The Guardian has a story on the benefit cap this morning.
It's troubling at a personal level for those impacted.
It's troubling at a policy level because there is no real evidence that the benefit cap changes behaviour with regard to work. That's hardly surprising: why should it?
In that case it leaves only one justification for the cap, which is vindictiveness.
It was Theresa May who once described the Conservatives as the Nasty Party. Whether she was right is for others to decide upon. But what is increasingly clear is that we do live in Nasty Britain. That is a place where Nastiness is sufficient to determine policy, shape people's lives, and create the spectre of fear for far too many.
Welcome to the endarkenment.
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:
I agree that the mood in the country at the moment is unpleasantly angry, nasty and defiant, and I don’t think this will change until we severely clip the wings of the tabloid press. I wonder about the consequences if FIFA carry out their threat to dock points from England, Scotland and wales for defying their bans on wearing poppies (I don’t agree with their stance, but is it really worth putting World Cup qualifying at risk?) since it will play into the hands of the nationalistic right and their ‘they all hate us, so two fingers to Johnny Foreigner’ attitude.
Interestingly over the weekend I was browsing in WH Smith at the weekend and came across not one, but four or five, books extolling the Danish way of life, and hygge in particular, and asking why they are supposedly the happiest country on earth (doubtless a little over-hyped, but still). These sell because in the current climate we are envious of this and the irony is that this is no exotic, South-sea island paradise, but a fellow European country less than two hours flying time from here. There is nothing the Danes do that we couldn’t and a lot that we used to do, but don’t do any more. The difference is that the Danes don’t have a rabid right-wing press and have the sense to realise that the price for this sort of society is a high level of tax.
It’s my pleasure to work with Cioenhagen Business School
I can see all the attractions
Totally agree Richard, but I presume you deplore Denmark for having the highest wealth inequality in the world (based on the gini coefficient)? It’s far higher than in the UK and, for that matter, the US. I think a significant wealth tax in Denmark could be the answer to go with their high levels of income tax.
You might be ignoring the degree to which the issue is crackled through its social security system
I wish that was the case Richard but as this is wealth inequality it’s essentially people’s assets so it is post redistributions of income through the social security system and tax systems. In Denmark a few people own much more than all the rest.
I think your prescriptions and those of Piketty are viable solutions when addressing such excessive inequalities as found in Denmark, despite the facts they are very happy as a nation.
I accept that point
Denmark has a few massively wealthy owners of very large businesses that help create the problem
I’m afraid there are a lot of misconceptions about Scandinavia and Denmark in particular. See for example:
http://cphpost.dk/news/danish-government-announces-reform-of-benefits-it-should-pay-to-work.html
Thatcherism endgame? = “there is no such thing as society”. Perhaps (& yes here he goes again!) what we are seeing is the first steps in what Skidelsky predicts. Economic decline hits the poorest first and then works its way upwards – faced with declining tax revenues politicos convince themselves that they need to be tough on the poor – but poverty over time works its way up. Goodbye the middle clases. Was in Valencia recently (business) – a Spanish partner in a project remarked that Spain is splitting into the poor & the rich – & the middle classes are evaporating. If/when this happens, it will not lead to progressive politics.
Yep, if you follow the trails that have led us to here then many of the nasty bits become predictable as emergent properties. Things like benefits caps were bound to happen once there was a concerted effort to label skivers and strivers. You cant create so much division and vitriol without knock on effects.
In 2001 I was part of a group of Somerset teachers looking at schools in Denmark. It impressed me as a country which combines individual freedom and social responsibility. There was a sense of community. Despite this. or maybe because of this, the World Economic Forum rates it in the top ten of ‘good places to do business’. (and it’s an EU country )
And children start formal education at 7 – so sensible
Benefits must be dependent on need
So I should in work benefits be based on need
Then the problem is solved
I, too, think the benefit cap is a vindictive penalty for being poor. It is shaming to live in such a country, especially if it is true that many more children will grow up in poverty as a result, thus also storing up problems for the governments and societies of the future.
Unless the current government is saying that benefits paid before today’s reduced cap were unnecessary there is no excuse for capping them – and, if they were, there was no excuse for issuing them unnecessarily.
In the end unless you consider, in the face of evidence to the contrary, that either that people enjoy being on benefits and avoiding work or they are saving lots of money on benefits, a higher level of benefits really doesn’t matter as the activity it pays for gets spent into the real economy. Except of course much of the higher amounts of benefits income are in fact for housing which of course is invariably rent — quite often for rich property owners.
Endarkenment indeed.
Hi Richard
As you might have the time to see, someone seems to think its funny trying to emulate my assumed name that I use here. And have a dig too no doubt (how subtle).
Please don’t attribute such badly informed comments to me!! There are more holes in his/her comments than those found in a tennis net!
Sorry: my mistake
Could I also point out that one of the ultimate victims of the benefit will be council housing as – if the benefit is allowed to continue to fall – more and more housing (smaller units) will become too expensive to rent for those who cannot afford to buy or rent in PRS.
You may wish to check out Joe Halewoods blog ‘SP Eye’ for some background reading. He’s done the math.
Yes – I admit to working in the social housing sector so I have a somewhat vested interest but surely what really matters is the short and long term effects of a contraction in the amount of affordable housing in the country.
This is chaos by design and one can only conclude that it is indeed ‘nasty’.
I don’t know what the Labour Party’s plan for the country is (does anyone?) but if and when they ever get their act together in such a way that they can convince the electorate there IS another way (TIAW) it could possibly be too late. The Tory salami-slicing of the welfare state might by then have left no salami (apologies to fellow vegans for the analogy). I totally despair of England and the direction in which it is being led. When will the sheeple wake up?
Endarkenment – like it.
Your post raises the central question of Motive & Motivation in the Austerity Con. I agree, it IS vindictiveness that is the Motivation behand the benefit cap and many other Austerity measures.
The bedroom tax, for instance, was justified on the grounds that:
(a) public housing property was being underused and it would force single person households to move from 2 & 3 bed properties to one bed properties;
and (b) it would also reduce the Housing Benefit bill.
But simple arithmetic says that it couldn’t possibly do both simmultaneously. If all the underoccupying one person households moved to one bedroom properties & then all the 2 & 3 bedroom properties became occupied by bigger households, then the Housing Benefit bill would not reduce at all.
UNLESS there weren’t (and there weren’t) enough one bedroom properties available, & so single person households would be stuck in 2 & 3 bed properties, gradually, inevitably, racking up rent arrears until they became homeless. In which case, it shows vindictiveness on the part of the politicians who brought in the measure and the voters who approved.
However, that’s just about Motivation.
Motive is another thing. When you look at the effects of benefit cuts and other more specific measures on the fate of Social Housing Providers, Motive becomes clearer. Social Housing Providers will inevitably go under and be gobbled up by the private sector predators who bankroll the Nasty Party. And for them, it’s just business.
On the plus side, we’re not yet into Nasty Britain, as all of this has been brought about by a minority of politicians and backed by a minority of voters. It will only become the Endarkenment if the rest of us remain unenlightened as to the Motive behind the Austerity Con. If you don’t understand what Austerity is for, you don’t understand Austerity. And speaking to people and reading the (quite rightly) outraged sentiments expressed in left-leaning newspapers & blogs,
most of the 99% – even the most enlightened- still don’t get it.
Agreed about the 99%. That’s why anyone I intend to vote for from councillor upwards will have to answer the question ‘where does money come from?’
Doesn’t Denmark have their own benefit caps?
I think they are heading that way
I don’t recall that reducing the housing benefits bill was the key consideration in the bedroom tax so much as simple fairness to a) people in need of more space and b) people on the waiting list and c) the taxpayer. The case for the taxpayer to pay for the lifestyle preference of some fellow citizens isn’t clear to many — and I mean lifestyle choice, not need. That is to say the preference of, say, the late Mr Bob Crow, to occupy a council house when he could comfortably afford not to do so, v that of an elderly person with a spare room used by family members staying over when visiting for caring.
That said, I would trust the likes of Chris Mullin & Frank Field ahead of any Conservative. However, one has to wonder why the non-Tory messaging on housing is so incoherent?
Millions of people live like latter-day serfs in leasehold homes and are subject to a greater or lesser extent to exploitation by monetising freeholders (see http://www.leaseholdknowledge.com). Many of these are donors to the Conservatives, which is why this form of property tenure still exists in England and Wales long after it has been abolished elsewhere.
What else besides a lease on a freehold can you sell and yet still own, and indeed get rent and commissions and fees from? It’s the closest thing yet to a cake you can eat and still have.
The value of London property is maintained by an influx of billions in dirty money from around the world, with the connivance of British controlled tax havens. The operating principle seems to be “better it comes to us than Switzerland”.
There is no shortage of possible reforms that would reduce the cost and increase the availability of homes (see eg recent moves by Vancouver). Crashing the economy isn’t necessary.
I disagree with the sentiment you express on the bedroom tax, which seeks to demean the humanity of people. That nited you said sufficient else to post the comment.
But my point was that it didn’t solve a)b) or c). And nor could it when the underlying problem was the lack of public housing & profiteering in the private sector. The housing benefit bill has grown as a result of private landlords helping themselves to ‘taxpayers’ money’. What do you think of my central point about Motive for the ‘reform’?