Are Iain Duncan Smith's remarks about finding a job really so shocking?

Should the unemployed be prepared to travel to find work?

Some days, I worry about my ability to judge the significance of politicians’ remarks. (I know some of my readers probably do that slightly more often, but that’s by the by.) This is one of those days. Here’s why.

Last night on Newsnight, Iain Duncan Smith said the following things about unemployment and finding a job: “The truth is there are jobs. They may not be absolutely in the town you are living in. They may be in a neighbouring town."

He cited Merthyr Tydfil as an example of people who had become "static" and who “didn't know if they got on the bus an hour's journey they'd be in Cardiff and they could look for the job there”. He added: “We need to recognise the jobs don't always come to you. Sometimes you need to go to the jobs.”

He also said: “People who are in work on low marginal incomes are paying quite significant sums in tax to help people who are in really difficult circumstances through the benefit system. We need to see some fairness to them too. They should expect therefore that when there is work available people should make reasonable effort to take that work.”

Now, to me, that didn’t seem wildly controversial. A basic feature of labour economics is labour mobility: the ability and willingness of people to go to where there are jobs. A lot of (but not all) economists will tell you, the higher your labour mobility, the lower your unemployment rate.

It’s certainly been a feature of the US economy in recent decades. For Americans, it’s quite normal to move from state to state in search of work, which helped keep the US unemployment rate down for many years. Indeed, current worries about the high rate of US unemployment today are partly founded on growing evidence of falling labour mobility because so many people are stuck in negative equity, meaning they can’t move elsewhere to work.

I’ve never been unemployed, but I have moved jobs several times, once from Scotland to London. Every time I moved, I had to take account of the distance I’d have to travel from home to work. Everyone I know who takes a new job or considers doing to does the same. No one I know enjoys their daily commute very much, but just about everyone accepts it as part and parcel of working life. Admittedly, being London-based probably skews my perspective, but even among friends and acquaintances outside the capital, an hour’s commute is not regarded as cruel and unusual punishment.

So surely, suggesting that “when there is work available people should make reasonable effort to take that work” is not so controversial?

Apparently I’m wrong and it is. Mr Duncan Smith’s words represent a “disgusting insult” to the unemployed. They also show a “vicious Tory determination to make the poor suffer”. And they reveal his an attitude of “blame and disdain” towards the jobless.

Those, in order, are the views of the Public and Commercial Services union, the Unite union and the Labour Party.

So, we have a genuine political row underway and as professional reporter, I suppose I have to suspend judgement. But I still can’t help wondering: is it really so wrong to suggest that people should be prepared to travel for an hour each way every day to work?