I, Daniel Blake

"I am not a client, a customer, nor a service user. "I am not a shirker, a scrounger, a beggar, nor a thief. "I'm not a National Insurance Number or blip on a screen. "I paid my dues, never a penny short, and proud to do so. "I don't tug the forelock, but look my neighbour in the eye and help him if I can. "I don't accept or seek charity. "My name is Daniel Blake. I am a man, not a dog. "As such, I demand my rights. "I demand you treat me with respect. "I, Daniel Blake, am a citizen, "nothing more and nothing less." 

(Daniel Blake, I, Daniel Blake)

Above is the concluding passage of Ken Loach’s I, Daniel Blake; a diatribe against the state’s  manhandling of benefit claimants. It’s a speech that has been whirring around in my head since I heard it Friday last.

I, Daniel Blake came out at the end of last year and was met by relief - or suspicion - depending on what side of the political divide you stood. For the left it was a clarion call for the right to understand what their punitive measures were doing to people. For the right it was socialist dogma, something that didn’t ring true, biased to the core without the rigour of journalistic fair play. I remember watching BBC’s Film 2016 programme with the brilliant reviewer Danny Leigh. Guest hosting was The Sunday Time columnist Camilla Long, who in her paper review challenged the veracity of Loach’s story. She couldn’t believe that this type of society existed where a single mother is moved out of a city and relocated hundreds of miles away. She couldn’t countenance that an older person would find it difficult to log onto a computer to do jobseekers paperwork. Because of this, she couldn’t understand the film’s attack; consequently, couldn’t empathise with the characters. The fact that she did this was with such dead-eyed certainty made her appear cold-hearted and ill-informed. Aware of the furore her opinions had caused, Danny Leigh made it his film of the week. Long’s ruffled expression was the thing of great television. After that, I knew I had to see it.

Camilla Long (far left) and Danny Leigh (far right).
The seating positions don't necessarily correlate to their political views.

A year on and I eventually sit down to watch the film that shook the Commons. I should start by saying that I, Daniel Blake is didactic. It isn’t measured, even-handed or fair. It has an agenda, a view, a purpose; one it doesn’t shirk from showing. Only one kind employee of the Job Centre is shown. Only one Work Capability Assessor is portrayed – an idiot, incapable of being human, let alone assessing one. Only two benefit claimants are featured – both heroic. Undoubtedly, this is a biased film – and you know what? It needed to be- if it weren't people would never have discussed it. In a 2015 Independent report they found that more than 50,000 families had been shipped out of London because of soaring rents. Six months on from Grenfell more than half its citizens are still in emergency accommodation. So yes Camilla Long, it’s feasible that Katie, the single mother in the film, could be relocated out of the city. Further, take real-life human, Colin Traynor, a 29 year old man suffering from epilepsy; he was deemed ‘fit to work,’ only to die appealing the decision. So yes Camilla Long, it’s the case that a doctor can tell someone to avoid work – like Daniel from the film – whilst the state orders otherwise. Not every person on benefits is as noble as Daniel and Katie, but what every person on benefits are is human and deserve to be treated as such. 

They were promised to be rehoused in three weeks.

The film begins with Daniel being assessed. He’s asked a series of absurd questions – none of which relate to the heart complaint he complains of. From the questionnaire, he’s deemed 'fit to work.' The thing is the game is rigged. (An undercover journalist recently found assessors were under pressure to fail claimants so as to free up money for the State.) With a Government called Austerity, it makes more sense to take from the poor than the rich. The rich vote Conservative. The poor vote reality television.  If you cut the throat of the voiceless, no one can hear the screams. So Daniel is put in a bizarre position where he must look for work, even though trained medical professionals say that if he finds it it'll kill him. Whilst at the Job Centre, he meets Katie, a London mother of two, about to be ‘sanctioned’ for arriving late to her meeting. She tries to explain the reason why she’s tardy, but the world won’t listen. The decision as to whether she will be punished or not will go to ‘the decision maker.’ You heard right. A 'decision maker' is an actual job title. A decision maker. What kind of Kafkaesque bullshit are we living in where people’s ability to eat depends on some kind of Deal or No Deal invisible banker-wanker?

£1.10 of every £100 spent on benefits is fraudulently claimed. By my reckoning this means a good proportion are getting what they’re entitled to. People have lost their jobs because of the economic downturn. They are without work because of ill-health. They’re unemployed because their partner has left them, making the balance of childcare and work difficult. As for the small minority of claimants who cheat the system, chances are they aren’t making as much as you or I. Most people are honest, and for those who aren't I don’t think their behaviour means everyone should be punished. I don’t want to live in a society where people’s means of survival is down to a fucking decision maker. This Orwellian load of shite needs holding up for the kind of barbarism it is; because every person, regardless of the content of their character, deserves to be spoken to by a person, not some Wizard of Oz hiding behind a curtain.

This job title is an inhumane travesty.

As the movie unfolds, we see how Daniel and Katie support one another. David Cameron would no doubt call this ‘the big society in action.’ Loach rightly would term it ‘a failure of the State to look after its citizens.’ Daniel helps Katie by using his carpentry skills to establish her home. Katie helps Daniel by providing him with the family he’s missed since his wife’s died. Their friendship is compassionate and encouraging, everything the system is not. Despite the compassion they show for one another, it’s no replacement for money. You can’t put love in a meter. Affection doesn’t fill your belly. Kindness can’t quench a thirst. Consequently, the two slide into poverty. With no food in the cupboard, Katie goes to a food bank –as half a million people in Britain did last year. The subsequent scene in the movie will make you feel ashamed to be British.

Katie Morgan (Hayley Squires) and Daniel Blake (Dave Johns)

Ken Loach’s 60’s film Cathy Come Home led to the formation of Crisis homeless charity. It was watched by twelve million people, making many re-consider their feelings on homelessness. In an era of multi-channels, it’s unlikely I, Daniel Blake will have the same impact. However, it’s a start. This diatribe addresses the bedroom tax, challenges the stereotype of the poor, and makes you realise that mothers are going without basic necessities - food and sanitary towels- to clothe and feed their children. This is happening in your country, in your town, in your schools. It can't be ok.

I'll end by paraphrasing, J.B. Priestley and his virtuoso play An Inspector Calls:

 One (Daniel Blake) has gone - but there are millions and millions and millions of (Katie Morgans) and (Daniel Blakes) still left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives, and what we think and say and do. And I tell you that the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, then they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish.

In our wealthy country food banks shouldn’t exist. Whilst they do, please give to them.

I, Daniel Blake is available on DVD