The Way I See It

This week the Government’s plan for a  £26,000-a-year cap on benefits has been a hot bed of debate.

Labour refuses to support David Cameron’s notion that £500 a week (£35,000 a year before tax for a working family) is enough for anyone who is incapable of work.

It is likely the bill will be forced through Parliament without the opposition’s stamp of approval in time for it to become law by April

Labour doesn’t agree? That’s hardly surprising, this is the Government that hopelessly steered us deeper into recession when the (albeit global) credit crunch hit.

The same government which left a benefits-culture legacy with figures from 2010 - 2011 showing £152.4 billion of taxpayers’ money was spent on supporting people unable or too ill to work.

(£105.6 billion went on health and £58.3 went on education.)

If someone was to ask me what puts the “Great” into Great Britain, the welfare state would be up there in my top ten.

It is a safety net should we fall on hard times. It supports people who through no fault of their own need help providing for themselves and their family.

It is a privilege, and sadly as with all privileges it is open to abuse.

Benefits have become a right rather than a safeguard to get you back on your feet when times are hard and that, call me harsh, stinks.

The topic was debated on today’s The Big Questions on BBC1.

Taking part in the discussion was Tory MP for Gosport Caroline Dineage (right), who had a ludicrous notion it was unfair that people out of work were raking in more in benefits than their  hard-working neighbours.

Ultimately “everybody aspires to want to work”, she said, it is the system which makes it impossible.

I think that is the problem, it doesn’t, they don’t.

There is an attitude of entitlement insidiously smothering the fast-disappearing work-hard-to-support-yourself British culture.

The argument, “If I went to work I would be worse off than I am now on benefits” is  sickeningly common.

Wages too low? No, handouts too generous. Personal accountability is rapidly vanishing.

BBC reporter Julian Joyce this week highlighted the plight of a family in Wales set to suffer from the cuts, apparently they will be left with a choice between “heating and eating”.

It transpires the unemployed father-of-seven and his family don’t own a car and can’t afford a yearly holiday  - shameful.

His wife suffers from bipolar disorder with a anxiety and is also unable to work poor love (apparently these conditions don’t affect sex drive).

But the most unjust outcome on this shining example of 2012 Britain (I wonder why Sir Bob Geldof did so much trying to help the starving in Africa when there are clearly more worthy cases at home), would be their weekly shopping budget which includes 24 cans of lager, 200 cigarettes and a large pouch of tobacco will suffer.

Mum explained their £30,284.80 annual benefit package pays for mobile phones (nine I presume) and Sky TV subscription.

How will they cope?

Back to The Big Questions debate and commenting on this tale of woe filled with indignation was a (benefit-claiming, unemployed) who moaned these essentials help the needy “to survive when living in poverty”, of course, silly me.

I won’t, then voice my clearly misguided opinion food vouchers exclusive of booze and fags are a better option than cash handouts, and that before having seven kids you might want to make some provision for paying for them.

I was reminded of a family I interviewed years back as a junior reporter on a local newspaper.

A fag-smoking, swearing matriarch of the poverty-stricken brood wanted to expose a holiday park firm for throwing them off the site for being disruptive.


They were also accused of being drunk and disorderly, hurling abusive language to the other guests and using threatening behaviour.

I asked the ages and occupations, and here’s the laugh, of the 10-strong wronged party.

None of them had a job because they were all affected by disability. You got it, unable to work through illness. 

Leprosy? Brain tumours? Tetraplegia x 10? Not quite.

“Depression, carer, depression, carer, anxiety, carer, depression, carer, depression, carer.”

They had been kicked out for “having a bit of a laugh” which, they explained, involved drinking, a bit of swearing, and dancing on tables - apparently typical behaviour for the average depressive.

The worst part isn’t that they were a bunch of bone idle layabouts on the scrounge, but that they firmly believed their rights had been breached.

Sadly, they are not alone, they are a drop in the ocean. Believe me those cases come in thick and fast on a local rag.

What is more sad is we have a system that allows people to get away with it, and seems to encourage it.

They positive outcome was the “compo” they were seeking for distress suffered never came, shame. 

Follow @ExpressNathan