Panorama - Don't Cap my Benefits, questions not asked

On BBC1 there has just been a program by Panorama it was called "Don't Cap My Benefits." It was about benefits claimants who were receiving so much money in benefits they now fell under the new regulations which meant those benefits would be capped. If in a family they only get £500 and if single parents it is limited to £350 per week. In this program claimants from Brent were followed to show the human face of how benefits cuts had effected them. In all cases it meant their rent would not be fulfilled by Housing Benefits, the shortfall would result in being evicted.  They in turn had no choice but to move home. In many instances they were offered alternative accommodation but it was out of London. Away from family, friends, the schools their children had been attending. Of the people followed on camera, there were a number of single parents.  Their plight really was painful to watch, especially seeing the upheaval from their homes in London to places like Birmingham. If not they were put through a psychological torture which pulled them apart in having to try and make a decision to move or not to move. However, in the instances of the number of single parents which were being capped their benefits, there was one question which kept coming to mind the program had omitted to enquire or even answer in any way.  It is a simple question. Where were the fathers?

It takes two to tango. Yet there were single women with children, either two or three children and the youngest appeared to be under the age of one.  These women had made choices, not just once but multiple times which had resulted in another child. There were no questions about this aspect of the program. Where was the fathers?  They could of been in the background and undeclared, for a single parent on her own with children from multiple fathers would be a pretty unfortunate situation to be in. Of course it happens, yet at the same time these women were claiming large amounts of money from the state. Especially if the sums involved are multiplied over months and years, they then become phenomenal.  Amounts which are eye watering. Another question failed to be asked by this program was what about the responsibilities to all the other tax payers in the UK who support those who claim benefits. There is a onus for them all to try to work, to try to make their situation better.  However, it was as though they had become settled into being single mothers, into accepting the handouts of the state and they'd rather not work or make their lives better. I couldn't help notice in two cases the single mothers involved either got a job working with children or in another did voluntary work with children.  The thought came to mind was they just wanted to be baby machines, and not contribute to the social contract or social expectations of paying your own way.  To which I can only return to the original question, where were the fathers and why were they not supporting the mother of their children?  Personally I would find it incomprehensible not to support the mother of my children. There is no doubt a question of suspicion raises its head.  Were the fathers on the scene but out of view? Again this is something Panorama did not go into investigating, when it really is part of the story as well.

The benefits cap is not just about reducing the national deficit and the benefits bill.  It is also about people taking responsibility for their own life.  About working, about contributing to society and paying their own way. The cultural norm of some parts of society to be unemployable or subsisting on state benefits for years on end has to come to an end game at some time.  Unfortunately for a lot of these claimants, the pressures of this end game are starting to bite.  Fortunately for the rest of society, the more people off benefits the greater the reduction in the deficit and the better prospects for the country.  Without this reality the future is bleak.

The Fiasco of Parliament's Question Time

Every time Prime Minster's Questions is aired democracy is turned into a pantomime. There is consistent jeering and booing from both halves of the house, but more than this Cameron engages in trivialising politics. It is like he has read an issue of a tabloid paper and his replies become juvenile retorts. These are not answers a democracy requires, they are not honourable for a political environment which is supposed to be representative of the people. Politicians then congregate into the respective parties and proceed to shout distractions to what is said from the other side of the house. Perhaps the reason for this is because they do not perceive what is said as serious. When listening to a question or to an answer it then appears as scripted with a quip in the tail meant only to disgrace the opposition. This is clearly not a question for the public to hear, it is one meant to score a point, but does the public really want to listen to this?  I don't, I'd prefer like to hear serious discussion and serious answers, not scripted.

The speaker jumps in, he shakes his finger at the benches he feels are being more vocal than they should be. Doing his best to get order but it doesn't work. Berkow, just doesn't have the real power to for anything else. His voice becomes nothing more than to temporarily pause to proceedings, I can't help think he should have some other power. One which gelds the questioners who act like diving footballers doing their best to pick up a penalty, they are making it a fiasco.  Shouts, interruptions, boos, these are group behaviours citing one section against another, they are not what politicians should be doing just as the PM's answers to questions quite often fall short of being any kind of answer at all. The opposition engages with this as well, they are not innocent, but neither side are getting it.  How can such people, voted for the people represent the people when their behaviour is worse than school children?  Once in a while a serious question or a serious answer does arise and they seem so few.  One thing is true, there is never a full answer.  If the mud slinging stopped then parliament would be 100 per cent better than what it is now. If the childish retorts stopped we'd learn more.

It is no wonder politics has a bad name for itself, but then we all know it's about power and money.  It's not really about the constituents and more of who can shout the loudest. One day they will be judged, then these alleged representatives will only be allowed to represent themselves.