The subject of welfare (which I will stubbornly continue to call social security) has been prominent this week. It wasn't only Labour's announcement of its policy, although that may well have sparked it off. The BBC belatedly discovered the scandal of ESA, the delays and the failure of the Work Programme to help those supposedly able to work. Of course, being the BBC, it headed the story with the speculation that the cost would mean that the government breaches its self-imposed cap on total welfare spend.
Then the Public Accounts Committee reported on the even bigger mess of PIPs. An embarrassed Mike Penning was allowed to get away with blaming Labour, and insisting that it was now fixed. But it all added to the impression of government that "something must be done".
Where was Iain Duncan Smith? He was proudly announcing that Universal Credit is being "rolled out" to 90 Jobcentres in the North West. But it will still only apply to single unemployed people with no complications, and there are no predictions beyond that. It was unfortunate timing; another major failure was added to the list. The Economist, normally Tory-supporting, published a devastating article headed "Universal discredit" rubbishing everything this government has done on "welfare reform".
Last night BBC's Newsnight had a discussion on the subject between Owen Jones and Nadhim Zahawi. The former is a socialist and columnist who is often critical of Labour. The latter is an ultra-loyal Tory whose expenses claims caused a furore and who will trot out the party line. The innate bias of the BBC was evident in the use, several times, of the term "welfare dependency" and in using a clip from Benefits Street as if it was an appropriate illustration. And IDS's lackey Christian Guy from the Centre for Social Justice was presented on the film as he was an independent expert. Who "won" the argument depends on who you agree with. These discussions rarely change opinions. But at least the subject is now being discussed.
Showing posts with label Nadhim Zahawi MP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nadhim Zahawi MP. Show all posts
Saturday, 21 June 2014
Monday, 17 February 2014
The BBC blew it - again
BBC Newsnight tonight announces an item on "sanctions", so I watch with interest. It goes to a food bank in Accrington (I think) and its manager talks eloquently about the hardships people are suffering. A few people are singled out; a 61-year-old man who had worked all his life until made redundant two years ago; a young man with learning difficulties; both punished for not applying for enough jobs. Back to the studio, and Victoria Derbyshire conducts an interview with two MPs; Debbie Abrahams (Labour), who is on the Work & Pensions select committee, and Nadhim Zahawi (Tory). It's a sorry spectacle. Abrahams tries to bring out the reality of sanctions, Zahawi parrots the familiar lies, and is allowed to talk over her and dominate the "discussion". Just when you think the BBC might be finding its backbone, it caves in.
Sunday, 15 December 2013
The future of "welfare", part one
In my last post we looked at the history of the concept of welfare, or social security. An understanding of that history is essential to any discussion of the future.
First, let's get to grips with Iain Duncan Smith's concept. There are those who believe that he wants to end the welfare system altogether. I don't think that was his intention when he came into the job. He had a messianic sense of his personal mission to transform it, certainly. First, with the Work Programme, he was going to put the majority of the unemployed back to work. But the first year's results were so terrible that his own party were furious with him. The second year was little better, and it was obvious to everybody that people were only finding work because the economy was picking up. The long-term unemployed, young people and those kicked off incapacity benefits onto ESA, remained stubbornly out of work. IDS turned his wrath on them. They were the enemy, scuppering his vision, and he has become more and more determined to punish them. Then, Universal Credit was going to remould the system, "making work pay"; and it would bear his name as its creator for ever, just as the NHS was the creation of Aneurin Bevan. But that hasn't worked either. So IDS is an angry and disappointed man who has no place in the future.
I have said before that the mindset of the right today reminds me very much of the climate of opinion which produced the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. There was then no real concept of a "public sector". Governments and councils (corporations) could hire people to carry out the work. And there was no thought of insurance against misfortune for the masses, at least not administered officially. The poor did create "friendly societies" into which they paid a few pennies a week, as well as burial clubs which ensured that there was money for a decent funeral. But National Insurance had to wait until 1911. It has now become almost irrelevant. Worst of all, we have gone back to the notion of the deserving and the undeserving poor, with the former being thought of as very few in number. (In the mind of the right, of course, there are contradictions. There's plenty of work out there if people were not too idle to do it; but some unemployment is necessary for capitalism to work. People should equip themselves with skills and qualifications; but employers shouldn't have the expense of training their workforce.)
A clear demonstration of the "new" thinking comes in an article in the Express today. It's not so much in the plans put forward by a member of the Conservatives' policy board, Nadhim Zahawi MP, as in the phrases he uses. Take, "Mr Zahawi said that the welfare state was established as a 'last resort, not a lifestyle choice'" and it was "trapping people into a life of dependency on the state". Later he says that he wants to "help the next generation think more carefully about their relationship with the welfare state". His words show no understanding of how "the welfare state" grew up, or why. He sees it as a project set up by the tax-paying majority to provide benevolently for the non-working minority, rather than as what it was; a system of mutual aid and insurance. Not a "safety net" (as he also describes it) but a guarantee of security for all.
The right has, in effect, scrapped all the thinking which produced the progress of the twentieth century, the progress towards social security paid for out of general taxation. Indeed, it has gone further than its 19th century predecessors by putting all services in the hands of profit-making companies. In this vision of the future there would only be private insurance against misfortune, not public provision. The state pension will have less and less value at the same time as the pension age rises, so private pensions will replace the state pension. What about those who never earn enough to pay private insurance? Tough. Perhaps they'll come round to the idea that for those who really can't do anything for themselves and would otherwise be littering the streets, there should be special hostels ....
It doesn't have to be like this, as I shall explore in another post.
First, let's get to grips with Iain Duncan Smith's concept. There are those who believe that he wants to end the welfare system altogether. I don't think that was his intention when he came into the job. He had a messianic sense of his personal mission to transform it, certainly. First, with the Work Programme, he was going to put the majority of the unemployed back to work. But the first year's results were so terrible that his own party were furious with him. The second year was little better, and it was obvious to everybody that people were only finding work because the economy was picking up. The long-term unemployed, young people and those kicked off incapacity benefits onto ESA, remained stubbornly out of work. IDS turned his wrath on them. They were the enemy, scuppering his vision, and he has become more and more determined to punish them. Then, Universal Credit was going to remould the system, "making work pay"; and it would bear his name as its creator for ever, just as the NHS was the creation of Aneurin Bevan. But that hasn't worked either. So IDS is an angry and disappointed man who has no place in the future.
I have said before that the mindset of the right today reminds me very much of the climate of opinion which produced the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. There was then no real concept of a "public sector". Governments and councils (corporations) could hire people to carry out the work. And there was no thought of insurance against misfortune for the masses, at least not administered officially. The poor did create "friendly societies" into which they paid a few pennies a week, as well as burial clubs which ensured that there was money for a decent funeral. But National Insurance had to wait until 1911. It has now become almost irrelevant. Worst of all, we have gone back to the notion of the deserving and the undeserving poor, with the former being thought of as very few in number. (In the mind of the right, of course, there are contradictions. There's plenty of work out there if people were not too idle to do it; but some unemployment is necessary for capitalism to work. People should equip themselves with skills and qualifications; but employers shouldn't have the expense of training their workforce.)
A clear demonstration of the "new" thinking comes in an article in the Express today. It's not so much in the plans put forward by a member of the Conservatives' policy board, Nadhim Zahawi MP, as in the phrases he uses. Take, "Mr Zahawi said that the welfare state was established as a 'last resort, not a lifestyle choice'" and it was "trapping people into a life of dependency on the state". Later he says that he wants to "help the next generation think more carefully about their relationship with the welfare state". His words show no understanding of how "the welfare state" grew up, or why. He sees it as a project set up by the tax-paying majority to provide benevolently for the non-working minority, rather than as what it was; a system of mutual aid and insurance. Not a "safety net" (as he also describes it) but a guarantee of security for all.
The right has, in effect, scrapped all the thinking which produced the progress of the twentieth century, the progress towards social security paid for out of general taxation. Indeed, it has gone further than its 19th century predecessors by putting all services in the hands of profit-making companies. In this vision of the future there would only be private insurance against misfortune, not public provision. The state pension will have less and less value at the same time as the pension age rises, so private pensions will replace the state pension. What about those who never earn enough to pay private insurance? Tough. Perhaps they'll come round to the idea that for those who really can't do anything for themselves and would otherwise be littering the streets, there should be special hostels ....
It doesn't have to be like this, as I shall explore in another post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)