Skint Britain Channel 4 tvshow on Universal credit

Cymrocwl wrote: »

I watched the programmes with interest. Of course, as others here have noted, the people followed were carefully chosen probably because of their more 'colourful' characteristics. I mainly watched to see how editorial policy was different from the 'poverty !!!!!!' put out. usually by Channel 5 where the commentary is viciously biased against claimants, and the programmes little more than freak shows of a kind that have been around for thousands of years with a similar purpose: created and directed by an elite to draw attention away from their excesses and to try and blame all of societies ills on the weak and vulnerable. - the elite have no need to draw attention away.

The people we meet in these programmes may not appear to be the nicest of people, and we may not, if we have a choice, opt to live live next door to them, but at the end of the day, they are people. - yes, that means almost nothing. There are usually very good reasons why people behave in certain ways. - really? It's easy to condemn, but much harder to understand, which requires getting to know someone as an individual, which usually gives rise to some sense of empathy, even when you don't really expect to feel any. - you can feel empathy for anyone, doesn't mean they haven't brought it upon themselves (doesn't mean they have either tbf)

Which brings me to my consideration of this series. It's much better than the majority as it does at least attempt to understand situations, and does, to some extent, attempt to allow people their own voices. It still suffers from being made from a middle-class perspective, which I was saddened about, and could have been much improved if it had been more of a collaboration between the programme makers and the participants themselves, with equal editorial control. - that would be ridiculous As with Universal Credit and benefits in general, it is the voices and opinions of those it affects the most who we aren't hearing. The government's default position is that those who are not in work are scroungers - some are , and are portrayed as such by the likes of the Daily Mail, which, like it or not, is a significant opinion former for the hard of thinking, and is readily exploited by the likes of Iain Duncan Smith who really doesn't have the first clue about the lives of the poor and marginalised, no matter how many crocodile tears he pretends to shed. - like I said it's not one size fits all and you cant base policy on the worst cases The vast majority of people want to improve their lives, but it's no good telling them that they are going to be 50p a week better off, (or even 10 or 20 pounds) in work than on benefits; it needs to be 50, 60 or even 100 pounds a week better of - Why? Refuse to work, no more money. , as that way people can be free of benefits entirely, and, crucially can engage in some of the things that make life worth living. But there is so much more besides; decent, social, housing, decent healthcare, and access to decent and high quality training - all of that is available. as well as substantial government investment in creating the industries of the future so that people have decent jobs to go to. We've had 40 years of total failure from the neoliberals, now it's time to make huge changes. Scrap Universal Credit, and bring on UBI.