Should individuals with Parkinson’s disease be permitted to have a television while they are off work? Does a supermarket assistant deserve to have a hobby? YouGov recently conducted a survey to gauge public opinion on the affordability of various expenses based on income levels. The results are quite revealing. An astounding 76% of Britons believe that everyone should be able to afford their utility bills, while 74% think that having the means to eat a balanced diet should be attainable for all. However, around a quarter of the population holds the view that individuals receiving out-of-work benefits should not have access to electricity or be able to afford essential nutrients.
Things become even more intriguing when respondents were questioned about “non-essential” items. Only 60% believe that seasonal celebrations should be accessible to all, and merely 55% think that everyone should have the means to purchase a television.
Furthermore, a mere 39% believe that individuals, regardless of their income level, should be able to pursue non-active hobbies, while only 27% think that everyone should have the opportunity to go out and socialize.
Although these attitudes are disheartening, they are not entirely new. As far back as 1932, British philosopher Bertrand Russell stated, “The idea that the poor should have leisure has always been shocking to the rich.” Nevertheless, it seems that society’s mindset has grown even more hardened in recent years. The cost of living crisis in Britain has resulted in a rise in income inequality, particularly impacting the poorest fifth of the population who must allocate more funds towards basic necessities. Unfortunately, instead of addressing these issues, government officials often respond by suggesting that individuals work longer hours.
As a consequence, not only do individuals have less leisure time, but they also lack the financial means to enjoy it. The demands for higher wages from low and middle-income earners have been dismissed as a factor contributing to inflation, although it is primarily the top 10% of earners who benefit from this trend. Rather than implementing measures to combat inflation by taxing excessive profits at the top of society, the government’s strategy involves reducing the spending power of average families. Consequently, individuals are forced to make cutbacks on treats such as vacations and dining out.
Rather than fostering a backlash against such circumstances, there has been a silent acceptance of limited leisure opportunities, particularly for those with low incomes. A decade of anti-benefits sentiment and economic constraints has instilled the belief that individuals reliant on social security or minimum wages deserve lives of impoverishment and monotony. The right-wing media often vilifies benefits recipients for possessing televisions, while politicians suggest that families should give up basic food items if they cannot afford groceries.
At a time when both benefits and wages are declining at an alarming rate relative to inflation, any signs of enjoyment are often misconstrued as evidence that individuals with low incomes are not truly struggling. If someone has recently eaten at McDonald’s, their wages must be sufficient. If someone owns a smartphone for job searching, it implies that their universal credit is unreasonably high.
This narrative shifts the blame onto individuals, suggesting that their lack of resources is due not to poverty wages but rather their personal choices, such as subscribing to Netflix. As a result, increasingly unrealistic conditions are imposed for critics to recognize the hardships faced by those on low incomes. It is as if a mother with multiple sclerosis must spend her evenings staring at a blank wall while eating porridge to warrant disability benefits.
This mentality is reminiscent of the Victorian workhouse era, repackaged for the modern age of smartphones, where impoverished and sick individuals are expected to endure a certain level of suffering as penance for their perceived failings. In this context, the notion that individuals in minimum wage jobs should be deprived of a television is not an economic oversight. Instead, it is a punishment for the “crime” of insufficient productivity. As journalist Matthew Parris recently articulated in the Times, should individuals on sickness benefits not just “soldier on” and continue working?
Consequently, a two-tiered existence arises, where happiness, relaxation, and fulfillment are considered luxuries reserved for the wealthy, while the lower classes are consigned to lives of toil and mere survival. This bias is undoubtedly a manifestation of class prejudices, but it also reflects a broader trend of lowered expectations. In a country where access to basic necessities such as housing, utilities, and meals is increasingly unattainable for many, hobbies and entertainment are perceived as unreasonable requests. Before long, even celebrating Christmas may become a privilege reserved for individuals in higher tax brackets.
In George Orwell’s book, The Road to Wigan Pier, he wrote about the working class: “Would it not be better if they spent more money on wholesome things like oranges and … saved on fuel and ate their carrots raw? Yes, it would, but the point is no ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing.” Nearly a century later, this sentiment remains as true as ever. However, it also points to a larger issue: there is a segment of society that views individuals on benefits or low wages as less than “ordinary human beings,” denying them the same capacity for creativity, dreams, and aspirations. It is not merely that art, culture, and entertainment are devalued, but they are considered the exclusive domain of the affluent. While the wealthy can enrich their lives with theater, golf outings, and fine dining, the poorest members of society are expected to forgo even the most basic luxuries, such as internet access or a takeaway meal.
Some may argue that the left should prioritize more pressing issues when millions of people struggle to afford food and basic amenities. It may seem frivolous to advocate for the right to hobbies and socializing under such circumstances. However, these concerns touch upon fundamental questions. What does it mean to live a good life? Is an economy truly successful if a significant portion of the population cannot afford occasional leisure? And what does it say about us if we deprive each other of these opportunities?
Whether someone is a consultant, cleaner, or cancer patient, they deserve the chance to unwind with a movie or enjoy a night out dancing with friends. After all, life is about more than just survival – it is about experiencing joy and beauty. Viewing this perspective as radical reveals not only how low living standards have fallen in Britain but also the worst aspects of our nature that deny certain individuals a better life.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
