Media coverage of the Feeding Britain report left me feeling dismayed, as the central, indeed the only issue, the scandal of people going hungry in 21st century Britain, was obscured by a shoal of red herrings.
Media coverage of the Feeding Britain report left me feeling dismayed, as the central, indeed the only issue, the scandal of people going hungry in 21st century Britain, was obscured by a shoal of red herrings.
The fact is that until very recently people living on low incomes, working or not, may have had very hard lives, may have really struggled, but they were very rarely in danger of starving, as they are now. This is a situation which has developed recently, and there are some very specific reasons for it.
Stagnating or falling wages, cut or frozen benefits, and the price of basic necessities rising much faster than the official inflation figures would suggest have all played a part. Not all of these factors can be controlled by government.
However, there is one factor which is completely under the control of government, and which is a massive factor in creating hunger. This is the administration of benefits and the regime of benefit sanctions.
In the last few years we have entered a looking-glass world. In this world, people who have committed a serious crime are entitled to a fair trial and legal representation, but people who have missed a Jobcentre appointment can, without even a warning, be starved or made homeless as a punishment.
This is completely within the control of the Department for Work and Pensions, and Iain Duncan Smith. If he decided today that benefit sanctions would be stopped, one of the main causes of hunger would be eliminated.
The application of benefit sanctions (in reality, starving people as a punishment) has only been made acceptable to the public by creating a false belief that people on benefits are somehow different, less worthy of respect than those who are fortunate enough to have a job. Even in the 1980’s, when there were many more people unemployed, it was generally accepted that the vast majority of people wanted to work, and were ‘on the dole’ because there weren’t enough jobs to go around. They were the unlucky ones. How did we go from that, to starving people because they haven’t applied for enough jobs this week?
This was why the Archbishop of Canterbury’s reluctance to make political points was so disappointing. His determination to be non-political and conciliatory was perhaps understandable given his role, but in the circumstances, not helpful. It served to give the impression that hunger had arisen outside of the political realm, when in fact much of it has been created by political decisions, and could be eliminated by political decisions. To a large extent, this hunger is made in Downing Street.
Remaining above the political fray can sometimes be a political act. As Bishop Desmond Tutu said, ‘“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
The problem of food waste was also given much attention, but is a completely separate issue and was perhaps the biggest red herring. Yes, the food industry is inefficient and wasteful, and has been for many years, but that is a completely separate issue from poverty in the UK.
Of course, waste is bad for people and for the environment, and must make our food more expensive. But surely we should be asking the food industry to become less wasteful, rather than using its waste to ameliorate the poverty caused by a dysfunctional economy, and a welfare system in danger of being ‘reformed’ to destruction. Are we creating a class of people for whom being dependent on what the food industry discards is considered an acceptable way of life? Where is the dignity in that?
And of course, as always in any discussion of poverty, somebody had to bring up the failings and personal shortcomings of the poor. This time it was Baroness Jenkin who said ‘poor people don’t know how to cook’advising us that we can make a bowl of porridge for four pence. It later emerged that Baroness Jenkin was a member of the Refreshments Committee of the House of Lords which had rejected a money-saving proposal because the champagne was not of acceptable quality.
Just when it seemed that nobody was really going to speak truth to power, up popped the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, unlikely champions of economic justice. Highlighting growing inequality in Britain, senior analyst Michael Forster said the Coalition had implemented policies that “fall on the back of the poor population groups” and “The concern is inequality will rise much more once the full impact of public spending cuts is felt,” The OECD also found that “redistribution of wealth via taxes and benefits does not hamper economic growth.”
So there we have it, from a highly regarded international body. Current government policy has increased inequality and will do so further. And not only is this damaging to the lives of those in poverty, it is also damaging to our prosperity as a country, holding us back
It is time for our government to stop punishing people for being poor and start nurturing them. This is not just the right thing to do, it will be good for the economy. And if spelling this out means that the Church is accused of getting involved in politics, then so be it.
—-
© Bernadette Meaden has written about political, religious and social issues for some years, and is strongly influenced by Christian Socialism, liberation theology and the Catholic Worker movement. She is an Ekklesia associate and regular contributor. You can follow her on Twitter: @BernaMeaden