The recent news of the proposed housing benefit cap as part of Iain Duncan Smith's welfare reform has come as a worry. If ever we needed more proof as to the extent to which the Conservative Party have lost touch with the people of Britain, there here is a shining example.
The benefits system is one that will always spark debate: the inaccurate rhetoric that has been thrown around in recent years of 'scroungers' and 'layabouts' has infiltrated everyday vernacular and we've see these tags used as examples to damn the 'culture of entitlement' that the right is so scathing of.
In reality, of course, the scare tactics of benefit fraud investigators and overblown cases in the media of couples who are claiming untold riches from the welfare state, pale in comparison to the true cost of the mess that that we are all paying for thanks to corrupt bankers and businesses at the top.
It seems like our faith in the government bodies is destined to be shaken- the very idea of questioning the policy of 'means testing' (ie. calculating the amount of money a family needs in order to survive based on region, family size, etc) is to undermine the government's current strategy. Under these new rules, a family of five, say, could receive the same amount as a family with just one or two children. The cap is astonishingly backwards: ignoring employment history, ignoring region, ignoring family size, in short, ignoring the reality of Britain's working classes, something the Tories seem to do again and again.
To entertain the idea that up until now families have been issued way over what they need is ridiculous - quite frankly, all you need to do is take a closer to look at families in London to see how far-fetched this logic is, and take a shopping trip to a supermarket in some of the poorer areas of London to see just how close to the poverty line some families are already living.
Of course, there will always be those that will try to take advantage of a system if they think they won't get caught - this much we can see through all tiers of society from corporate heads in receipt in receipt of eye-watering bonuses, underhand tactics and expense scandals to those on council estates fiddling the benefits system. However, what is so often ignored is the most important fact of all- that it is the government's responsibility to support the most vulnerable member's of our society.
Those members might be teenage women with children to support, a demographic that might shrink with an increase of government invested money into sexual health programmes in school. Though there are some great social platforms doing great work, the truth is that many young people in estates across Britain (including the one I grew up on) are dangerously misinformed about pregnancy, the morning after pill, contraception, and what it means to be a young mother. This is not to patronise the majority of young people who are educated in this area- it simply makes the point that there are young people that are being left behind, and it is up to our system to promote education, health and awareness, where we see that it is needed.
What really misses the point though, is the very skewed idea that those on benefits enjoy their state of play and they have no aspirations to do anything else. One concept that has been ignored is that of cultural capital. The cultural capital of those in work is much higher than those who do not - it is why those on benefits can suffer from depression, have lower life expectancy, and are constantly looking for work. To argue against that is to completely discount job satisfaction and the way in which we measure wealth. Those unemployed are usually desperate for work - I remember hearing stories of many students after graduating who were signing up to the dole, not because they aspired for a future living on minimal government supplements, but because there was little or no opportunity for them. It was a last result.
The argument that a family receiving an amount that exceeds what someone may earn working nights at a factory, for example, is dangerously simplistic- is it really the most desirable thing to be in receipt of benefits for an exceeded length of time? If it is, perhaps, we should all just quit our jobs and sign on.
My mum has been a single mother on benefits, and she has also worked menial jobs. I always knew that I could aim high, I was not resigned to my fate, and to propose that work incentives will be a welcome result of a cap is ridiculous, we will simply be driving young people under the poverty line.
This is not a debate about whether or not benefits are a good thing, or whether they allow those in receipt of them to be lazy- it is about the governments' responsibility to protect those that are vulnerable. It is about imposing cuts to those who really deserve them- starting with the bankers bonus packet. It is about investigating white collar crime, rather than scare mongering about benefit costs on the country. It is not about penalising residents in London, or with more than two children. If our most (seemingly) powerful members of society are shown lenience, it seems dangerously backward that the most vulnerable members of society are not.
Kieran Yates is a journalist and author of Generation Vexed published on Random House.