Cameron adds to the absurdity on the Philpott case and welfare

The PM says welfare must not be "a lifestyle choice". But Philpott's wife and girlfriend were in work.

David Cameron has waded into the increasingly absurd debate over the lessons from the Philpott case, backing George Osborne's comments ("absolutely right") and declaring that "we want to say welfare is there to help people who want to work hard, but it's not a lifestyle choice"

What the Prime Minister either doesn't know or won't say is that the problem in this instance was emphatically not one of "welfare dependency". Both Philpott's wife and girlfriend were in work and so would have been unaffected by the coalition's £26,000 benefit cap (an unjust and ineffective measure in any case). The problem was that their benefits, like their salaries, were paid directly into Philpott's bank account. The guilty party, as I wrote yesterday, wasn't the welfare state but a violent, misogynistic bully intent on controlling the lives of the two women and their children. No one should believe, for instance, that limiting child benefit to two children per family (as Iain Duncan Smith has proposed) would have prevented his crimes. 

If there is a lesson for government policy from this extreme and unususal case, it is for the need for earlier and more effective intervention by social services. The idea that we can reasonably draw any useful conclusions about the welfare system should be rejected by all sane-minded people. 

David Cameron delivers a speech on immigration in Ipswich on March 25, 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

All the dumb stuff ministers said about technology following the Westminster attack

“The web is an international worldwide phenomenon.”

It’s a bit like realising the country is run by your mum trying to use iMessage for the first time. “Why has it turned blue?” Her Majesty’s Government cries in unison, scrunching its eyes up and holding the nation’s security a metre away from its face.

Yes, this is the horrifying reality of Britain’s counter-terrorism response being in the hands of people who type “www.” into the search bar and bestow iPlayer with an unnecessary “the”.

As government ministers express concerns about encryption – asking WhatsApp to let them in, among other misguided endeavours – following the attack on Westminster last week, they have revealed a worrying lack of any form of technological literacy.

Here are the most terrible bits, which your mole found by surfing the web on doubleyew doubleyew doubleyew dot google dot com:

Home Secretary, Amber Rudd

“Necessary hashtags”

“The best people who understand the technology, who understand the necessary hashtags to stop this stuff ever being put up, not just taken down, but ever being put up in the first place are going to be them.”

Watch out, all you hashtag-happy potential perpetrators of atrocities. If you tweet #iamaterrorist then the government will come down on you LIKE A TONNE OF TETRIS BRICKS.

“We don’t want to go into the cloud”

“If I was talking to Tim Cook, I would say to him, this is something completely different, we’re not saying open up, we don’t want to go into the cloud, we don’t want to do all sorts of things like that.”

The Home Secretary definitely thinks that there is a big, fluffy, probably cumulonimbus cloud in the sky where lots of men in thick-framed glasses and polo necks sit around, typing content and data and stuff on their computer machines.

Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson

“New systems and algorithms”

“They need to develop new systems and algorithms to detect this stuff and remove it.”

Fire up the algorithms, boys! Don’t spare the horses!

“Good men do nothing, and that’s what’s happening here”

“Evil flourishes when good men do nothing, and that’s what’s happening here.”

First they came for the YouTube stars, and I did not speak out – because I was not a YouTube star.

Security minister, Ben Wallace

“The web is an international worldwide phenomenon” 

“We need to explore what we can do within the realms of the web. The web is an international worldwide phenomenon, and businesses and servers are based all over the world.”

Wait, what? The world wide web is both international and worldwide, you say? Is it global and transnational and intercontinental too? Maybe he got technology confused with tautology.

I'm a mole, innit.