Benefits street
I was on GB News this morning discussing the Conservative Party’s plan to ban benefits claimants from spending their welfare payments on alcohol, cigarettes and gambling.
According to the Telegraph, Kemi Badenoch says the proposed reforms would be tough on those who exploit the system because welfare has become a “lifestyle choice for those who can’t be bothered”.
As I told GB News presenters Andrew Pierce and Miriam Cates, I welcome that aspect of the policy. What I disagree with is the specific proposal concerning alcohol, cigarettes and gambling because it seems a bit Orwellian to me. Not only does it feel quite judgemental, it suggests a moral crusade to force people to give up habits that are frowned upon by the governing classes.
In reality most people – including those on benefits – live within their means and use their common sense with regard to their spending. (I know I did when I was briefly on benefits between jobs in my early twenties.) Why should they be denied some small pleasure like smoking or drinking? What next? Are they going to prohibit the unemployed from buying anything that could be deemed ‘non-essential’? I could make a list – starting with ice-cream and sweets – but it would be endless.
You could argue too that the unemployed should be banned from shopping in the more expensive supermarkets like Waitrose when they can buy many of the same products more cheaply elsewhere. In practice, I doubt that many people on benefits choose to shop in Waitrose or M&S, but you get my point. It’s not the job of government to dictate where people shop and what they are allowed to buy, even if it is taxpayers’ money. In reality, if they are banned from using state benefits to buy cigarettes and alcohol, what will probably happen is that many will simply buy those products on the black market, and even gambling may be driven underground.
Anyway, I had a short but lively exchange of views with Pierce and Cates (a former Conservative MP) who were strongly of the opinion that hardworking taxpayers should not be expected to pay for the long-term unemployed to smoke and drink, but it was a little frustrating because, not only was I repeatedly interrupted, the ‘debate’ was cut short before I could make the point that many smokers, the majority of whom are in lower socio-economic groups, smoke not just for pleasure but for comfort, especially if they live in deprived areas.
Why, I wanted to say, should they be further penalised? The answer, as I have been arguing for years, is for governments and local authorities to focus not on forcing smokers to quit but on improving the environments in which many people are forced to live. If they did that I suspect fewer people would be drawn to smoke or drown their sorrows with alcohol.
Anyway, in response to my suggestion that banning the unemployed from using benefits to buy alcohol and tobacco is "not a good look for the Conservative Party", Pierce brought the discussion to an abrupt close by declaring, "What's not a good look is somebody on benefits outside the pub with a pint in his hand smoking a fag."
Goodness, how dare the unemployed enjoy small pleasures like smoking and drinking!
