Dignity or Hunger: The Crisis of Poverty in Britain
Introduction
The article entitled “Dignity or hunger is a hard choice´´ was published in The Guardian on February 28, 2014. This British left-of-center newspaper supports anti-conservative values and is usually opposed to liberal economic policies. It favors greater government intervention in the economy and has moral and ethical interests. These sympathies are evident in the article in which the author, Jonathan Freedlan, a British journalist, exposes a critical analysis about the way the welfare system functions in Britain (“a disgrace´´ line 13), (“shaming´´ line 37 ), (“in a wealthy country people should not go hungry´´ line 39-40) and the position that the government adopts to deal with the problems of poverty and hunger.
By providing some examples and statements of some members of the clergy, who are now weighing in on the political debate, he exposes the situation in Britain, where the number of people suffering from poverty is increasing. In favor of pro-social measures, he tries to make the government reconsider how the welfare state should be in order to provide its citizens a dignified life, rejoining in this way the general thinking of the newspaper.
The Context
The article, which was published in February 2014, refers to the period of the coalition government between the Conservative party and the Liberal-Democrats, which was created in May 2010, and to the recovering period that Britain, as well as the entire world, was trying to achieve from the subprime crisis that started in 2008. The newspaper comes out against the conservatives’ measures the year before the general election held in May 2015 and deplores the Prime Minister, David Cameron, to consider that the people suffering from hunger are only those who don´t have a job (´´this assumption is false´´ line 53).
The Main Issues
Poverty and its consequences are the main subjects of the article, where the author lets us think about the ways to deal with them and encourages us to ask ourselves to what extent can putting an end to welfare dependency be considered as a moral mission and an effective way to reform the welfare state.
To answer this question, we have to analyze firstly the current state of Britain, secondly, we have to consider how the welfare state functions, and finally, we will think about how to improve the situation.
The Current State of Britain
– Hunger is a real problem in 21st century Britain
Hunger is not a problem of the past; it is a real problem of the 21st century in Britain (line 6-7). In fact, there is a (“national crisis of hunger´´ line 15) and (“in a wealthy country people should not go hungry´´ line 40). More and more people resort to the aid of food banks because they are struggling to make ends meet. Poverty provokes serious social problems leading to great human suffering and trauma for the individual and for his family that suffer from a loss of self-respect and dignity.
– The role of the Church
How does the country try to face hunger? Men of the cloth perform an important function and don´t remain indifferent (more than 400 food banks run by the Trussell Trust operate in church halls).
The Welfare State
fonctions and finally we will think about how improving the situation.
I)Britain is a “wealthy country´´
-Hunger is not a problem of the past, it is a real problem of the 21st century in Britain (line 6-7). In fact there is a (“national crisis of hunger´´ line 15) and (“in a wealthy country people should not go hungry´´ line 40). More and more people resort to the aid of food Banks because they are struggling to make ends meet. Poberty provoques serious social problems leading to great human suffering, and trauma for the individual and for his famiy that suffer from a loss of self-respect and dignity.
-How do the country tries to face hunger? Men of the cloth perform an important function and don´t remain indifferent (more tan 400 food Banks run by the Trussell Trust operates in church halls)
I)The welfare state.
-Government point of view : (“it i son a moral misión to end people´s “welfare dependency´´ ´´ line 44-45). British workers arre lazy and will not look for a job if they get state benefits and that penalise those who are working. being unemployed is a lifestlye choice and so the state should not increase the welfare benefits. The coalition government have been perpetuating the liberal tradition.
November 2010 welfare reform which will mark the biggest reform of the benefits system since the 1940. Ian Duncan Smith plan to replace all work-related benefits and tax credits by a single welfare payment, the Universal Credit introduced in 2013.
2010 George Osborneplan to reduce Budget deficit and the public debt. spending cuts, (welfare benefits would be means-tasted, focused on the most in need. Government spending was to fall from over 47% of GDP in 20019-10 to under 41% by 2014-15)
-The real situation : Going to food Banks is not a choice but the only possible solution. (“The majority of por households include at least one person who works´´ line 54). People using food Banks are not trying to work the system but don´t have any other choice due to low paid conditions, sporadic employment(6 million working por in the country) or the inability to find a job (the unemployment rate by May 2012 was 8.2%). 3.8 children living in absolute poverty , two thirds of them in working households in 2012. Levels of deprivation across several áreas of basic needs in the UK such as housing, heating and food had shot up.Full time work is not always sufficient to escape from poverty. One quarter of the british children still live below the poverty line, 21% of the working population are working por. Nearly 50% working women and 24% of the working population have part-time jobs
II)How to improve the situation:
-Fight against unemployment. Goverment to take urgent action. – Government intervention to reduce inequalities and better wages structures and the darker side of the British employment. Not cutting spendings in state services.
-Reforming the welfare state.State intervention. Inclines towards state funding of job creation and wants to perserve the welfare systems. Not reducing the welfare state. Fight against unemployment, programes such as the `New Deal´. Minimum income for workers