare UK". George Osborne talked of the welfare state "subsidising lifestyles like that".
Such twisted propaganda has paved the way for the Conservative Government's budget policy of stopping child tax credits at two children. Have a third child and, come 2017, you're on your own (or at least a little more so). Be that third child and you're a surplus, an extra - something that really shouldn't have happened at all.
Of course, there's a way of framing this benefits cut that makes it seem like good, but brutal, housekeeping. It is, in Iain Duncan Smith's words, about "cutting your cloth" - if children are an asset you can't afford, don't spawn them. But it's impossible to escape the eugenic and Malthusian undercurrents that swirl round the debate. Anti-poor sentiments have existed for a long time, but of late there has been an escalation in the shaming of benefits recipients - a scapegoating not only of the ill and disabled, but of the poor who breed.
The Conservatives are prime exponents of the idea. Back in 1974, the Tory Keith Joseph declared: "A high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world ... They are producing problem children ... The balance of our human stock, is threatened." But there has also been a eugenics of the left. William Beveridge, midwife of the Welfare State, advocated graded family allowance schemes in which the educated professional classes would be encouraged to have more children and poor households discouraged from doing so.
Thankfully, come 2017 when the planned cuts take place, those who already have three or more children, won't find their credits stripped away. But if you transgress the small family ethic thereafter, there will be no credits to cover your surplus child. The only exceptions planned, controversially, are for raped woman who may receive support, but must prove they were raped.
Iain Duncan Smith has said this policy is not really about saving money but about fairness to the taxpayer. And if the small number of families involved mean the policy will have little budgetary impact, that's because this depressingly symbolic tactic has been driven by a reverse politics of envy, by taxpayer cries of "unfair" directed downwards towards the poor rather than upwards towards the very rich. Many of its victims will be among the nation's poorest: the poverty rate for families with three or more children is 22 per cent, compared to 16 per cent for smaller families.
Of course, some environmentalists argue that it's better for the planet for everyone to stop at one or two children. But Osborne and Duncan Smith aren't thinking about carbon footprints or global warming. If they were they might consider taxing the children of the wealthy, who appear set to inherit their parents large carbon shoe-size.
Who breeds and who doesn't still matters to many. The message that children are something you can afford or not, a right of those with the means to fund them, is amplified by the fact that Iain Duncan Smith has four children, while David Cameron has three. The privilege of the rich is not just power but progeny. When they talk, as Duncan Smith has done, of the need to provoke "behavioural change", I can't help thinking of Charles Dickens's Ghost of Christmas Present, who admonished Scrooge, saying: "Oh God! To hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust."
Too much life in the dust is what too many complain of now. There is a palpable disgust in certain corners of the media and politics for the multiplying poor, a belief that when someone on benefits reproduces, they are bringing into the world more spongers and scroungers - as if poverty itself were a kind of heritable condition, rather than something escapable through education and work opportunity. In this world-view, it is not just the poor or jobless that are bogeymen, it is also their offspring. Imagine growing up one of these bogey babies, a third child without credit. Aside from the actual poverty, the exclusion from trips and events that your school peers are experiencing, the lack of food or clothing, there is no doubt that the propaganda would touch you, that you would become aware of the attitudes, the shaming of big families such as yours. And you, doubtless, would think the world unfair.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article