Janan Ganesh of the FT talks
about the unique moral arrogance of the left. They have too often
“impugned the motives of Conservatives”. He says that “the
reality of politics in a rich, modern country is that parties are
squabbling over marginalia”. He is wrong, and should get out more.
For example, take the issue of benefit sanctions. No doubt he might
say that sanctions existed, and indeed the regime was tightened,
during the Labour government. But the reality is that something very
horrible, and morally shameful, is currently going on. The number of
sanctions per claimant remained
below 4% from 2000 to 2010. In 2013 it peaked at above 7%, and in
2014 was between 5% and 6%. Behind these statistics are a wealth of
examples of where sanctions have been applied for minor
infringements, and have ignored excellent reasons like the death of a
spouse, or the long que at the jobcentre. Frances Coppola gives these
and more examples here.
She points out that Department of Work and Pension (DWP) guidance
states “It would be usual for a normal healthy adult to suffer some
deterioration in their health if they were without essential items,
such as food, clothing, heating and accommodation or sufficient money
to buy essential items for a period of two weeks…” Sanctions
often operate for 4 weeks or even longer. It is causing
people to become homeless, and children to go hungry. This is not
“marginalia”.
The current sanctions regime is one of the main causes of the
increased use of food banks in the UK. Yet Ganesh instead likes to
focus on inaccurate use of foodbank data. The DWP says that the
sanctions regime is important in providing incentives to get people
back to work. But is there any evidence that it does this? You would
think that the department would have produced some evidence by now,
although one of the comments
on Frances’s post (and yes, we cannot know it is genuine) suggests
why we have not. Yet this did not deter the department. They put out
on their website (now unsurprisingly withdrawn) quotes and a picture
from ‘Sarah’ who had been sanctioned and as a result had been
encouraged to produce a CV. The only problem
was that Sarah was completely fictitious.
There is widespread talk of jobcentre staff being put under pressure
to sanction. The relevant select committee of MPs has asked for an
inquiry, but this has been refused. Benefit sanctions are just one of
a range
of policy
mistakes
by this department that is causing real harm to the disadvantaged,
and will continue
to do so. All these problems were quite clear before the election,
but the Prime Minister has kept Iain Duncan Smith in post. George
Osborne has been happy to feed
off the stigmatisation of benefit claimants stoked by the tabloids.
So please, Mr. Ganesh, no more lectures about moral arrogance on the
left. Not, at least, until you have recognised what is actually
happening to many of those who are unfortunate enough to be claiming
benefits administered under this government, and the government’s
apparent indifference to that.
