The way out of Benefits Street

Only two episodes of Channel 4's Benefits Street have so far been screened, but already it is causing a furore.  In case you haven't seen it, the programme follows the lives of people most of whom live on a street in Birmingham called James Turner Street.  I say most because a man who I think is called Smoggy appears not to live on the street.

Some people who took part in the programme have complained about being misrepresented, while others have argued that the programme should not be screened.  It appears that a lot of people regard the programme as Conservative Party propoganda.

It has now reached the point under the coalition government where many people on benefits are having their payments stopped - the official term is sanctioned - and at least two such households are featured in the programme.

In many cases the sanctions are imposed for reasons which are hard to condone.  I have personally spoken with someone whose benefits were stopped for two weeks because he failed to turn up for an appointment because he was ill.  Nevertheless I am not opposed to sanctions in principle, but I cannot approve of punishing people on a random basis.  Anyone can be ill.

Obviously it is helpful for the government if the general public regards people in receipt of benefits as being for the most part a lot of workshy scroungers who deserve to have their payments stopped, and so it is easy for people to assume that the purpose of Benefits Street is to portray the underclass as undeserving.

I currently incline to the point of view that Benefits Street is fairly honest in its representation of the lives of people on benefits, although I do think it was very unwise for the programme makers to allow a shoplifter to reveal the tricks of his trade.  It is easy to misrepresent what is portrayed however, because there are things which are not made clear.  For example the man called Smoggy sells household goods as well as drinks and sweets door-to-door, and implies that this is his only source of income.  Maybe it is, but it would be easy for someone watching the programme to assume that he is also in receipt of benefits.

A comment about the programme in The Daily Mail contains this quote about resident Dee Kelly who is a lone parent:

If Dee got a job as a cleaner, earning £90 a week, then her benefits would be cut by £70. So after spending a week scrubbing floors and cleaning toilets, she would find herself just £20 a week better off. Is that worth it?

I will not comment on the above case, but a large part of the problem with the welfare state is and has always been the fact that far too many claimants have been unwilling to take a job which leaves them little better off.  Surely in a civilised society people should aspire to work and to support themselves as far as possible.  If you are claiming benefits, then it is only because other people are working and paying taxes.  No one should live on the proceeds of taxation if they have a realistic choice.

At the moment unemployment is falling, and this is perhaps not surprising given that many people are having their benefits sanctioned.  I repeat that I do not condone the random way in which the government is imposing sanctions, but I will admit that the random nature of these sanctions may well be encouraging people to take low-paid jobs which they might otherwise have refused to take.

I would like the government to impose sanctions in situations where sanctions are justified.  Ideally however, reasonable sanctions should have existed since the very inception of the welfare state, rather than being introduced only after many years of failure.