I noted an article by Frances Ryan in the Guardian yesterday in which she referred to a YouGov survey that sought opinion from people in the UK on what levels of consumption those on benefits or low pay should enjoy.
The findings were deeply unflattering to the people of this country. As Frances Ryan noted, around 25% of people surveyed thought those on low pay or benefits did not have an entitlement to enjoy a balanced diet. The same number wondered whether those on low pay should be able to heat their homes.
Others questioned why having a mobile phone was a necessity, even though access to government services is now almost impossible without one. The right to a television was also questioned when that is the most basic means of access to the shared culture that defines our community.
As Francis Ryan correctly noted, much of this is indicative of deeply prejudicial opinion within UK society, with those who think that they have wealth, or who believe that they can aspire to it, being deeply hostile towards those on low incomes. What is curious, however, is that for these degrees of prejudice to be prevalent those holding them must themselves have little more than average income in many cases and they might only be possessed of little more than median wealth, which is vastly lower than that enjoyed by those in the top decile of wealth owners in the UK. Prejudice does, in that case, extend well beyond those with wealth in that case.
When I wrote my book, The Courageous State, I spent a lot of time thinking about what it is that creates well-being and how the resulting ideas might be built into economic theory. I admit that remarkably few people seem to have ever paid much attention to what I wrote, but the ideas remain relevant. I suggested that there are four factors that can, broadly speaking, contribute to our well-being, which are:
- Material well-being
- Intellectual well-being
- Emotional well-being
- Spiritual well-being
Material well-being is, of course, the focus of almost all economics. Material consumption is what economics assumes life is all about, although that is very clearly wrong.
Intellectual well-being is not about membership of Mensa. It is, instead, being possessed of the ability to partake in the society of which a person is a part. Without having a sufficient education, a person is denied this, and that, in my opinion, is deeply inequitable.
I would hope that emotional well-being is easy to understand. It is about having a community of support within which a person lives. This could be a family, but it might also be a network of friends or other people who care. The vast majority of people do I hope, have an awareness of the importance of this for everyone, whoever they might be.
Finally, spiritual well-being is not about having faith, religion, or another such attribute. Instead, I used the term to refer to a person having a sense of purpose, which provides their life with meaning.
I hope that it is obvious to anyone that having these types of well-being is vital for a person's survival. Mental and physical health are prejudiced if they are not available.
It was my suggestion in the theory that I created that these issues are not independent of each other. In other words, if there was an insufficiency of any of these sources of well-being, then the person's well-being as a whole is prejudiced and a surplus in any other area cannot correct for that. Equally, an excess in any of these attributes (which I suggested was only possible with regard to material well-being, which is the only area where I suggest that we can over-consume) does harm the ability to partake of the other sources of well-being because we are finite beings.
This has impact on any approach to low pay, benefits, inequality and much else. There does, of course, have to be access to minimum standards for material well-being for all. But unless there is access to intellectual, emotional and spiritual well-being as well then overall well-being will be denied to those on low incomes.
It would seem that many in our society are quite happy with that. The number appears to, by some coincidence, broadly equate to the base level of support for the Tories. What these people are seeking to do is impose hardship to the point where harm is caused. The obvious manifestation is in their policy on migration and refugees, but the attitude pervades much of their policy.
No wonder we are in a mess. We are governed by a party that does not care and does not care about that fact or the people impacted. We cannot afford the price of this indifference.
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:
The survey data shows that around 7% of people surveyed thought those on low pay or benefits did not have an entitlement to enjoy a balanced diet. That’s pretty close to the DKN lizard man number of 5% who will give daft answers to surveys or won’t read and understand the question properly.
Frances has accidentally grouped low pay workers with those who do no paid work.
Survey table is here
topics/society/articles-reports/2023/08/02/what-should-living-standards-look-people-benefits-
Maybe they don’t understand the questions properly because of not having what Richard calls intellectual well-being.
Liberty has a much longer list of the human rights that are being removed from us.
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/your-rights/
The article in the Guardian shows us just how low we have sunk as a country since Brexit.
Its the same 7% that wants to scrap the NHS, and who are the hardcore Tories.
We should be grateful that they are a small minority and ignore the bastards.
Thank you for an important article.
Systems Justification Theory is interesting and informative on this matter.
I too read that article and found it deeply depressing (but not surprising). Your taxonomy of well-being seems like a good starting point for a broad political stance but I quibble about the use of the term “spiritual”, I know you’ve qualified it but I still think it’s exclusive, and no, I’m not a fully paid up member of the Logical Positivist gang – I still deny the metaphysical aspects of “spiritual” though.
As I say, a minor quibble, keep going.
I am amused by that
Class action lawsuit reveals we have a Tory Mafia government and very likely a Trojan Horse Labour one after a general election. Tubs of Lard voters need to wake up!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/09/public-could-receive-hundreds-of-millions-as-water-firms-face-sewage-lawsuit
One of the most depressing articles I have read in a while…. and that is saying something.
Wherever you are on the ladder there is always someone lower…. and when scared many will try to kick those lower down. Sad but true.
Fear is a powerful emotion and the current government promotes it to its own ends – despicable!
Richard, thank you. It reminds me of Abraham Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs”.
Maslow stated that the most basic human needs are food, water, warmth and rest. If those are not present, no human can feel safe.
Nor can they progress further towards any kind of fulfilling life.
So, the Government (and a significant percentage of our citizens) have condemned millions of us to a life equivalent to cruel serfdom.
There is a similarity
It’s worth noting that Maslow “borrowed” his idea from indigenous Americans, but failed to understand the aspects that they held were the most important..
They know that whatever people want or need has to be seen as part of an exchange with the environment in which they live. There has to be a layer below Maslow’s basic “survival” level that provides air to breath & water to drink; and food can only be obtained if the ecosystem that grows it is healthy & productive.
They also put a layer above the top of Maslow’s hierarchy which is about the community in which the person lives. That too has to be healthy & productive. Generosity is a big part of the relationship people have with that community – both as regards physical possessions and habits of thought.
You can see why Maslow chose to omit that from his publication, given that he was working in the US.
From the BBC History website (shorter version posted previously). Welfare is not an undeserving entitlement (as some Thatcherites I know believe) but good health, at least, are an essential for the good of a country. If you don’t learn from your mistakes they will be repeated.
————
Reasons why the Liberal Government passed reforms
The Second Boer War began in 1899 in the south of Africa. It was fought between the two Boer Republics and the British Empire, which held lands in the area.
Britain only had a small, though well-trained regular army. The Second Boer War lasted three years and the British needed to enlist more recruits. Many British men volunteered.
Problems highlighted by the war
During the war, the British army experienced great difficulty in finding fit young men to recruit as soldiers. Before men could join the army, they had to pass a medical inspection.
It was discovered, through these medical inspections, that one third of volunteers was unfit for military service. It appeared that the physical condition of the working class male prevented him from fighting, as well as working effectively in his job.
Results of the war
There was growing concern for national security (the safety of Britain). Many believed that the British army was not powerful enough. If there was difficulty recruiting for a small-scale war, then it would be even more difficult to enlist a large number of able soldiers for a large-scale war.
This meant that Britain may be easily defeated by a strong, industrialised nation with a large army. Germany was such a nation which seemed to be challenging Britain for international supremacy.
Government reports published in 1904 stated that free school meals and medical examinations should be introduced in Britain. This would help combat the poor physical condition of many British citizens.
The reports emphasised that diet should be improved and overcrowding reduced, as the worst cases were found in the industrial cities. Pressure was mounting on the Government to act, to ensure basic health levels were met in Britain.
Shame that they found identical problems with WW1 recruits! Nothing was done.
The possession statistics for the latest 3 months will be out in 8 days time.
The previous one out in May showed a significant deviation from the pre-pandemic levels and there was no outrage.
I hope they attract some media attention this time, but I’m not hopeful for obvious reasons.
What are possession statistics?
I have a question for Richard Murphy..
its a huge mistake for the left wing to oppose immigration controls UK post Brexit (and all rich countries) should implement Net Zero Immigration instead of stealing skilled staff from poor countries. It is, very simply, completely immoral for a liberal person to take a trained doctor from a developing nation where they have endemic malaria and rickets without supplying an equivalent replacement doctor in return. Money is not sufficient. Second problem is the result then is the same as training in firms. They stop doing it. Why invest if you’re just going to get poached. Then everyone is screwed! It’s a fundamental issue, that cannot be rectified by paying money. It should be a EXACT like for like swap, or we’re depriving ‘overseas’ of a doctor. The swap is of value as each doctor learns the issues in the other area – making them both more rounded overall. How is stealing doctors different from stealing their oil?
In principle I entirely agree with you. Your logic is sound at a policy level.
But it makes no sense at a perosnal level when it imprisons people in a place by accident of birth and because it denies people the opprtunity to widen their experience, which is invaluable.
Remember, vast numbers of people who come here to work themn go back to their homes precisely they never gave up thinking of those places as such.
re a blanced diet: I know a pensionr with limited income; every month, he makes a monthly bulk purchase of food from the local aupermarket to donate to the local foodbank. Every time he reaches up to the tins (it has to be tins, not fresh or frozen) he is aware of a dilemma. Should he be selecting the most nutritious additive free non ultra processed stuff that will contribute towards a good balance of protein, fat, and carbohydrate, and a sound supply of vitamins, but at a price three times higher than the alternative? Or should he be mass purchasing the cheapo stuff at one third the price, but which will provide many more meals for a family in need? Someone above referred to Maslow’s heirarchy of needs. Food is one of the most basic needs for humans. But the poor and deprived may be lucky enough to be getting a sufficiency of energy giving foods from the foodbanks, but not enjoying a proper balanced diet that will keep them in good health. I have read of and heard strong criticism of foodbanks for their emphasis on poorer bulk fat and carbohydrate rich but nutritionally poor food. But what else can the volunteers do who spend their own often limited incomes, and their time, in trying to get at least some food to the great numbers in need? Surely the criticism should be directed, at the politicians and financiers and company bosses eaders who run the system ensuring high dividends to shareholders.
Thanks for saying that
I read this too and was very disappointed.
My view?
Public sentiment is out of whack with reality, and in my view these attitudes are a symptom of that.
We still believe in work, yet there is less work and less being paid for work.
We still believe in money but there is less real money and more credit which has conditions of entry.
We still believe in having money to spend, but there is less to spend.
We still believe in saving but there is less to save.
How these issues affect you depend on your economic position.
Too many of us have not yet realised what is happening.
The market with its segmentation ethos had divided us up, isolating us from each other by the price of the homes and goods we consume, limiting our imagination to think of the possibility that there are people living with less than ourselves.
I read this article in the Guardian today, and actually felt quite uplifted by the idea that millions of people see the attack upon the lawyer as unjustified, and she has had lots of support.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/08/immigration-lawyer-braverman-smear-campaign-rightwing-press-deported-to-rwanda
Lawyers can’t afford asylum work and need an increase in legal aid payments. There are legal firms leaving the system already, according to this article. I don’t think Braverman stirring up more hatred against lawyers and immigrants will help, but maybe it’s not intended to.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/asylum-work-unaffordable-at-current-rates-practitioners-warn/5116919.article
Agreed
It is worth comparing this with the work of the Resolution Foundation to determine the Living Wage. Focus groups, provided with more information produce a much more “generous” picture.
https://www.livingwage.org.uk/what-real-living-wage
Or the Living Wage Foundation, although it still seems quite low to me.
Stephen McNair, just realised the Living Wage Foundation is based on the Resolution Foundation.
As you mention Richard, there appears to be a strong correlation between poor-haters, Brexit supporters and those that still think of Johnson as “Good old Boris”.
As Johnson exhibits every behaviour trait and moral value, plus criminality, that these people demonise the poor for allegedly possessing, this is truly ironic.
I regularly take part in Youguv surveys, which is why I believe any reporting of such should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Through my own responses to surveys, it is known that I am left wing, working class, a home owner, an OAP and a socialist who supported Jeremy Corbyn, and I do not get surveys which ask for my political opinions on anything contentious. Mostly I am asked abut my TV viewing and opinions about Tech, which I am absolutely not interested in. I believe people are cherry-picked for certain surveys. I know they would say that they choose respondents from a wide spectrum of opinion, but my experience would suggest otherwise.
I found the results Francis Ryan reports equally depressing but not actually surprising. I cannot disagree with the findings but I might reflect on them – are we not seeing the long term effects of the ruling paradigm which keeps the status quo going?
There is a myth that hard work will lead to success and it perpetuates the seductive idea that the people at the top are there through their hard work alone, deserving of their rewards. It comes with the corollary that those at the bottom (obviously) lack application, ambition or ability, and so become undeserving. This has long been known (think Social Darwinism, or the 1958 book by Michael Young, The Rise of the Meritocracy). In the run up to Thatcherism (so we are going back to the 70-80’s) people like Keith Joseph and other posited the view that because of state education and welfare anyone with nous had already move out of the working class and what was left was inferior.
It is almost ‘de rigueur’ for people who are held up as successful to say in interviews that their experiences prove anyone can do it if they try hard enough. But look a bit harder and 9 times out of 10 you will see the loan from mum and dad, or the the private schools where what used to be dismissed as nepotism or the old school tie has now been approvingly rebranded as networking. (A few years ago I did a close reading of the the pen portraits 10 of young upcoming managers/entrepreneurs featured in Management Today – without exception, public or grammar school and loans from friends or parents and they all put their success down to their hard work).
This doesn’t look likely to be challenged any time soon. Kier Stammer’s fifth pledge is simply to break down the barriers to opportunity. I am sure it is intended to invite sage nods of agreement and be thought of as obvious, and its probably been tested on panels of voters from target seats. The problem is that this reduces the social contract to state help, only if you work hard and aim high. It entirely ignores the limited places at the top of hierarchies and that we all work hard. I might add from my time as a manager that there was constant critic of the annual review process because the whole process was predicated on “where do you see yourself in 5 years time” with the tacit understanding that doing the same thing to the best of your ability was not the right answer.
Non of this show signs of understanding the test philosopher John Rawls suggest for a good society; can you have a good life at the (so called) bottom? Even less the insights of Gramsci or Lakoff.
Only when we confront this basic story – and call it out for the lie it is – will we make any progress to a better society.
What we have to overcome is huge, J.K.Galbrath called it the Culture of Contentment – enough people doing OK so the appetite for change is lessened. Thatcher opened the gate to a new period of majoritarianism which FPTP exacerbates. The tacit rule that your majority does not allow you to do anything (because its not electoral only in seats) has gone by the board, there is now simply winner take all, marginalisation of dissenters can be ignored, ridicule and culture wars …its 45 years since 1979 and well entrenched by now.