'SHELTER' HAVE IT ALL WRONG.

Today's news carries a claim being put about by the left-wing housing organisation 'Shelter' which defies belief. They say that there are 3.8 million families in Britain who are no more than 1 month from homelessness as they would simply not be able to pay their rent or mortgage if they were to lose their jobs. The organisation wants the Government to 'provide better short-term support' for those who fall into such need.

What annoys me particularly is that anyone in work and earning a relatively low wage can qualify for 'working tax credits' and, if they have children, 'child tax credits' and support with childcare costs as well. If they're income is deemed insufficient, they also get financial help with childcare costs and let us not forget child benefit. On top of all of this, there is housing benefit and council tax support.

With all of this a family with 3 children may expect to gather in an overall total of around £28,000 a year in earnings, tax credits and the rest. To claim that this is 'living on a financial knife-edge' as do Shelter, is ludicrous; while it may not allow for stately living, it is far from penury.

My personal knowledge tells me that the real problem is a cavalier attitude adopted by far too many of these supposed 'poor'. Rather than making sure that bills are paid and money is put aside for holidays, Xmas, occasional demands and rainy days, they waste their money, much of which may well come from the taxpayer, on cigarettes, alcohol and gambling. They do not seem to care that a packet of cigarettes now costs around £7, nor that a pint of beer may be in the region of £3.50; they smoke a packet or more a day and drink excessively. It is far from difficult for 2 adults in a family to get through £10,000 a year in this way, wasting more than a third of their total income. If they also gamble on horses, dogs or the lottery, things get even worse.

Such families have no savings and are in perpetual debt. They may be, as Shelter claims, less than a month from homelessness but it is nobody's fault but their own. There may, indeed, be outwardly wealthy families who are in as much of a mess as my example but, again, this will almost certainly be a result of spending money they do not have and of failing to put anything aside. In the event that they fall on hard times, it should not be for the government, meaning other taxpayers, to bail any of these profligates out. If necessary, children must be protected which could mean removing them from their parents; the parents have no defence and should suffer the full consequences of their actions. A few nights on a hard floor in a hostel or in a cardboard box under some cold bridge is likely to have greater impact and long term effect than providing still more government hand outs.

Harsh, yes. Unreasonable, no.