I wrote about the so-called welfare cap yesterday. I was, of course, not alone in identifying it as a crass political exercise that makes no management or economic sense and which does as a result pander to the very worst aspects of Westminster politics and Daily Mail nastiness. That did not stop most Labour MPs voting for if, following a line that they'd first thought it up so it had to be OK. I think it obvious I disagree.
Then I read a piece on the Ekklesia web site. In it Bernadette Meaden said:
“Yes, we are the party of welfare, and we're proud to be so. Let me tell you why.
“We're the party of welfare because we don't believe that, if you have a stroke tonight, you should have poverty added to your misfortune.
“We're the party of welfare because, if you are diagnosed with Parkinson's disease tomorrow, we don't believe that you should worry about eviction as you wait six months for an assessment, only to be denied the support you so obviously need.
“We're the party of welfare because we don't believe that when 1700 people apply for eight jobs at Costa, or when 1500 people queue for hours to apply for 40 jobs at Aldi, there is a big problem with people being ‘workshy'. We don't believe unemployed people are to blame for unemployment.
“We're the party of welfare because we don't believe that if a person loses their job, they need to have their distress exacerbated with the threat of benefit sanctions if they are late for a Jobcentre appointment.
“We're the party of welfare because we don't believe that ‘hardworking people' and people in receipt of benefits are somehow two different species.
“So yes, we are the party of welfare, because we're the party of humanity, compassion, and fairness, and we do not view people who are poor or in difficulty with thinly disguised suspicion and contempt.”
Go to read the whole of the article to read the rest of the excellent speech she wrote.
I wish I had heard the Labour front bench say that yesterday.
I wish too that they spoke with such candour day in and day out.
People are, rightly, disenchanted with a political system in the UK where it appears all politicians even remotely close to power spend their lives appeasing those with money. Instinctively people know democracy was meant to hold power to account. That power was that of the King; then of the executive, and now it is as much the power of money that has to be held to account as anything else. And that is not happening.
That is why people don't trust politicians. They are not standing up for those for whom they should and are obedient to those they should make greatest demand of. That's the sickness at the heart of our politics and democracy. It's the sickness that has to be eradicated to create a society really worth living in. That's one where everybody counts.
Labour should be saying that. It is its job.
It isn't.
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:
Labour, in the sense you mean it, is dead and buried. There are people within the party who do hold to the principles which Labour originally embodied, certainly. They are irrelevant because they have been comprehensively sidelined. They do not appear to have the wit to recognise that: perhaps they see the support for rampant plutocracy as a “blip”. If so it is a “blip” which has been going on at least 20 years. At what point do such people give up and work to build a party they can genuinely support? At what point do the trades unions withdraw their shameful funding of a party which actively harms their members and do something more constructive with their money? It is not like their money is as good as anyone else’s, as the changes to the labour party’s internal arrangments demonstrated. It is hardly “courageous” to make decisions based on the preferences of your opposition as to how you should conduct yourself. Labour has surrendered: worse, it now actively embraces neoliberal analysis and prescriptions. And as can be seen from the foolish attempt to face both ways in the context of the scottish referendum, they will say anything at all to win power. They are no use to man nor beast
Fiona, I agree totally with what you say. Labour’s craven cowardice is beyond measure and utterly contemptible. As you say, a new party is needed but none of those cowards are willing to risk political wilderness in order to achieve it. To go against the neo-lib consensus will mean taking such a risk. They won’t, of course, they have missed all the chances over the last three years and won’t speak out if it risks offending the perceived vox populi. I agree with Richard, that if labour did take a courageous step, there would be a significant groundswell of support.
It doesn’t help that much of the population object to being described as “ordinary people”, or indeed working class, especially if it can be insinuated that the speaker does not categorise themself as ordinary. I thought talking about the wealthiest 10% and the rest of us as the 90% looked a good way to address this, as it is unlikely that more than 30% of the population think they are in the wealthiest 10%.
Good point
Richard and lionsafterslumber, while fully agreeing with the need to name things effectively, to win the support of our audience, so eschewing ““ordinary people”, or indeed working class”, I find myself recalling another reason why Tony Benn was considered “the most dangerous man in British politics by The Sin (deliberately so spelled).
For Benn clearly distinguished between the true owners of capital/the real “masters of the universe” and everyone else, with ALL the everyone else being “working class”, because they work for their living, rather than being rentiers.
The question therefore becomes on of power relations, expressed in the shorthand of the term “class”.
Once you ask the question “Do I have control of, or even a partial hold on, the levers of power and wealth creation?” other than the right to vote, to own some property (shares, pension fund, a house), it soon becomes apparent that MOST of us are each around 95% (and some of us more like 99% or even 100%) working class, because the rentier is really in charge of our lives.
And this is daily becoming more true as OUR schools, built with OUR mon, and OUR NHS is handed over to the chums and cronies of Cameron’s appalling Government – the most deceitful, dishonest, cruel and corrupt administration in the last 200 years.
If Labour is to live up top its name, it must start educating the whole “working” (I.e non-rentier) class about the REAL politics of the UK, raising them from the narcolepsy referred to be anothe person postinh on this blog.
Andrew, agreed, of course
Superb, but very concise statement from Bernadette, Richard. It would have served as an excellent statement in Parliament from Miliband in response to the Tories, and thus the basis for Labour MPs to collectively vote against the cap.
But instead we have yet another example of one step forward and several steps backwards with regard to “progressive” policy thinking by Labour: the step forward being the various policy commitments on tax/HMRC that you reported on a few weeks ago now.
But this is par for the course for Miliband and the shadow cabinet isn’t it. I’m assuming that whenever a daring soul (are there any?) in the shadow cabinet has any slightly radical (good) idea the team in charge of the election strategy are down on them like a ton of bricks: it won’t play well with Mail/Telegraph readers; it’ll alienate potential/actual supporters/funders in the City or Big business; it’ll allow the Tories to attack us as soft and weak; and perhaps the most important, it upsets the neoliberal tendencies of all those people currently seconded to, or advising us, from the big four; etc, etc.
Until the Labour leadership takes active steps to remove the sources of neoliberal bias within the party, and thus create the space to think afresh about how it positions itself, its purpose and policies, we are stuck with the “sickness” you highlight in this blog.
I think Labour is stuck
It’s deeply depressing….
Indeed – the feeling of a one party state is now complete which means things will have to get worse ( a lot worse before the tide turns).
It’s not as though Telegraph or Mail readers will be likely to vote Labour anyway.
Also when they don’t hear an contrary opinion they may well assume is no counter argument. Silence implies consent.
Bring on the anti-neoliberal party (as I’ve been saying for some time now)!
It’s the Green Party and it is already here.
I note Ken Loach in The Guardian saying much the same about the Labour Party as pretty much all of us have been saying here.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/27/ken-loach-labour-failed-left-new-party
Indeed
Labour failed to have the internal argument and bloodletting required back in 2010 after election defeat which would have cleared the air and set a proper direction for the 2015 election.
That direction may have been neoliberal Blairite or left wing anti austerity but at least it would have solved the internal conflicts and settled matters.
The very unity that everyone applauds Miliband for achieving is now the problem, he cannot please everyone and must avoid any decisions that upsets the internal groups forming his 35% core vote.
That is why there are no strong policies, no bold statements and no challenge to austerity……..because at the hint of any real pain to any section of the Labour party all those bottled strains will burst out and tear the party apart!
There is a limit to how far you can get when the only binding force is hatred of the Tories!
I note you think he will win
That’s a start
At least no one is campaigning to be his successor ….. Unlike the ugly fight already going on elsewhere
My fear is that, as polls are beginning to indicate, we might get another Tory administration but worse, one led by Johnson . Cameron a see as a puppet for neo-lib values but Johnson is a vile thug…it will be Neoliberalism on high octane fuel…I’m not looking forward to it
Don’t know if Mr. M will publish this but anyway…..
This may come as a shock to some on this website, but the benefits cap is popular across the political spectrum.
I know anecdote isn’t data but I live in area where the average wage is between £19K and £23K and support for the cap is high….and more than a few people I’ve spoken too actually want it lowered and the area I live in is solid Red and has been for decades…..
…..but of course in the area I live, a huge block of people work on shifts and actually do manual work so I guess it sticks in their throat that they are going out to hard work at all hours of the day – and are proud to do so – yet others on welfare are getting more than those going out to work.
What is fair or decent about the idea that someone ‘on the dole’ should get more in total income than someone working for a living?
I stress again, I live in a solid Red Mob area and even the local MP admits the cap is popular in the area.
Capital punishment us popular
Wise politicians ignore misplaced popular sentiment when it is clearly wrong
I live in an area similar to that which Allan describes.
There is a lot of genuine and well-founded resentment in our area from those who work hard on low pay, against those who get more for doing nothing. And the resentment is not directed against the old, disabled, or those who fall on occasional hard times. The resentment is against able-bodied people who have been living like this for years – and there are plenty of them.
I’m not sure there is any great wisdom in comfortable politicians ignoring this resentment from the safety of their offices.
“What is fair or decent about the idea that someone ‘on the dole’ should get more in total income than someone working for a living?”
Divide and rule bilge! I can assure you few do get more on benefits than working people.
Child benefit? Possibly, but few people on benefits get more than people in work. Too many people believe the crap they read in newspapers. A single person gets around £72 a week. That’s less than half the minimum wage.
True, there is housing benefit, assuming you are entitled to the full amount, of course, but this goes straight to the landlord; the claimant doesn’t see it.
People say they know – I can assure you they don’t know…they think they know, or more likely, their own personal prejudices have them believe what they wish to believe.
Amount of benefit fraud: around £1.5 billion
Amount of unclaimed benefit: around £18 billion.
Those figures tell you all you need to know!
Your contribution sounds suspiciously like, yet another, of the anecdotal tales which appear on many websites. Funnily enough their ultimate aim invariably seems to support the current government. Personally I don’t believe a word of what you’re saying, it is fiction most likely dreamed up in Conservative Central Office.
Sorry Richard I don’t wish to denigrate your excellent blog with argument but Allan’s posting is nothing but Tory fantasy.
I entirely agree with you
Allan, why would you say this? “What is fair or decent about the idea that someone ‘on the dole’ should get more in total income than someone working for a living?” and where did you get the idea it was the case that they do? I did an FOI about this as it was my understanding that people on benefits got less than people in comparable circumstances in full-time work anyway. The DWP said this “Ministers have never claimed that people out of work are likely to receive a greater income from benefits than the total income received by somebody in comparable circumstances and in full-time work.” Here’s the url https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/173158/response/424575/attach/html/2/FoI%203885.response.pdf.html Don’t forget, people in work can get all kinds of benefits on top, which can greatly increase their total income. Your manual shift-workers should be getting a whole lot more total income than the local doleys, according to the DWP. If they aren’t, it sounds like they’re not claiming for something they could be. That’s if the DWP are to be believed, of course. Perhaps your working friends and neighbours should be making some enquiries about potential entitlements they aren’t aware of. This calculator might be useful http://www.turn2us.org.uk/benefits_search.aspx?gclid=CLe89arStL0CFY_ItAodxUgATQ.
You have to be in the top 30% of income earners before you become a net contributor to the state
Must get out more than they pay in
I get sick of the cliche about people ‘who work hard -why should “they” live on benefits”‘.
1) If you are physically well what’s wrong with hard work?
2) If you don’t feel happy about the values of your earnings start asking WHY!
3) research shows that the mental of people IN work is significantly better than those out of it.
4) If you don’t believe 3) then pack your job in and give JSA a try!
5) If you need to witness dire poverty before you can feel good about yourself then see a therapist!
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what you get when the Labour party are too feeble to challenge the meaningless, pejorative rhetoric of the Neo-liberals.
“We are cutting benefits to make work pay”
How? HOW? How does cutting benefits make work pay? Cutting benefits makes poor people poorer. It further incapacitates the disabled. It causes family break-up and homelessness. It reduces spending in local communities, and thus works against small businesses. It increases criminality. It destroys communities. It places additional burdens on the state through increased pressure on the health and education systems.
And after all that? The lowest paid workers are still struggling to survive…
Allan is not wrong though. I also (unfortunately) know many people who hold to those beliefs… and, yes, our local MP’s are also Labour. But that is just what you would expect when politicians and the media have worked so hard to create a grotesque caricature of people on benefits (and the urban poor, and the young working classes etc. etc…)
The Neuro-linguistic repetition of these moronic assertions by the media (what Chomsky described in ‘the Propaganda model’) is creating a distorted perception of reality where the ‘enemy’ are the other within.
For those on low pay it is the ‘greedy, gold-plated’ public sector above them (look at the way in which public affection for nurses is being undermined by the coverage of Stafford hospital. In reality Stafford was primarily the result of criminal negligence on the part of management and senior clinicians), and the ‘feckless, idle poor’ below them (the ‘Benefits Street’ twitter feed saw people calling for the subjects of the ‘documentary’ to be ‘castrated’, ‘burned alive’, and ‘hanged’).
The economically illiterate, morally bereft assertions of the Neo-liberal ideologues NEVER stand up to scrutiny, and could be torn down with ease, given the courage and political will to do so.
But there’s the rub…
pretty accurate portrayal of what anybody trying to challenge the neo-liberal ‘consensus’ faces. neo-liberalism never stands up to scrutiny for a number of reasons:
1) It has become a sort of mental wallpaper
2) As a result of this people aren’t even conscious they are thinking like this
3) Politicians have convinced the populace that what are rigged markets are an inviolable, quasi natural organism like weather systems.
4) There is no political opposition to this AT ALL!
5) The fallacy of composition that Governments are like households is NEVER challenged
Well so we are told; and it might even be true. There is no shortage of propaganda to support such conclusions, after all
What is deeply shocking is the repeated pattern. The will to level down is pervasive. We see it, for example, in the approach to public sector pensions “That person has a better pension than I have: that is not fair. Take it off him!!”. Missing from that utterly degraded response is even the thought that the final phrase should be “I want some of that”.
The benefits cap is just the same: no outrage at falling wages; no outrage that someone can work hard and still rely on benefits; no notion that we cannot simultaneously demand high unemployment and demand that people without jobs should not be supported. If we choose to make it impossible for many people to work (and that is a quite explicit aim of neoliberal policy); and impossible for many more people to earn a living wage (ditto) then it is absolutely “fair” and “decent” to ensure that those who pay the price of that policy are supported to live a decent life without work: they are doing all those who take their sense of worth from having a job a big favour and that should command both respect and money
The illogicality is striking: but the nastiness is overwhelming.
As to “solid red”?: don’t be ridiculous. There is no way of measuring how many in this country are “red” because there is no possibility of expressing that position at the ballot. Unless you are pretending that a labour vote is a left wing vote….
Well…if you’ve ever wondered what living in a one party state is like, we need wait no longer-worse, one senses a proto- fascism at work. I’ve often wondered why there has been such a proliferation of films and computer games about Zombies -know I know why-it is a projection of the spiritual state of the populace. Neo-liberalism has created a dumbed-down, unreflective, anti-intellectual culture. From Middle class to in-work-and-on-benefits a culture of cascading schadenfreude is all we have. To worsen the scenario we also have cultic worship of the fantastically wealthy, poverty-porn on TV where the ‘rich’ deign to visit the skint and go ‘oh gosh’ and a parliament whose main value is as a tourist attraction.
“This may come as a shock to some on this website, but the benefits cap is popular across the political spectrum.”
No it isn’t! Only an ignorant few and the media like to think so! Most of those in favour are quite ignorant and haven’t a clue. The media does not a majority make.
Working people get a larger slice of the benefits pie than none-working, with the exception of state pensioners.
By quite a large margin. In fact that is responsible for the benefits bill going up. It is easily possible for a married man with family to earn a low wage but effectively end-up better off.
I worked with one guy who limited his hours at work to qualify for tax credits, because they were worth more to him than a longer-hours wage.
It’s a weird world we live in now.
All totally true Simon except that I would question the use of the prefix ‘proto’. Far from being a nascent form of Nazism what we are seeing is fully formed and has learnt its lessons well from the mistakes made in Germany in the 1930’s. Proof (were it needed) is readily apparent in the employment, by the loathsome Gove, of social Darwinists within the DfE. There is no more defining feature than this belief of racial (or in this case class) superiority and the genetic predisposition for failure. It is a narrative that, of course plays well with the middle classes, no one after all wants to imagine that their (and their children’s) success is the result of good fortune and that ‘there but for the grace of God…’
The creation of an ugly and deviant caricature of the lower classes is part of a process of de-humanisation, and as in Germany, presages something much darker and frightening to come.
I was surprised recently to find myself in unchartered territory when a thread led me to Conservative Home website. I was more surprised by the open hostility shown by the comments there against the Neo-liberal take over of the Conservative Party.
Whilst my own politics are slightly left (of Trotsky) I think Bill K is right in calling for an Anti Neo-Liberal party that unites the electorate against the corporate take-over.
It would not be difficult to find enough common ground to form a workable coalition that emphasises the unpatriotic, asset-stripping exclusive nature of Neo-liberal politics. Blue collar jobs in the environment agency means flood resilience for the ‘roses round the door’ retirees. Low grade civil service jobs would mean effective tax collection. Living wages for the lowest paid would better standards in care homes and hospitals.
Bill is right we need a new politics that represents the people of Britain not the multinationals and conglomerates of the ‘global nation of wealth’. A new politics that speaks with the wisdom and vision of Atlee, the passion and empathy of Aneurin Bevan, and the intellectual adroitness of Chomsky.
Martin. Creating an anti neo-liberal party is exactly what Ken Loach has written on in today’s Guardian (‘Labour is part of the problem, not the solution’). I included the link in an earlier comment. Left Unity is the name.
Ivan
I read Ken Loach’s article and agree with much of what his analysis. I have great personal respect for both his work, and his ideological fidelity. I do not entirely agree with his conclusion in this instance.
As I have previously commented I have been surprised recently at the vehement rejection by many grass-roots Conservatives of the annexation of THEIR party by the Neo-liberals. I’m sure you would find similar amongst Lib-Dems.
Don’t get me wrong, I would vote Left Unity in a heartbeat, but would they..?
I firmly believe there is enough common ground to form a new alliance of all the colours against the forces of evil who have colonised all the parties.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this idea draws some vitriol from commentators but I would ask them to remember that this is a war for the very soul of democracy. If the neo-liberal agenda isn’t halted now it never will be. This is too big an issue to be ceded to partisan rivalries.
That is not to say that there would not be victories for both sides in such an alliance. The abject failure of spurious neo-lib economics has made the finding of common ground easier than ever.
Re-nationalisation of the energy and rail industries should be a core issue for the left, but one that would find instant support in the Tory heartlands. Cancel HS2 and plough the money into making our regional transport fit for purpose in the 21st century, creating (en route) thousands of jobs, and watch the Tory shires vote crumble. Create blue collar jobs in the Environment Agency and mitigate against climate change, saving all those nice middle class areas from flooding. Create the jobs in HMRC and use the evaded and avoided taxes gained to pay for an NHS that people deserve. Building council houses and retirement villages, returning empty homes to purpose would benefit the children and grandchildren of the silver-hired vote that the parties so assiduously court.
Ken Loach spoke of the rage in society, and he is right, it is there. It can be seen in falling electoral turn-outs and in the popularity of UKIP. A man with a vote and no voice is as disenfranchised as a man with a voice and no vote. Politicians have failed to grasp that the support for Farage has more to do with the perception that he is on the outside of politics and the Westminster village.
As unthinkable as it may seem to those of us on the left, in 2015 we will either stand together as a nation against the forces of evil that are the Neo-Liberals, or face the blackest of futures. There will be a time for the left to regroup, to rebuild itself, but that time is in the future.
Right now we need a popular movement that unites the country against the Neo-Liberal tide, before it is too late.
It may be hard to get the anti-neo-liberal viewpoint across, what with the captured press and broadcast-media!
Labour does say it is on “the side of ordinary people” and so do the Government, both repeatedly. The words might modulate – “working” for “ordinary”.
I was travelling in a group yesterday on a rather long car journey and I read out loud the Ken Loach article. We all agreed with Loach; although our discussion focused on who to support and the Left’s often inane purile rivalries. I have struggled over the last 15 years with deciding if I should vote Labour once more having been active in the movement for 35 years and a former member of The Labour Party. I have decided – you can’t support a party that will not tackle the root issues or advance a brave policy. Labour is more concerned about “marketing” to win and then finds itself hopelessly constrained, although Blair’s reformist movement was unashamedly marketed [and neoliberal]. Polly Tonybee’s preelection day pro-labour editorials have influenced me in the past “not to waste my vote”. I assure Polly I will not waste my vote again and target it on a candidate who advances an anti-neoliberal agenda. A real broad church that Labour once aspired to is needed, it might be Green in one constituency or Unity in another. Polly “A vote for continuation of neo-liberalism is a wasted vote”, Miliband wants his place in history – then I say “make sure its memorable and be brave”.
Today’s Telegraph article by Dan Hodges http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100264929/the-siren-voice-of-polly-toynbee-is-calling-ed-miliband-he-should-give-in-to-it/ “a former Labour Party and GMB trade union official, and has managed numerous independent political campaigns” highlights Tonybee’s fretting — Labour’s strategists need to be courageous and adopt a policy for the ordinary not the extra-ordinary to survive.
I’m afraid Dan Hodges is talking rot – he’s just advocating that Labour needs to shore up its reputation as ‘fiscaly’ prudent which means the usual austerity:
“The second option is the option I’ve been advocating for the last three and a half years. Tough lines on spending. Welfare. Law and order. Immigration. Public service reform. Regain Labour’s credibility for competence and fiscal prudence.”
What gibbering nonsense -it just advocates more unnecessary austerity which plays into the myth that Governments are households! As if the Tories are fiscally prudent!
What: with 12 billion going into a housing bubble that out paces inflation. Using unemployment and human waste as a price control (20% youth unemployment). Continuing to allow banks to create asset bubbles with their easy liquidity whilst paying interest on reserves! What fiscal prudence -all waste inducing myths that Labour will NOT challenge!
I doubt Hodges has ever written a useful word on anything
Agreed about Hodges, his stuff is drivel and meant to “Confuse” – not my point. The Telegraph is clearly enjoying underscoring the discomfort of left leaning journalists and the cul-de-sac, even absence of The Labour Party’s policy and its difficulty with being the advocate for the ordinary against the extraordinary.
Perhaps The Telegraph would enjoy another breakaway group from Labour, like the SDP of 1981 (“The Gang of Four”, supported by social democrats such as Toynbee). I remember debating with Shirley Williams in the early 1970’s and being patronised as an idealist, my politics though have not changed. I still believe our aims then are relevant today – the nationalisation of the “commanding heights of the economy” — a people’s bank, an investment bank, our health services, railways, universities, power utilities, social housing – all are privatisation disasters [or to come]. These can all fit comfortably into a mixed social economy with a living wage, fair taxation, full employment and training, for all.
In fairness, I think it is extraordinarily hard for Milliband or anyone else to argue this. We all know why the benefits bill is so huge;
1) There are an awful lot of old people
2) The cost of housing is so exorbitant that the majority of people can’t meet it, no matter how many hours they work, without a top-up from the Government.
I’m old enough to remember the 70s & I sometimes think that the worst thing anyone ever did in home policy was Mrs Thatcher’s “right to buy”. It was the domestic equivalent of Blair’s Iraq, but whereas almost no-one now defends the invasion of Iraq, there are millions of people who still think selling off millions of council houses was a good idea.
It really wasn’t, was it ?
The best opponent of these ideas from the left is, by a country mile, the Pope. I hope he will say more.
The best within the UK is, I’m sorry to say, Galloway. He doesn’t necessarily come across as the most savoury character, & it is hard to forgive some of his horrible public blunders (impersonating cats etc), but when the man s on-song he articulates the ideas with a clarity & persuasiveness that no Labour MP remotely achieves.
Saying the left doesn’t need Galloway makes as much sense as Ashley saying the England T20 team didn’t need KP!