Iain Duncan Smith is a man for whom I have a great regard. When he lost his job as leader of the Conservatives in the House of Commons, he didn't go missing from the Commons, but continued his work as an MP.He did a brilliant job of standing up for what was right with regard to the Mental Capacity Bill. To the best of my knowledge, he has always stood up for marriage and the family.
He has worked hard to solve social welfare problems, and he hasn't just pontificated from on high, but gone out and about to meet people in need so he can understand their problems.
As Work and Pensions Secretary, he now proposes social welfare reforms.
I think most people would disagree with giving people with large families £1 million and £2 million houses to live in. Most sensible people would agree there is something wrong when people can collect more in benefits by not working than they can earn by going to work.
Iain Duncan Smith proposes to guarantee that people who choose to work rather than live on benefits will be in pocket by doing so.
What really seems to have got people spitting mad, however, is the suggestion that people on long-term benefits who are able to work - the idea is to target layabouts who choose to live on welfare rather than go out to work, and get people back into a work habit - should do some unpaid work or risk losing their welfare payments.
The left-leaning Archbishop of Canterbury complains that this will send benefit claimants into a "downward spiral of despair."
The apostle Paul was careful to remember the poor (Gal 2:10). He said those in the church who were really in need should be cared for (1 Tim 5:3 - 14), but he said those who would not work, being able to do so, shouldn't eat either (2 Thess 3:10 - 12).
Sounds reasonable to me.
