The Chawners have forced themselves into the news again with an interview in this Radio Five Live special. In the interview they say they’re getting £10-12k benefits in total, not the £22k as initially quoted in the Daily Mail and then repeated by every news organisation. There then follows a litany of clean living phrases and stats, and stories of how they’ve been vilified, ridiculed and attacked, including a vindictive Facebook account.

So I’ve checked the money bits. (2008 rates are here pdf)

Not trusting the statements by either the Chawners or the Daily Mail and without knowing anything apart from what they’ve reportedly said, I’ve found…

The basic income support is about £50 per person dependant on age etc. Roughly £200 a week for the family, which is a bit over £10k p.a. as they say. So far so good.
But they live in a house. Council tax will be ~£1-1.3K p.a. which because it’s paid as they’re receiving benefits, knocks the total up to about £12k p.a.
There will also be some actual housing costs; formula rental for a 3 bed council house is a maximum of £127 p.w. for 2009. If this was paid, it equates to ~6.5K p.a. This is paid as housing benefit.

So now the total is ~£18.5k.

I think they claim some sort of disability allowance for diabetes or such things…. I haven’t checked the levels of this, but in reality, and I hate to admit it, the Daily Mail figure is starting to look much more accurate than the numbers the Chawners are bandying around.

And fair play to them. Who ever checks this stuff apart from me?

• It’s still less than Peter Mandelson’s flower bill for his office!
• It’s considerably less than Jacqui Smith’s second home at taxpayer’s expense
• And less than McNulty’s second home allowance for something just round the corner

The fact is that everyone is playing the system for all they can, right from the so-called top down to the so-called bottom of society. There is no difference between them except the Chawners have no financial cushion for when times get hard. They are at the bottom. They have no more to lose and everything to gain.
For Jacqui Smith et al, why do they do it? They’ve money in the bank. They’re already winners with good money and the prestige of office.

Like or Dislike: 0  0