Prepaid Welfare Cards, Drugs, Alcohol, and Fish & Chips

Talk of paying welfare benefits via pre-paid cards comes up again and again. The idea is to ensure that welfare recipients spend their money on “essentials” rather than drugs, alcohol and gambling. I hate the idea.

I think back to when I was claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) in the UK, maybe ten years ago. Money was very, very tight, but I still liked to have fish and chips on a Friday night and a couple of pints in the pub. To me, that was essential: some enjoyment in life, rather than simply meaninglessly existing was essential – essential to my sanity. So for some people it’s fish and chips and a pint in the pub. For some it’s a joint at the weekend, or perhaps playing the pokies, or going out to a nightclub every now and then and doing tequila shots and maybe a couple of pills. For some it’s scraping together whatever money they can to buy some low-quality heroin because it’s a fucking mammoth addiction that the fucking health service is too underfunded to help them with in any way. But whatever, different people have different essentials, but for everyone it is essential for their life to mean something, and not simply to exist.

I think part of the problem is people who have never claimed benefits making decisions on – and passing comment on – welfare policy without consideration of the experiences of the people it affects. For all people, leisure and entertainment are essentials. Yes, not needed for basic survival, but essential nonetheless. To suggest that the poorest in society deserve nothing but survival is unfair and extremely misguided. It’s cruel and unjust. For many, a period claiming welfare benefits comes either after or before a long period in work, paying tax and contributing in a full way to society. If it’s taxpayers’ money it is then by definition their money. They are, were, or will be taxpayers. There are a small minority – a tiny minority – who are chronic welfare recipients (and it really is a tiny minority, despite perceptions caused by media focus). Some consider that to be problematic (I don’t) and something that should be punished. I disagree even there, but either way we have to let that go – otherwise we are punishing the majority simply out of spite.

When I was claiming JSA, the money I received was mine. I didn’t need permission for how to spend it. I needed serious and meticulous budgeting skills, but the money was mine, and mine to spend as I pleased. Often I spent the money on alcohol. Sometimes on drugs. Sometimes existence was painfully hard, and balls to anyone who would have denied me a little pleasure and a little entertainment.

Welfare is not a “lifeline to survive” – it’s a package to ensure that people who find themselves in financially impossible situations are able to maintain a decent and dignified quality of life. By denying those people all but the bare minimum to survive as living organisms, you would deny them dignity and the freedom to exist as humans and valued members of a functioning society. Welfare is there to prevent that – not cause it.

a thing what i wrote about the iain duncan smith petition

note: this was originally posted on my tumblr in 2013

There is this petition going round calling for Iain Duncan Smith to live on £53 a week to prove that he can after he said that he could. While I think it’s a good thing to call out politicians when they say ridiculous things, I don’t think that this would achieve anything at all. For a number of reasons.

1
He probably could live on £53 per week. I’m almost certain of it. If he did do it (he won’t), he would have a team of people so determined to make it happen, they would make sure it happened.

2
There are two different mentalities at play, so it wouldn’t be a fair game. If he did do it (he won’t), what would be the point? For us, it is about making him see how unfair and hard it is. We don’t care if he manages to actually live on £53 a week or not; we just want him to see it from our point of view. For him it would be a game. A win/lose game. He would have to win, and we would have to lose. So it would be a waste of time.

3
This isn’t about taking a pay cut from £1,000 a week to £50 a week. That’s an amusing PR stunt. It’s about taking a pay cut from £54 a week to £53 a week. It’s the fear and terror of knowing that, having had everything budgeted TO THE PENNY, you now have to find somewhere to make savings. And it’s impossible. The families this affects ALREADY buy the cheapest bread and they ALREADY turn the heating off when it’s not unbearably cold. For them this isn’t an amusing and interesting experiment; it’s real.

4
Poverty is not just living on £53 a week for a week. Or a month. Or a year. It’s forever. It extends into the past and there’s no hope of the future being any different. For Iain Duncan Smith to have any insight into really what these cuts mean, he would have to live this experiment for the rest of his life. If he can just snap his fingers and be back in Whitehall any time, it is pointless.

5
Even if he did do it (he won’t), it’s all very well living on £53 a week in March. But what about in December? What about two weeks before Christmas? Does IDS know the difference in price between a family chicken and a frozen turkey and how to find the extra money to pay for it?

6
Evil though IDS is, I don’t think we should be signing a petition to push yet another person into poverty. Whoever that person is.