So, the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions believes that the Social Fund encourages dependency and undermines self-reliance (Rightsnet news 11 Oct 2006).

It must be easy to hold such views given that his diaries reveal his desire to pay for several homes, attend exclusive nighclubs and purchase expensive wine and fine food.

Given that such habits are effectively paid for by the tax-payer, can someone please tell me who is really dependent?

A bit rich seeing that he subscribes to a system in which the wealth of the few is entirely dependant on the labour of the many.

'A modern welfare state' - once again, we have a revisionist version of Beveridge's vision of the welfare state as a 'something for nothing' scenario when in fact it was founded on compulsory insurance principles. Contributory benefits were the framework of the welfare state, with the safety net of national assistance in place on the basis of humanitarian and socialist priciples. Not that I am accusing Mr. Blunkett of being a socialist.

The first five pages are something of a preamble to -

"The UK has one of the largest and most competitive financial services sectors in the world and financial products are more widely available than ever before."

I think this gets close to the point, and although I accept that my cynicism about the Resolution Foundation may be misplaced or even unjustified, I feel extreme scepticism is merited, for many reasons I won't go into here.

Although "the range of products" accessible to the majority of people has increased,Blunkett proceeds to inform us, a significant proportion has been left behind.

"This has been exacerbated by the mainstream banks pulling out of deprived areas as they strive to reduce costs and improve profitability. Between 1995 and 2003, around 3,000 bank and building society branches closed in areas with high concentrations of low income households."

For some reason, I found this notion of the banks' strivings laughable, but perhaps no more laughable than Mr. Blunkett promoting these ideas as a former Secretary of State for work and wotsits.

The term 'financial exclusion' which he uses liberally, in this context, should not be taken to mean financial exclusion in the sense of exclusion through insufficient finances, ie poverty, or confused with social exclusion by means of poverty - it means exclusion from access to financial services, or probably, I should say, financial 'products'. That is to say, credit and loans.

Now whether or not it is the case that the financial institutions have seen, with PFI, how easily, in return for very little outlay on 'flannel', they can persuade government to cover their risks, and give them access to lucrative, even captive markets.

I could say that capitalism at its core, is voracious and insatiable, and it can be dismissed as just another view, in a thicket of views.

Blunkett's 5 key tests consist in -

ensuring repayments by deductions from benefits;

making loans conditional on the opening of an account;

oops sorry, accidentally sent before finished.

there's a further suggestion of condition of compulsory savings. there was at one time the ability to make voluntary savings from supplementary benefit, but this was dropped with income support. Remember that income support is not set at a level to enable savings, which is why SF, which replaced single payment grants, was set up in the first place. How compulsion chimes with less dependance and more self-reliance escapes me (like my previous posting).

i loved the 4th one - which I think is basically that poor people borrow money to set themselves up in business as self-employed servants to rich people.

"The idea would be to encourage people on low incomes to develop initiatives of their own to sustain themselves and perhaps, over time,
employ others. Providing personal services such as domestic cleaning, home or business catering, child minding or caring for older people are just some examples of the kind of services that people could initiate with this kind of support."

The fifth one, I think means promoting and developing credit (we don't like to say debt) as socially cuddly and acceptable...

Mr. Blunkett sees the creation of a loans pot of £3 billion (last year's SF budget £700 m) as able to transform crisis loans into a ladder of opportunity.

His thinking appears to me to be entirely coming from the direction of those with an interest in accessing this market (excluding the unfortunate Post Office, who let's face it, are stuffed) and not genuinely from the interets of those in poverty.

In my view, it would take only reference to safeguards to protect the interests of the vulnerable, as opposed to the poor old hardworking banks, to enable a kinder view to be taken, in a serious debate of the issues, but they are sadly lacking. I'd suggest that the 'housing wealth' which gets a brief mention would be a good area. How about safeguards to prevent lenders being able to force claimant's to sell their homes to pay debts?

I could say much more, but am greatly restraining myself (speaking as a parent of an ex-student whose debt is bigger than my mortgage was when I bought my house...)

At least he hasn't suggested sending armed troops into areas with high concentrations of low income households as a means of reducing the numbers living in poverty....

should have attached this link

http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=1825568

or eating babies, to eradicate child poverty... : )