Yesterday's vote in Parliament marks, in a very real way, the end of the Beveridge era. As Beveridge said:
Social insurance fully developed may provide income security; it is an attack upon Want. But Want is one only of five giants on the road of reconstruction and in some ways the easiest to attack. The others are Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness.
Now the Coalition has decided to permit want, whilst abandoning the attack on disease, privatising education, promoting unemployment and withdrawing from the investment needed in housing. The retreat is complete.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
A very good piece by Adita Chakraborty (apologies if I spealt that wrongly) in The Guardian yesterday on the same issue, Richard. Similarly, Seamus Milne has a good piece today on so called, ‘welfare’ and shirkers. However, for me the most best piece on this subject was by John Harris, on Monday, which sets the demonisation of the poor and the decent of public policy into persecution into its recent historical context. As with so many things the Tories are now taking to their logical conclusion (i.e. back to 19th century values and beliefs) it started with good old New Labour.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/07/chav-bashing-bad-joke-bilious-policy?INTCMP=SRCH
I meant to add to my previous comment an observation – two. Yesterday I called in at my local Coop store to buy some tea bags. At the exit to the store they have always had a basket for people to donate pet food to the local RSPCA animal shelter. Now they have a basket for people to donate food to the local food bank. My wife tells me Waitrose in the city centre also now have a food bank collection point.
I first came across food banks on a visit to the US in 2007. I remember thinking at the time that this was one of those American phenonmenon that thanks to our social security system we’d never see in the UK. And yet in the space of just over two years the ConDem government have created a society in which they are commonplace!
Incidentally, I’m sure I’m not alone in noticing the rapid increase in homelessness. I last noticed it at this level in the late 1980s, but it had almost disappeared from the city I live in by the mid 2000s. Again, within two years it’sback – and this is before the majority of benefit cuts have really bitten. Appallling!
This is all rather shabby. The Tory “Droogs” have got their way for now. I’m afraid I felt compelled to respond to Allister Heath one dimensional comments……
http://www.cityam.com/latest-news/allister-heath/vested-interests-will-fight-block-necessary-spending-cuts
I’ve just read Owen Jones comments in the Independent and he’s quite right this is a case of millionaires mugging the poor!
You didn’t mention Idleness Richard, though it was clearly important to Beveridge. The failure to tackle so called scroungers and those who successive governments have been happy to pay to keep quietly on the dole while failing to train them and importing immigrants to do their jobs, is the major scandal for me.
Please tell me where the jobs are that these people should take?
You can’t, I know
So your claim is straightforward vindictiveness
Try go into any Pret in London and you will see that everyone behind the counter is a spanish speaker. Or get some quotes for building work and over half are from polish/romanian builders. There has been a significant amount of jobs taken by immigrants that could be done by British citizens.
So you want low paid, heavily taxpayer subsidised work in the UK for people who cannot afford a sustainable way of living for themselves and their families
If so you need some serious lessons in empathy
Tom, you don’t think that the EU ideal of the free movement of labour and capital is for the benefit of workers, do you?
My comment was not intended to be vindictive to those without jobs but to the political class who have failed to encourage a work ethic and appropriately train a section of our population to do jobs our society needs doing. They have found it easier to encourage benefits dependency and suck in immigrants to do work that people who are already here could do with the right training and motivation. In the same way as they have found it easier to incentivise globalised business to come here invest with tax avoidance perks rather than do more to encourage the growth of more small businesses.
I come at this from the green perspective on resource limitations and the overexploitation of our environment through over population and excessive demands on what our islands can provide. I feel it would have struck a chord with Beveridge too.
I’d also add that lower paid jobs, more part time jobs and more self employment is the future under the zero/negative growth economy our “greenest ever government” is giving us. I personally welcome less growth though I appreciate that is not what Osborne intends. Sooner or later the logic of the slow slide down the chute of our industrial civilisation is that benefits will have to be cut and will eventually disappear. If we are to provide any safety net at all for those who really need it we must start giving benefit dependants the motive and training to provide for themselves.
It’s an interesting idea that unemployment is deliberate
That holds when you can pay enough to do nothing to control labour costs
When you can’t and they might get angry that idea breaks down
@PhilE
Immigrant workers cannot be compared with unemployed Brits. Why not compare the latter with unemployed East Europeans? Immigrants, often in desperation, have left their homes and extended families, have had to learn a new language and new customs – they work for minimum wages, which for them by comparison with their own countries seem fair – they are strivers. Do you think that our shirkers should get up and emigrate – to where?
What time do we all report to the workhouse Phil?
Industry prefers to enlist already trained personnel, it is much more cost effective.
If none are available to enlist, they are imported.
Unless you are considering enlisting someone educated in Politics, Philosophy and Economics, in which case parliament is stuffed full of them.
As for unskilled, there are jobs in s/marts filling shelves at minimum wage, and part time. Then they can claim working tax credit…for a while.
Nobody lives on benefits….plenty exist though….try living on the 71 quid of jobseekers allowance….few live on the basic state pension, max 107 quid a week…those that also get the second pension will be overpaid for other benefits !
The real fun may come if the cons win the next election, or before depending on the nhs reorganisation…..when free prescriptions to over-60’s come into the sights….and travel concession passes…(which also cover rail concessions in some cases)
“My comment was not intended to be vindictive to those without jobs but to the political class who have failed to encourage a work ethic and appropriately train a section of our population to do jobs our society needs doing.”
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that British folk do not have a work ethic? Do you have any reason to suppose that working in Pret requires training? Do you recognise that the costs of training which is actually required have been loaded onto the public purse instead of being with employers where they belong?
” They have found it easier to encourage benefits dependency and suck in immigrants to do work that people who are already here could do with the right training and motivation.”
What makes you think that there is such a thing as “benefits dependency?” Have you any idea how many people from Scotland and the North of England and Wales moved to London to find work in the 1980’s and 90’s? Every family I am acquainted with has someone who is there for that reason, as I was myself for a couple of years. Do you have any idea what it does to families and to relationships to have to move 5 days a week? Any idea how resentful it makes you feel that you are living in a YMCA hostel for the privilege of a low paid job? Those “opportunities” are not so available now because even hostel accommodation is hard to come by. So I wonder where these immigrants on minimum wage are living? Do tell
I come at this from the green perspective on resource limitations and the overexploitation of our environment through over population and excessive demands on what our islands can provide. I feel it would have struck a chord with Beveridge too.
“I’d also add that lower paid jobs, more part time jobs and more self employment is the future under the zero/negative growth economy our “greenest ever government” is giving us. I personally welcome less growth though I appreciate that is not what Osborne intends. Sooner or later the logic of the slow slide down the chute of our industrial civilisation is that benefits will have to be cut and will eventually disappear. If we are to provide any safety net at all for those who really need it we must start giving benefit dependants the motive and training to provide for themselves.”
Please explain why abolition of benefits will have any of the outcomes you outline. I see no logic in this part of your post whatsoever. How is it “greener” to “provide for yourself”? What does that even mean?