The Observer view on poverty
|
Version 0 of 1. In his Memoir on Pauperism, published following a visit to England, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote: “One part of the population is obliged to rely on the gifts of the other in order to live.” He had discovered with “indescribable astonishment” that “one sixth of the inhabitants of this flourishing kingdom live at the expense of public charity”. That was 1833. Last week the all-party parliamentary group on hunger and food poverty published its report, Feeding Britain. The Archbishop of Canterbury warned that hunger “stalks large parts” of the country. The report shows how in the years following the second world war the cost of housing, utilities and food kept at a reasonable level while wages increased, permitting the accumulation of a financial buffer against periodic hard times. In the past decade, in contrast, the rising cost of living has hit Britain’s poorest households savagely. The report says that in the 10 years to 2013, prices rose more than 30%; food inflation hit 47%; the price of electricity, gas and other fuels increased 153.6% and housing costs went up 30.4%. At the same time, average wages have flatlined and the rich have grown richer. For those on the lowest incomes or out of work, making ends meet is an increasingly impossible task. Is this down to fecklessness, dependency and a lack of moral fibre – or are too many people becoming the casualties of a harsh economic reality in which profits come before people? Iain Duncan Smith, the secretary of state for work and pensions, believes that some of those on jobseeker’s allowance display insufficient determination to find gainful employment. Where the black economy thrives, as employment has vanished, he may be right. But many people struggle against enormous odds – and the system doesn’t help in the way that it could. The young woman with a baby living on benefits of around £145 a week while she attends college, for instance, has to be a superhuman accountant to make the money stretch. Irrationally, if she fails to perform a Jobcentre Plus task to prove her willingness to seek work, often for a perfectly good reason, she is sanctioned and loses yet more of her income. Last year more than a million claimants were sanctioned. Sanctions may lead to a loss of benefits for up to 13 weeks; welcome to the modern day workhouse. The system too often sets people up to fail. That must change. In a scathing article last week the commentator Andreas Whittam Smith chastised Duncan Smith over the use of sanctions, the increase in food banks and the rise in hunger. He was right to do so. This week, in Manchester, the Wood Street Mission will distribute food, toys and clothes to the least well served by society – many of them the working poor – as it has done since 1869. Referrals had to close in November because the demand is so high. Benefits sanctions are a major issue. The Feeding Britain report says: “The glue that once held us together and gave life to our communities is gone.” It is wrong. Donations fuel the Wood Street Mission; volunteers are vital. In spite of the current divisive political narrative that pits us against each other, there still exists support and understanding for those who have the least. What is shameful is that too many citizens in the sixth largest economy in the world are denied a decent job. Instead, they are forced to rely on food banks and handouts. In the 21st century, nearly 200 years after de Tocqueville’s observation, they are still, humiliatingly “obliged to live on the gifts of others”. |