Fri, 22 Oct 2010 4:13p.m.
By Kim Chisnall
Kelly Marshall from Falmouth in Cornwall has never worked a day in her life. The 32-year-old mother of five fell pregnant at 15, dropped out of school and has been claiming benefits ever since. She has a yearly income of £29,000 (NZ$60,000) and her family lives pretty well - each of the bedrooms in her council flat has a flat-screen television, she has a separate walk in wardrobe for her collection of jeans, takes her family on two foreign holidays a year and this year managed to save enough to pay for a £4500 breast increase.
It's that last expenditure that made the headlines, "Sponger's £4,500 boob job on benefits" screamed Closer magazine and in Marshall's local newspaper, "Benefits boob op mum: I'm no scrounger".
To many, Marshall's lifestyle epitomises all that is wrong with Britain's welfare system - council flats for life, benefits so generous they remove any incentive to get a job and a highly developed sense of entitlement - Marshall told the magazine: "I don't think me or my children should miss out on nice things just because I have never worked."
Benefit bludger stories always make good copy, someone living the life of Riley on your taxes? Cue outrage. This story was particularly poignant however because this week the government announced as part of its spending cuts it's slashing the welfare budget by £18 billion by 2015.
Gone are the council flats for life and the cost of council flats will be increased to 80 percent of those in the private market. The government has put an end to the claiming of multiple benefits - now no household can receive more than the average national income - £25,000. Those on sickness benefits will be tested to see if they are fit to return to work, if so they will lose their benefit after a year.
Life is going to change for Kelly Marshall, but so it will for thousands of other more deserving recipients. In fact the Institute for Fiscal Studies says it will be the poor that hit the hardest from the government's plans and families with children will be the biggest losers.
I'm all for weeding out the bludgers, but is it fair that all beneficiaries are being targeted by the government? Is this decision more about popular politics than any sense of justice?