The following is a letter I would have liked to have written, and had published alongside this morning's news which prompted it. Enjoy
Dear Mr Osborne,
like you and many others, I was horrified at the reports of the death of six children in a fire at the hands of Mick Philpott. As someone who calls Nottingham home, the fact that this took place in Derby made it even more horrific, as there is something selfish in all of us regarding proximity. But I digress. I write to question the basic idea behind your question as to 'why we are subsidising lifestyles like these', and to ask a few questions.
Firstly, the idea of a benefits 'lifestyle'. There are many, though it is not clear how many, who use and abuse the benefits system for personal gain, and the idea that Mr. Philpott had an income of over £100,000 does somewhat boggle the mind. That said, this is not the norm. As I'm sure your own convoluted and complicated records show, My wife and I spent a period of six months on Job Seekers Allowance. We certainly didn't have a 'lifestyle' that would have made the front page. It was due largely to the generosity of a few friends, unsolicited except in prayer, that we were able to spend Christmas with family, and get some small presents. JSA is not a payment which affords a lifestyle in which many people are comfortable.
Secondly, the basic necessity of a welfare state. As a theology graduate, I spent a reasonable amount of time with newspapers and politics students. But I don't claim to to have all the answers, economically, politically, or theologically. One thing I do know, however, is that there is something inherently good at the heart of our welfare system. The idea that the state should provide, because people are worth something. This should be protected, regardless of what form it takes and what the economic climate is. This understanding of humanity is tied into my Christian understanding of the world - we call it the 'imago dei'. From that same perspective I can rationalise the actions of Mr Philpott, and others, because as well as 'imago dei', Christianity teaches that human beings are sinful, broken, imperfect.
My third point flows from my final observation. You ask the very valid question, 'why are we subsidising lifestyles like these?'. I believe the same question was asked of many of your colleagues and opponents a few years ago. The amounts of money spent on non-essentials as revealed in the expenses scandal betrayed a 'lifestyle' that most people felt was grossly excessive and out of touch. Certainly the state should not be funding that. The basic answer to the MP's expense scandal was regulation and a call to a culture of honesty. Is not the same here, in this benefits conundrum? I don't claim to have all the answers, but I believe this might be a step in the right direction.
I hope I have been clear and concise, and not too preachy. I agree wholeheartedly with you that Mr Philpott has committed a great crime, but a man from the Middle East once said 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone'. The great story of Easter, which we have just seen celebrated in England and globally, is that even the thief can be forgiven. Whether that thief is a benefits scrounger or an expense-fiddling MP, the Easter narrative offers hope and forgiveness. I hope the national conversation on issues such as these could include more of those, and together this country can regain its 'Greatness'.
yours,
Thomas Creedy
If you've read my blog for the first time, or are a regular reader, then I'd love you to find and 'like' my Facebook page. You can read about that, and the recent name change in this post.
Image my own, article can be read at the Telegraph here.
Dear Mr Osborne,
like you and many others, I was horrified at the reports of the death of six children in a fire at the hands of Mick Philpott. As someone who calls Nottingham home, the fact that this took place in Derby made it even more horrific, as there is something selfish in all of us regarding proximity. But I digress. I write to question the basic idea behind your question as to 'why we are subsidising lifestyles like these', and to ask a few questions.
Firstly, the idea of a benefits 'lifestyle'. There are many, though it is not clear how many, who use and abuse the benefits system for personal gain, and the idea that Mr. Philpott had an income of over £100,000 does somewhat boggle the mind. That said, this is not the norm. As I'm sure your own convoluted and complicated records show, My wife and I spent a period of six months on Job Seekers Allowance. We certainly didn't have a 'lifestyle' that would have made the front page. It was due largely to the generosity of a few friends, unsolicited except in prayer, that we were able to spend Christmas with family, and get some small presents. JSA is not a payment which affords a lifestyle in which many people are comfortable.
Secondly, the basic necessity of a welfare state. As a theology graduate, I spent a reasonable amount of time with newspapers and politics students. But I don't claim to to have all the answers, economically, politically, or theologically. One thing I do know, however, is that there is something inherently good at the heart of our welfare system. The idea that the state should provide, because people are worth something. This should be protected, regardless of what form it takes and what the economic climate is. This understanding of humanity is tied into my Christian understanding of the world - we call it the 'imago dei'. From that same perspective I can rationalise the actions of Mr Philpott, and others, because as well as 'imago dei', Christianity teaches that human beings are sinful, broken, imperfect.
My third point flows from my final observation. You ask the very valid question, 'why are we subsidising lifestyles like these?'. I believe the same question was asked of many of your colleagues and opponents a few years ago. The amounts of money spent on non-essentials as revealed in the expenses scandal betrayed a 'lifestyle' that most people felt was grossly excessive and out of touch. Certainly the state should not be funding that. The basic answer to the MP's expense scandal was regulation and a call to a culture of honesty. Is not the same here, in this benefits conundrum? I don't claim to have all the answers, but I believe this might be a step in the right direction.
I hope I have been clear and concise, and not too preachy. I agree wholeheartedly with you that Mr Philpott has committed a great crime, but a man from the Middle East once said 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone'. The great story of Easter, which we have just seen celebrated in England and globally, is that even the thief can be forgiven. Whether that thief is a benefits scrounger or an expense-fiddling MP, the Easter narrative offers hope and forgiveness. I hope the national conversation on issues such as these could include more of those, and together this country can regain its 'Greatness'.
yours,
Thomas Creedy
___________________
No comments:
Post a Comment
Hey! Thanks for commenting. I'll try to moderate it as soon as possible