Here in Wales Tenovus is working hard to help highlight some of the lifestyle choices people are making, lifestyle choices which can give you cancer.

We know cancer is preventable. We know a third of it is caused by ciggies. But the rest? Well more and more of it looks like the environment, not factories and nuclear power stations, but rubbish food and no exercise.

Concentrate on being lean and fit. The big threat is obesity which goes hand in hand with taking no exercise. Is “Couch Potato” to be found in the Welsh language? Would Bevan recognise one if he saw it? Well you don’t need to look far in Wales. After smoking, this is one of the biggest concerns. We’re the “fat, sick man of Europe” and we need to do something about it.

Exercise reduces the chance of getting certain cancers, even more than being fat. So attack the couch as well as the potato. It’s really confusing out there with all the messages- when to eat, how to eat, what to eat and drink. Is red wine good for you or does it cause breast cancer? (on balance it’s OK). Which vitamins stop cancer and cause cancer, Vitamin D, Vitamin C or Vitamin A? Is two litres of water a day essential (no, just common sense). Should we really have five portions of fruit and veg a day? (yes).

Food labelling, is there anyone out there who understands it all?  is it traffic lights? is it calories? is it fat content? Where is government in all this? How can we take on the food industry and beat them like we’re beating the tobacco barons.

At Tenovus we spend a lot of our time trying to prevent people getting cancer but we are reliant on so many other institutions, governments, health organisations and food and drink companies to help too – we can’t do it alone. Until we tackle this as one, we just need to use some common sense and take responsibility! Keep exercising, don’t be overweight. That’s it.

Good health.

Let me know what you think by contacting me on Twitter @claudia_mcvie

 Claudia McVie is Chief Executive at Tenovus

Josie Long describes herself as some sort of clown but there is clearly a lot more to her than that. ‘The Future is Another Place’ is Josie’s 5^th tour and by her own reckoning is something that may not be for the faint hearted.

On 18^th January at the Swansea Grand I went to my second Josie Long show. I felt we had bonded during her last show, ‘Be Honourable!’, over a shared love of Aneurin Bevan and porridge (not in the same bowl) and was keen to see what she had been up to since her last trip to Wales. Turns out she’d been rather busy!

Politics and comedy don’t always mix – a number of cringe worthy escapades from politicians venturing into the comedic world spring to mind – and in many ways most comedy in recent years has turned completely a-political. Josie began by admitting that since the general election and the beginning of the coalition government’s term in office a feeling of anger had gradually progressed into an uncontrollable desire to swear at the news, rant at friends and most importantly to brush up on her political knowledge. Passion is very powerful but without the knowledge to back it up it can be empty. Josie’s handy reading recommendations in her programme pay testament to this, she suggests: ‘The Spirit Level’ by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson; ‘Fight Back’ edited by Dan Hancox; 38degrees.co.uk and theyworkforyou.org. It was amazing to see how she had been able to actively channel her frustrations into something positive.

Knowledge is good but they say actions speak louder than words. In the last year Josie has appeared on The Week, been involved in UK Uncut peaceful protests and helped found Arts Emergency Service, a charity working to keep subjects in the Arts and Humanities accessible to everyone who wants to study them regardless of the barriers and perceived barriers. This is an admirable feat and certainly brave for a comedian with no background in fundraising or education.

Josie muses that her days at university (studying English at Oxford) changed her perspectives and gave her analytical and research skills that she could not be without. However, debt was a disappointing addition to her degree and now students will be saddled with even bigger debts that will inevitably discourage young people from less privileged backgrounds from seeking the university ‘experience’.

As a history graduate from Cardiff University I am privileged to have studied a humanity degree that has lead me into employment. With the government’s focus on graduate employability and the commercial worth of a degree a lot of learning for learning’s sake, that university so gloriously provides, will be lost.

For me this was more than a good laugh on a Wednesday night (although Josie is hilarious), it was a chance to hear from someone who clearly cares and who is bold enough to take action on her beliefs. I certainly felt inspired. The message is clear: if you want things to change YOU (yes you!) have to do something about it. It is easy to feel disenfranchised or downtrodden. Even huge scale protests on welfare reform and tuition fees seem to have been ignored. When this happens Josie had one message. She recently wrote to Kenny Zulu Whitmore, a member of the American activist group ‘The Black Panther Party’ who has been falsely imprisoned for 35years for standing up for what he believes in. He still believes in social justice. So should we.

Daneka Norman is Communications Manager at the Bevan Foundation

image taken from josielong.com

Even if we can save the global economy from its current crisis, a new Oxfam report shows how the proceeds of growth are still often failing to reach the poor, and how the negative impacts of unsustainable growth models could hurt millions for generations to come. However, growth does not automatically lead to less inequality.

Oxfam’s new report “Left behind by the G20?” delivers a stark warning for Wales and the world’s most developed countries as it reveals inequality has increased in 14 of the 18 G20 member countries since 1990 – including the UK.

Even the poster-children of the new order are faced by significant challenges. China now has as many billionaires as the US but also more than 200 million people living on less than a $1 a day. South Africa is now regarded as a “high middle-income country”, yet has 8 million people living below the poverty line. Two decades ago – more than 90% of the poorest men, women and children lived in the so-called “low-income” countries. Today over three quarters of the world’s poorest people now live in so-called “middle income” countries like Brazil and India.

Inequality has increased fastest in Russia, China, Japan and South Africa – but it has also risen in the UK, including in Wales, where the gulf between the rich and poor is also widening.

Although Wales has a smaller gap between the very richest and very poorest than in some other parts of the UK (due in part to having very few people in the ‘very rich’ category) – in the last decade, the richest 10 per cent of Welsh people have experienced much bigger proportional rises in their incomes than any other group. The income of the richest tenth now matches that of all those on below-average salaries combined.

Oxfam’s research shows clearly how even when the tide is rising – it does not necessarily lift all boats. It shows that economic growth still too often fails to benefit poor people. Even with stronger economic growth in South Africa during the next decade, our report shows how over a million additional people could fall into poverty, and how by 2020 it is estimated that the average top executive will be paid a staggering 214 times the average wage.

Aside from the moral argument about individual lives lost or potential wasted – inequality, of many different kinds, not simply on income – is linked to weaker and less accountable public institutions, social unrest, crime, and lower well-being. Women and girls continue to face discrimination and injustice globally, depsite the wealth of evidence showing how investing in their education and work opportunities is one of the best paths to development.

Reducing inequality is not only the right thing to do; it also makes sound economic sense. While rising inequality has in the past been viewed as an inevitable result of economic progress, our report identifies a growing body of evidence, including from the International Monetary Fund, which shows that inequality in fact acts as a brake on growth.

There is no one size fits all approach to tackle the challenge. But as our report argues – some obvious and common sense lessons stand out: progressive taxes and redistributive transfers make a huge difference; investment in universal and free public services – particularly education and health increase social mobility and reduce future inequalities; a focus on women and girls is not only necessary in its own right but crucial in reducing overall income and wealth inequality; redistribution of land can also be a crucial factor. And it will be crucial to develop new sustainable patterns of production and consumption that generate livelihoods and ensure people have enough to eat – whilst remaining within our planet’s ecological limits.

As the Welsh Government prepare a new cross-government plan to tackle poverty, instigate programmes to kickstart economic growth, and draft a new Sustainable Development Bill – Carwyn Jones and his Ministers must focus on using these opportunities to tackle Wales’ growing inequality – both social and economic – and put us on the path to a more sustainable economy, at the same time as building the resilience of Wales’ poorest communities to the storm that is already upon us.

Stephen Doughty is Head of Oxfam Cymru

In one local authority, a revolution has taken place.  The food safety inspectors have abandoned their clipboards and white coats, and are focussing their efforts on how best to engage with business owners – and they are finding an extremely positive response!

By asking restaurant and cafe owners ‘What Matters’ to them about food safety inspections, the inspectors learned that “Help Me Get it Right” was top of the list.  This came as quite a shock to the inspectors who were used to walking into restaurants and silently walking around writing notes in their inspection reports.  This was followed by a discussion with the business owner away from where the work took place, and a detailed report sent confirming the issues to be rectified.

The inspectors always worked extremely hard, but were effectively told where they needed to inspect as a result of their interpretation of the Food Standards Agency requirements.  As such, they did not feel in control of where or what they inspected.  Premises are ranked according to risk and this tells the inspectors at what interval they should inspect.  This sounds very plausible, but creates some interesting unintended consequences.  For example, a large international department store serving food is classed as high risk, so inspectors have to visit frequently and undertake a very detailed assessment.  As you can probably imagine, these large organisations employ an army of their own inspectors and health experts to ensure everything is perfect, as their reputation is very valuable.  So it is no surprise that when the inspectors appear, they find no unsafe practices.  However, as a result of this, the inspectors do not have the time to spend with much smaller organisations, classed as low risk, but undertaking some unsafe practices.  Additionally, they do not have the time to tackle the root cause of issues, resulting in multiple visits around the same problem.

When the inspectors realised that business owners actually wanted help to get it right, they worked hard to change their own behaviour.  They focus on winning the trust of the business owners, and engaging with them.  Once this trust is built, they employ a variety of methods to help business owners understand what safe practice looks like.  Each visit is an experiment, and the inspectors are constantly trying new techniques and sharing their learning.

The business owners are incredibly grateful, and see how the inspectors are trying to help rather than just inspect.  These business owners now drag the inspectors in from the streets to show off their clean kitchens – they are so engaged and appreciative of the help.

Inspectors are now in a position to make accurate and informed decisions regarding unsafe and safe businesses and, therefore, concentrate their efforts on unsafe businesses.  They are given discretion on how to engage with and subsequently help that business owner create a safe business.  This approach has been so successful, that enforcement action has not been necessary with any business helped using the new approach.

Investing this time at the beginning, reduces the need to undertake repeat visits for the same or different problems – freeing up capacity for the inspectors to help other businesses.

Additionally, by asking business owners how they would like the result of the inspection communicated, they are finding that most just want a list written out while the inspector is on the premises, saving valuable administrative time.  This has also contributed to the local authority clearing the backlog of visits that was hanging over the inspectors.

They have also managed to cut management costs, and the inspectors now compete for the next new business that opens – they enjoy their jobs, and remember why they became inspectors in the first place!

All this came from the inspectors spending time understanding what people wanted from them – asking ‘What Matters’.  From this they gained clarity of purpose, moving from: “Enforce” to “Help Businesses Ensure Safe Practice”.  The results of this change in thinking, and therefore behaviour, are much more effective than the previous approach.

The Food Standards Agency also deserve a mention.  They were brought in early to this piece of work, and were very interested, enabling this local authority to experiment with a new way of working.  This may be the beginning of a national revolution in inspection regimes – let us hope so.

Simon Pickthall worked in the public sector in Wales for many years before founding Vanguard Consulting Wales.  He has been fortunate to have worked with many leaders in Wales to help them understand their organisations from a Systems Thinking perspective -  and improve them as a consequence.  Simon was privileged enough to work on the Munro Review of Child Protection, and is committed to helping the public, private and third sectors deliver social justice through the use of good method.  simon.pickthall@vanguardwales.co.uk

The debate in the Senedd on the “Prioritised National Transport Plan” on Tuesday 31^st January sounds like the usual rubber-stamping of a Welsh Government proposal.  Despite the dull title there are some important commitments in the plan, including a number of road upgrades such as starting work on sections of the A465 dualling, improvements to the rail network like a station at Energlyn as well as the usual policy speak of “continuing to do X” and “maintaining Y” just in case you thought they were slacking.

In amongst these anodyne statements is one about public transport. It says: “[We will] continue to work with local authorities on the effective delivery of the local transport services grant …”.  The plan carefully omits to say that “and our work with them will include cutting the grant by 25% with just 3 months notice”.  It has taken WLGA to reveal this cut and the difficulties that will be experienced by authorities implementing it.

Local transport services grant is one of those bits of funding that excites little interest yet which makes a huge difference to people’s lives.  With a total budget of just £11 million in 2011/12, it hardly busts the Welsh Government’s budget and by the time it is shared between 22 local authorities there is very little to play with. Merthyr Tydfil for example gets just £182,300 even though more than a quarter of the population does not have access to a car, and Powys gets £744,462 despite having the most sparse population.  Compare this with the £1.7 million for the Gerallt y Cymro train service and £1.2 million north-south Wales air service.  Yet despite its small size the grant provides a lifeline for people who rely on the bus, subsidizing services that are not commercially viable such as evening and weekend services or those in remote areas.

Bus transport gets pretty short shrift from the Welsh Government’s transport plan in general, its main commitments being to concessionary fares, a TrawsCymru network and a handful of key services such as a link to Cardiff airport. Improvements at local level are supposed to be achieved through “bus quality partnerships” or “quality contracts”.  Bus quality partnerships are utterly meaningless however – they were being discussed by WLGA and the Welsh Government more than 10 years ago (I was involved in the discussions!) and are now bound up in a review by the Competition Commission which might report in 2012 – so don’t hold your breath.

Yet buses are used by a significant proportion of the population – about one in five people had used one in the previous 7 days according to a Welsh Government survey.  This is four times the proportion who use the train.  Women, people over 60 and under 30, and people on low incomes are very much more likely to use the bus than other people. More than four out of ten young people and people over 60 who have incomes of less than £11,440 a year use the bus at least weekly.  You wouldn’t guess this from the emphasis in Welsh Government policy. It spends nearly four times as much on animal welfare.

Bus services are all too often poor, especiallyoutside of peak hours. The local transport services grant helps to support at least some services, albeit inadequately.  Without it, many communities will be completely cut off in the evenings and have no services at all on Sundays.  Cuts to the local transport services grant will hit people on low incomes, older people and young people, and women, especially hard.  They can forget going to the cinema or to visit friends, or getting a job outside the area especially if it means atypical hours.

The “priorities” of the national transport planare clearly not those of hundreds of thousands of ordinary people who rely on the bus to get to work, go shopping or get to hospital appointments.  To cut the grant that sustains vital services is surely one of the most short-sighted, damaging steps it could take.

Victoria Winckler is Director of the Bevan Foundation. She relies on public transport and regularly tweets (@vwinckler) about the joys of bus and train travel. 

Today is Holocaust Memorial Day when we pledge to challenge the language of hatred, give voice to the voiceless and work to create a society free from persecution and hatred.

Whenever I think of the Holocaust I think of Josef Herman, Lidice and Ystradgynlais.  The full scale and horror of the Holocaust cannot begin to be understood until we look at the individual lives and individual communities which were destroyed across Europe and across the world.

I was brought up in the post-war period surrounded by mining communities which had played their full part in defeating the advance of Nazism and fascism.  Near to us was Ystradgynlais which had a unique place in that struggle.  In 1942 – 43 a film ‘The Silent Village’ was made there depicting the Nazi obliteration of the Czech mining village of Lidice where all the men were executed and all the women and children sent to concentration camps.

Two years later the artist Josef Herman arrived in Ystradgynlais.  I am proud to say that there is a belief in our family that my late father brought him from Neath Railway Station.  ‘Joe Bach’ as he became quickly known in the locality had fled Poland because of the rise of anti-Semitism across Europe.  His life in Wales is told in a very moving exhibition currently at Swansea County Hall.

Josef Herman stayed in Wales for eleven years, and like another great artist driven from his country by intolerance, Paul Robeson, he is for us a true Welshman, a citizen of our country.  We welcomed and embraced them both.  During his life in Ystradgynlais Josef Herman depicted on canvas the life of a Welsh mining community in his unique distinctively sombre yet very human way.

The true measure of his achievement in this period was in 1951 when he was commissioned by the organisers of the Festival of Britain to produce a mural which he called ‘Miners’.  This is one of the great artistic treasures of Wales, now located at the Glyn Vivian Art Gallery in Swansea.

As an artist he influenced many artists locally and internationally including my friend the Treforgan miner, Cyril Ifold some of whose work hangs in the South Wales Miners’ Library.  Cyril also designed the local Yniscedwyn miners’ banner which celebrates the universal values of music and social solidarity.

Today his influence endures through the inspirational work of the Ystradgynlais based Josef Herman Art Foundation Cymru Trust which does sterling work in encouraging local children to engage in artistic work and in so doing become aware of the talent and courage of one of the survivors of the Holocaust.

How many good decent people like Josef Herman perished because of the Holocaust?  In Wales, we remember them all through the life and work of Josef Herman, ‘Joe Bach’ of Ystradgynlais.

Dr Hywel Francis is MP for Aberavon and Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.  He is a Patron of the Josef Herman Trust.

Picture: ‘In the Pit’ by Josef Herman

Some time ago the UK Government made the decision to change the Maternity Grant, which means you now only receive the £500 one-off grant for your first child, and not for any children you may later have.  This is another cut which Cuts Watch Cymru are researching.  It may not be one of the changes which has received much attention in the media, but this change is still a cut, and as such is likely to be having an impact on people in Wales.  We intend to fill this gap draw people’s attention to this impact.

To understand the possible impact of this change, it’s important to understand what costs a new born baby brings.  A survey in 2010 found that parents will spend more than £5,000 on a new born baby before its first birthday.  The costs of baby clothes, nappies, nursery furniture and feeding/bathing equipment all mount up.  During the pregnancy, expectant mums will spend around £1500 on getting the nursery ready, and also buying essentials such as a pram, car seat, toys, clothes and feeding and bathing equipment.  These are immediate one-off costs that are necessities, which the new born cannot go without.  The importance of the first few years in a child’s life go without saying, and in a civilized society we should be making sure that everybody gets the best start in life.

Its also important to realize that those on the lowest incomes will struggle to meet these additional costs.  People already struggle to survive on state benefits, how are they expected to find this additional money to cover the cost of their new born child?  Taking away the £500 grant immediately took away a life line which many expectant mums undoubtedly relied on.  There was no justification for such a move.  You could assume that people can rely on their friends and family for ‘hand me downs’, but what about those who can’t rely on this support?    The maternity grant may have only covered about a third of the costs a new born brings, but this was better than nothing.  Where are people now expected to find this money?  This removal of a lifeline for expectant mums not only leaves them with unmet immediate costs for their new child, but also has other social consequences for their future health and wellbeing.  We are talking to young expectant mums about these issues at the moment, and will report shortly on their experiences.

If you would like to contribute to this work in anyway, either through putting us in touch with people affected most by the changes, or just want to hear more about Cuts Watch Cymru, then please email me: michael.donnelly@bevanfoundation.org

Michael Donnelly is Policy and Research Officer at the Bevan Foundation

What can Co-operative Development learn from history? As the Welsh Government considers a proposed ‘Co-operative Commission’ to help pave the way for innovative co-operative development in Wales, what lessons can history teach us?

With all the attention being given to the merits of the John Lewis employee model of co-operation, is it not time that we focus upon different co-operative models and the role that service user members of co-operatives can play?

Robert Owen (1771–1858) is considered the father of the co-operative movement and was indeed a great social reformer. However, Owen was a patrician who sought to organise self-help action for people.

If Owen inspired the co-operative movement, others – such as Dr William King (1786–1865) – took his ideas and made them more practical and workable. King believed in starting small, and realised that people would need to organise co-operatives for and by themselves.

King founded ‘The Co-operator’ a monthly periodical, giving a mixture of co-operative philosophy and practical advice about running a shop using co-operative principles. Even without the Internet the message traveled widely and quickly, especially where Chartists had tilled the ground.

Members running a shop, purchasing wholesale, and sharing what they called a surplus, distributed as a ‘divi’ according to purchases worked a treat, with some of the surplus used for co-operative education. With unadulterated food why would members want to shop anywhere else? No wonder such shops spread like wild fire, whilst Owen was in USA.

Thus we have the beginnings of the world wide consumer co-operative movement. This is quite distinct from worker or producer co-operatives where only the workers have a stake in the business.

In guiding our future thinking about the development of the co-operative movement in all areas, the patrician, versus the self-help model of voluntary association, is particularly helpful, especially with care co-operatives.

All co-operatives are defined by the fact that they grant ‘control rights’ to stakeholders and members. They are distinct from conventional non-profit distributing voluntary organisations, which are essentially defined by the constraint on profit distribution.

In the co-operative structure, it is the element of member control and the member ownership of the co-operative that defines both their culture and operation. They are ‘in addition’ rather than ‘instead of’ public services. Neither a quick fix, nor an opt out for the government’s responsibilities.

As leading Canadian co-operative elder care expert John Restakis reminds us, where service users are also members, the operation of ‘control rights’ has the capacity to transform the user from being merely a passive recipient of care, to the potential for active engagement in the design, delivery and improvement of the service*.

The advantage of multi stakeholder co-operatives involving service users and workers is that social care becomes a shared outcome between caregiver and care receiver. This element is fundamental to the reform of social care systems.

To support this model of social care Wales Progressive Co-operators and Cartrefi Cymru have arranged for Jean-Pierre Girard, a leading practitioner from Quebec, to visit Cardiff on 7^th and 8^th February 2012 to amplify the importance of reciprocity, accessibility and accountability^.

This will celebrate UN Year of Co-operatives 2012 by The Co-operative Cymru/Wales, Public Health Alliance Cymru and the Welsh Food Alliance who are funding his visit.

It will also support an ‘Inquiry process’ and contribute to the long-term success of the proposed ‘Co-operative Commission’.

*Humanising the Economy’ New Society Publishers ISBN 978-0-86571-651-3

Details can be found at http://bit.ly/WalesQuebec.  With large demand, an overspill meeting with Jean-Pierre has been arranged for Wednesday 8th February in Cardiff at Cartrefi Cymru offices.

The starting gun of the race online was fired years ago but the finishing line is not yet in sight.

In 2010 as many as 785,000 people in Wales were not online and were therefore missing out on the vast benefits that the internet offers including cheaper goods and services, better communication, applying for jobs and accessing public services.

And while some of us are still not out of the starting blocks, the race online is getting faster. Technological advances are not only making more activities possible on the internet, they are sometimes now only available on line. For instance we have only been able to buy tickets for the London Olympics online. The chances are, if you do not know how to use the internet then you will not be seeing ‘the greatest show on earth’ first hand.

Public bodies are increasingly looking to put their services online to improve them but also to save money. The DWP is proposing that the new Universal Credit will ‘normally’ be made through the internet and expect that most subsequent contact with recipients will also be conducted online. The Big Lottery Fund is planning that the majority of funding applications are made online in future. People that are not able to access these functions through the internet will be provided with additional support.

Although age is the key issue, waiting for people that did not grow up with computers to die off is not the answer. Other groups such as those with low incomes, few qualifications or who are disabled are among the social groups less likely to go online. Not using the internet is making their challenges even greater.

In Wales we are taking steps to narrow the digital divide. The Welsh Government’s digital inclusion programme ‘Communities 2.0’, which the Wales Co-operative Centre is delivering as part of a consortium, is helping more communities and small enterprises to make the most of the internet. Communities 2.0 has already supported thousands of people and hundreds of organisations, in some of our most deprived communities, to get online.

There are inspiring projects taking place across Wales. In Caerphilly, the ‘Come Surf with Me’ project is working with residents in a number of Communities First areas and provides specialist provision through the medium of Welsh. In North Wales, the recently launched ‘Take Ctrl’ initiative, supported by Communities 2.0, will see social housing tenants helped to get online while learning more about money management.

The ‘Digital Heritage in the Community’ project, in West Wales, has seen a 90-year-old woman helped to publish her first book online. Local and personal history has proved a popular way of interesting people in the web

These initiatives are welcome but we should not underestimate the problem or assume that, in time, it will take care of itself. Digital inclusion is one of the most important social justice issues for our times. If we fail to act, we fail some of the most disadvantaged people in our society.

Derek Walker is Chief Executive of Wales Co-op Centre

The discussion about the impact of so-called benefit cap is generating a lot of heat and very little light, and risks being a diversion from the real issues in the UK Government’s welfare reform agenda.

The limit of £500 on the total amount a household can receive in benefits will affect very few people.  It’s not easy to find out just how many, but BBC reports estimate the figure to be around 50,000.  This sounds a lot, of course, until it is compared with the total number of claimants of out-of-work benefits – which stands at 4.7 million.  In other words, just 1% of claimants receive more in benefits than UK average earnings.

Doubtless some will claim that even 50,000 people are 50,000 too many.  But the benefit system is very tightly managed, and pays extremely low sums.  The average weekly amount of benefit received by Jobseekers’ Allowance claimants in Wales is £63.69, for Incapacity Benefit / ESA claimants it is £64.38 a week and for Income Support claimants £85.64 a week.  Even with Housing Benefit covering all of a claimant’s rent, the vast majority of claimants receive very substantially less than Osborne’s £500 limit.

Any household that manages to receive more than £500 a week in benefits can only do so if they have very substantial needs indeed – typically those are needs that arise from the presence of children in the household who attract Child Benefit of £20.30 a week for the first child and £13.40 for subsequent children and Child Tax Credit payments of varying amounts with the most being payable for disabled children.  We don’t know much about the circumstances of the 1% of people getting more than £500 a week, but the simple maths of benefit rates means that it is highly likely that they are either families with more than one disabled child, or with an unusually large number of children.  Are disabled children and the parents who cannot work in order to care for them who the Chancellor means when he refers to living on benefits as lifestyle choice?

The focus on the benefits cap shifts attention away from the extremely low rates of benefits that the vast majority of people receive. It promotes the idea that benefits are some sort of special offer payable to anyone who fancies a few free quid, not an essential safety net that is payable only in certain circumstances. And last but not least the debate about the cap hides the appalling fact that the number of Job Seekers Allowance claimants in Britain has increased by 77% since 2008 – not because they’ve spotted a cash-cow but because they’ve been chucked out of work thanks to the recession and spending cuts.

Victoria Winckler is Director of the Bevan Foundation