A troubling pattern is emerging at PMQs
‘This is important,’ Dawn Butler shouted across the chamber today, as Theresa May responded to a question about benefits sanctions with yet another attempt at banter.
Since taking the helm at PMQs, May has developed a clear — albeit uninspiring — strategy. In response to any evidence-based question from Jeremy Corbyn on the devastation wrought by Tory ideology, she responds with sweeping ideological statements, based on a simplistic and outdated interpretation of the left-right divide.
For example, in today’s session Corbyn asked the following question:
“This week, Mr Speaker, Oxford University studies found there is a direct link between benefits sanctions and rising demand for food banks. A million people accessed a food bank last year to receive a food parcel; only 40,000 did so in 2010. I welcome the government’s commitment to review the work capability assessment for disabled people, but will she further commit to reviewing the whole punitive sanctions regime.”
May responded:
“It is absolutely right that in our welfare system we have a system that makes sure that those people who receive benefits are those who it is right to receive benefits [sic]. That’s why we have assessments in our welfare system. But it’s also important that in our welfare system we ensure that those who are able to get into the workplace are making every effort to get into the workplace. That’s why we have sanctions in our system. What the Rt Hon Gentleman wants is no assessments, no sanctions and unlimited welfare. That’s not fair to those who are accessing the welfare system and it’s not fair to the taxpayers who pay for it.”
This is a textbook answer from May, involving three key components.
Firstly, she completely ignores the substance of what Corbyn has said, and the evidence he has offered. In this she differs from David Cameron, who would at least have twisted the statistics or offered an alternative piece of evidence that suited his own purposes.
Secondly, she offers a sweeping justification for introducing the policy in the first place, in terms that seem moderate and sensible. This is completely irrelevant to the question, which is not about the basic principles of a welfare system, but rather the excesses of the Tory approach and their implementation failures.
Thirdly, she sets up a blatant straw man — in this case arguing that Labour supports unlimited welfare — self-righteously attacks it, and then sits down triumphantly.
The same pattern repeated with the next question. Corbyn highlighted the death of a former serviceman who lost his benefits and called on the prime minister to end ‘the institutional barbarity’ of the sanctions regime.
May responded by repeating the importance of the benefits system being perceived as fair, seeming to imply that excess deaths are an unavoidable consequence of ‘fairness’.
Of course, it is incumbent on the leader of the opposition to call out the prime minister’s refusal to engage with the failures of her government, and of the two previous governments in which she served.
However, it also behoves the prime minister to take people’s lives seriously, and to govern with evidence-based policy rather than half-baked ideology.
Niamh Ní Mhaoileoin is editor of Left Foot Forward. Follow her on Twitter.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
5 Responses to “PMQs: Theresa May’s glib ideology won’t feed those relying on food banks”
Fred
More nuanced and sophisticated political insight and commentary from Niamh Ní Mhaoileoin.
You mean politicians dodge questions? Really? Do they? No-one had ever noticed that before.
Jim
Surely it is incumbent on the questioner to persist with the substance of the question in order to highlight the inadequacy of the answer? This doesn’t seem to be happening.
David Davies
As a `benefit cheat’ who has gone through both PIP and ESA reassessment recently, I know exactly what it is all about. From what I can gather, so does K/lo.
The ONE question that never seems to get raised by anyone, however, is where exactly all this work is that is available for the return of people who are too ill or disabled to do it.
There is insufficient proper work available for the able-bodied in the `gig economy’. An hour here or there will only attract the laser-like focus of the DWP onto a `change in circumstances’, as the object of the exercise is to remove/reduce benefits and the claimant count.
Mick
Let’s take a look at this again.
First, Corbyn dishes up an untypical case of hardship as part of the attack on a system he hates anyway. May can only restate the basic principle at stake, especially to a man so usually hostile to these things anyway.
Indeed, Corbyn and his cartoon characters DO want something akin to unlimited benefits – no cap, as much drawn as possible by every citizen, with mandatory MINIMUM claims to be imposed on every citizen.
To pay for that system, everybody WOULD need to claim bumper benefits.
But that’s the Left for you.
Michael Owen
Slightly off piste perhaps but admirably demonstrated by the ‘Dippy’ good lady this week with her congratulation to her counterpart on the opposite side of the house on the birth of his new granddaughter ! A source of some amusement for the chamber. Would it, I wonder have been treated in such a light hearted manner had the situation been reversed. Somehow, I think not ! ..