Earlier this year, David Cameron defended his welfare “reforms”, claiming that: “Labour has infantilised benefit claimants”, and he argued it was “not big-hearted” to leave people claiming sickness allowances when “they could be incentivised to get treatment for alcohol dependence or obesity.”
I should not need to point out that despite the bizarre attempt at stigmatising sick and disabled people with such a loaded, moralising and media agenda-setting comment from our PM, the majority of people claiming sickness benefits are neither dependent on alcohol nor are they claiming because they are obese. This said, I think that alcohol dependence and obesity are illnesses that ought to be treated with compassion instead of moralising. But the general public on the whole do not hold this view. Cameron knows that. In fact Cameron has contributed to the scapegoating of social groups, outgrouping and public division significantly over the past five years
I claim sickness benefit simply because I have a life-threatening illness called lupus. There is no cure, and no-one may imply I am ill because of “life-style choices”. However, people using alcohol often have underlying mental distress, and drinking alcohol is pretty much a social norm. Poverty often means that people are forced to buy the cheapest food, which is the least healthy option. Some illnesses and disabilities cause mobility problems, and some treatments cause weight gain. So it cannot be assumed that alcohol dependence and obesity are simply about “making wrong choices” after all.
I have to say that it IS “big-hearted” to leave me claiming benefits, Mr Cameron, because I am no longer fit for work. Indeed I was forced to take my case to tribunal after your government tried to “kindly” incentivise me to abandon my legitimate claim for sickness benefit, and the tribunal panel decided that if I were return to my profession(s) (social work and previously, youth and community work – with young people at risk of offending,) that would, though no fault of my own, place me in situations that are an unacceptable risk to my health and safety, and of course would also place others – vulnerable young people – at risk. Which is why I claimed sickness benefit in the first place – because I am too ill to work.
Libertarian paternalism isn’t “fatherly”
Mr Cameron, however, thinks he knows better and continues to insist that it is is everyone’s best interests to work. I can assure him that isn’t the case. So can many others with chronic illnesses and disabilities.
Back in 2013, Esther McVey defended the increased use of welfare conditionality and benefit sanctions in front of the work and pensions committee by infantilising claimants and playing the behaviourist paternalistic libertarian nudge card. She said: “What does a teacher do in a school? A teacher would tell you off or give you lines or whatever it is, detentions, but at the same time they are wanting your best interests at heart.”
“They are teaching you, they are educating you but at the same time they will also have the ability to sanction you.”
Since when did the state become comparable with a strict, punitive, authoritarian headmaster at a remedial school called “we know what’s best for you” in this so-called first-world liberal democracy? That is not democracy at all: it’s despotic paternalism.
One of the cruellest myths of inequality is that some people are poor because they lack the capability to be anything else. Meritocracy is a lie. It is used to justify the obscene privileges and power at the top of our steep social hierarchy and the cruel exclusion and crushing, humiliating deprivation at the bottom. No-one seems to want to contemplate that people are poor because some people are very very rich, and if the very rich have a little less, the poor could have a little more.
Neoliberalism is a socioeconomic system founded entirely on competition. This means that people have to compete for resources and opportunities, including jobs. Inevitably such as system generates “winners” and “losers”. Poverty has got nothing to do with personal “choices”; the system itself creates inequalities.
Deserving and undeserving: the rich deserve more money, the poor deserve punishment
At least one third of those people with the most wealth have inherited it. It’s a manifestation of prejudice that poor people are seen as “less deserving”, based on “ability” and on vulgar assumptions regarding people’s personal qualities and character. In fact the media, mostly talking to itself, in judging “the undeserving” has given a veneer of moral authority to an ancient Conservative prejudice. It’s very evident in policies. The austerity cuts don’t apply to the fabulously lucky wealthy. Whilst the poorest citizens have seen their welfare cut and wages decrease, as the cost of living spirals upwards, millionaires were handed a tax break of £107, 000 each per year.
Surely our stratified social system of starkly divided wealth, resources, power, privilege and access is punishment enough for poor people.
As Ed Miliband pointed out: “David Cameron and George Osborne believe the only way to persuade millionaires to work harder is to give them more money.
But they also seem to believe that the only way to make you (ordinary people) work harder is to take money away.” So Tory “incentives” are punitive, but only if you are poor. Wealth, apparently, is the gift that just keeps on giving.
Tories create “scroungers” and “skivers”
As I’ve commented elsewhere, it’s truly remarkable that whenever we have a Conservative government, we suddenly witness media coverage of an unprecedented rise in the numbers of poor people who suddenly seem to develop a considerable range of baffling personal ineptitudes and immediately dysfunctional lives.
We see a proliferation of “skivers” and “scroungers”, an uprising of “fecklessness”, a whole sneaky “culture of entitlement”, “drug addicts”, a riot of general all-round bad sorts, and apparently, the numbers of poor people who suddenly can’t cook a nutritious meal has climbed dramatically, too. We are told that starvation is not because of a lack of money and access to food, but rather, it’s because people don’t know how to budget and cook.
That’s odd, because I always thought that poverty is a consequence of the way society is organised and how resources are allocated through government policies.
That’s a fundamental truth that we seem to be losing sight of, because of the current poverty of state responsibility and the politics of blame.
However, the current government has made the welfare system increasingly conditional on the grounds that “permissive” welfare policies have led to welfare “dependency”. Strict behavioural requirements and punishments in the form of sanctions were an integral part of the conservative moralisation of welfare, and their “reforms” aimed to make claiming benefits less attractive than taking a low paid, insecure job.
Sanctions simply worsen the position of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged citizens. Creating desperation by removing people’s means of basic survival forces them into low paid, insecure work and exerts a further downward pressure on conditions of employement and wages. It commodifies the reserve army of labor, which is strictly in the interests of exploitative, profit-driven plutocrats.
Can this really be England?
Cruel Brittania. A man with heart problems was sanctioned because he had a heart attack during a disability benefits assessment and so failed to complete the assessment. A lone mother was sanctioned because she was a little late for a jobcentre interview, as her four year old daughter needed the toilet.
A man with diabetes was sanctioned because he missed an appointment due to illness, he died penniless, starving, without electricity and alone as a consequence. His electricity card was out of credit, which meant that the fridge where he should have kept his insulin chilled was not working. Three weeks after his benefits were stopped he died from diabetic ketoacidosis – because he could not take his insulin. Here are 11 more irrational, unfair, purely punitive applications of sanctions.
How can removing the basic means of survival for the poorest people in our society possibly incentivise them, “help them into work” or be considered to be remotely “fair”?
There are targets set for imposing benefit sanctions. Jobcentre managers routinely put pressure on staff to sanction people’s benefits, according to their union. Failure to impose “enough” sanctions is said to result in staff being “subject to performance reviews” or losing pay. “Success” as an employee at the jobcentre is certainly not about helping people to get a job but rather, it’s about tricking them out of the money they need to meet their basic needs. Such as food, fuel and shelter. Welfare is no longer a safety net: it is an institutionalisation of systematic state punishment of our poorest citizens.
Angela Neville worked as an adviser in Braintree jobcentre, Essex, for four years and she has written a play with two collaborators, her friends Angela Howard and Jackie Howard, both of whom have helped advocate for unemployed people who were threatened with benefit sanctions by jobcentre staff.
One central motivation behind the play was how “morally compromising” the job had become. In one scene an adviser tells her mother that it’s like “getting brownie points” for cruelty. When Neville herself became redundant in 2013, she was warned about being sanctioned for supposedly being five minutes late to a jobcentre interview.
There was a strong feeling among the playwrights that the tendencies in wider society and the media to stigmatise and vilify benefits claimants needed to be challenged and refuted. The play opens with a scene where “nosey neighbours” spot someone on sickness benefit in the street and assume they must be skiving instead of working.
This perspective is one shared widely amongst disabled people, groups, organisations and charities that advocate for and support disabled people, and is evidenced by the rapid rise of disability-related hate crime since 2010, reaching the highest level since records began by 2012. The UK government is currently the first to face a high-level international inquiry, initiated by the United Nations Committee because of “grave or systemic violations” of the rights of disabled people.
That ought to be a source of shame for the both the government and the public, especially considering that this country was once considered a beacon of human rights, we are (supposedly) a first-world liberal democracy, and a very wealthy nation, yet our government behave like tyrants towards the most vulnerable citizens of the UK. And the public have endorsed this.
“This play is about getting people to bloody think about stuff. Use their brains. Sometimes I think, crikey, we are turning into a really mean, spying on our neighbour, type of society,” Angela said.
The title of the play, Can This be England? is an allusion to the disbelief that Angela Neville and many of us feel at how people on benefits are being treated. And she describes the play, in which she also acts, as a “dramatic consciousness-raising exercise”. The idea behind this production is that the play may be performed very simply, with minimum rehearsal. Scripts are carried throughout and few props are used.
It can take place in any room of a suitable size, and there is no need for stage lighting. The script is freely available to all who wish to use it for performances to raise awareness (non-commercial purposes). Click HERE to download a PDF file. If you find it useful please e-mail any feedback to Angela Neville at the Show and Tell Theatre Company.
Welfare has become increasingly redefined: it is now pre-occupied with assumptions about and modification of the behaviour and character of recipients rather than with the alleviation of poverty and ensuring economic and social well-being. The stigmatisation of people needing benefits is designed purposefully to displace public sympathy for the poor, and to generate moral outrage, which is then used to further justify the steady dismantling of the welfare state.
Framed by ideological concerns, the welfare “reforms” reflect an abandonment of concern for disadvantage and the meeting of human needs as ends in themselves. We have witnessed an extremely punitive system emerge, under the Tories, at a time when jobs are becoming increasingly characterised by insecurity and poor pay. Last year, two-thirds of people who found work took jobs for less than the living wage (£7.85 an hour nationally, £9.15 in London), according to the annual report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
There are as many people in work that are now in poverty as there are out of work, partly due to a vast increase in insecure work on zero-hours contracts, or in part-time or low-paid self-employment. Poverty-level wages have been exacerbated by the number of people reliant on privately rented accommodation and unable to get social housing, the report said. Evictions of tenants by private landlords outnumber mortgage repossessions and are the most common cause of homelessness. The rapidly rising cost of living – price rises for food, energy and transport – have so many people on low pay struggling to make ends meet.
But pay for people on what were comfortable incomes previously is now outstripped by inflation, leaving many more struggling with rising prices. Public spending has decreased, having a knock-on effect on the economy.
Economic Darwinism doesn’t promote growth
Last year, I wrote about the study from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), who found what most of us already knew: that income inequality actually stifles economic growth in some of the world’s wealthiest countries, whilst the redistribution of wealth via taxes and benefits encourages growth.
The report from the OECD, a leading global think tank, shows basically that what creates and reverses growth is the exact opposite of what the current right-wing government are telling us, highlighting the rational basis and fundamental truth of Ed Miliband’s comments in his speech – that the Tory austerity cuts are purely ideologically driven, and not about managing the economy at all.
There is a dimension of vindictiveness in the Tory claim that cutting people’s lifeline benefits will somehow “make work pay”, once you see past the Orwellian unlogic of the statement, and recognise the extent of waged poverty in the UK. Making work pay would rationally need to involve a rise in wages, surely, but that has not happened.
To understand this, it is important to grasp the elitist socio-economic priorities that are embedded in Conservative ideology, which I’ve outlined previously in Conservatism in a nutshell. The whole idea beneath the Orwellian doublespeak is comparable with the punitive Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 – in particular, we can see a clear parallel with the 1834 “less eligibility principle” and the Tory notion of “making work pay” which I’ve previously discussed in The New New Poor Law.
The parallels are underpinned by a shift from macro-level socio-economic explanations of poverty and state responsibility to micro-level punitive, moral psychologising, scapegoating, and the abdication of state (and public) responsibility.
Policies provide a conceptual frame of reference, which tend to shape public attitudes, they are also deeply symbolic gestures that convey subliminal messages. The Conservative war on welfare and the NHS further devalues the worth of human life, turning the needy into a disposable state commodity, a coerced, desperate reserve army of cheap labour.
It also conveys the message that to care about the survival and well-being of others is futile; it pathologises collectivism, cooperation and altruism. This is a government that operates entirely by generating fear and division, on a social, economic and cultural level, but also, increasingly intrusively, within phenomenological, psychological and psychic dimensions too.
How did the poor become such an easy enemy of the state, and how can the public believe the dominant narrative that pathologises the victim, and fail to recognise the irrational, circular argument of benefit sanctions, when the conservatives’ reasoning is that the application of sanctions demonstrates the moral ineptitude of the individual – but it merely acts to justify poverty and inequality.
The perverse logic runs as follows: welfare for the poorest citizens – those who require collective responses to poverty – can only retain public support by threatening to, and by actually making the poorest even poorer. Is this really welfare?
No, not any more.
How can welfare ever be about some politically manufactured, apocryphal and malevolent desire for retribution, based on pseudo-moralising about the poor and demoralised, and a concern for the spiteful, perverted, mean-spirited sense of satisfaction for the better off, at the expense of the material and biological well-being of those in need: the poorest and most vulnerable citizens?
Conservative rhetoric is designed to have us believe there would be no poor if the welfare state didn’t “create” them. If the Conservatives must insist on peddling the myth of meritocracy, then surely they must also concede that whilst such a system has some beneficiaries, it also creates situations of insolvency and poverty for many others.
Democracy exists partly to ensure that the powerful are accountable to the vulnerable. The Conservatives have blocked that crucial exchange, they despise the welfare state, which provides the vulnerable with protection from exploitation by the powerful.
As I’ve argued elsewhere, the wide recognition that unbridled capitalism causes casualties is why the welfare state came into being, after all – because when we allow such competitive economic dogmas to manifest, there is inevitably going to be winners and losers. That is the nature of competitive individualism, and along with crass inequality, it’s an implicit, undeniable and fundamental part of the meritocracy script.
Poverty is created by government policies that reflect a pursuit of free market ideals; by the imposition of neoliberal economic policies – the sort of policies that ensure taxes cuts for the wealthy, banish fiscal and other business regulations, shred the social safety net, and erode social cohesion and stability, whilst directing the media and population to chant the diversionary mantra of self-reliance and individual responsibility.
Poverty intrudes on people’s lives, it dominates attention and constantly commands that our biologically-driven priorities are met, it reduces cognitive resources, it demotivates, it overwhelms, it reduces experience of the world to one of material paramountcy which cannot be transcended, it stifles human potential.
Need is NOT greed, regardless of the malicious justification narratives in the media and spiteful political rhetoric from the champions of social Darwinism and the Randian self-serving free market. Meeting basic survival imperatives – food, warmth and shelter – is a fundamental prerequisite for life. If the means for meeting these basic survival needs is taken away, then people will die. Surely even the most cold, callous, psychopathic and dogmatic defenders of the status quo can manage to work that one out.
Punishing poor people with more poverty is savage, obscene, barbaric, brutal, and can NEVER work to “incentivise” people to not be poor, nor can it change the pathological idiom that shapes and imposes such unfortunate, unforgiving and unforgivable circumstances on those with the least in the first place.
23 thoughts on “Despotic paternalism and punishing the poor. Can this really be England?”
It’s very simple. If you don’t work because a kind relative set up a trust fund for you, you’re a playboy. If you don’t work because you can’t get a job, you’re a scrounger. I think the government is one for the playboys of this life.
Reblogged this on sdbast.
Reblogged this on Britain Isn't Eating.
The Nasty Party truly are extremely nasty. They do not wish to contribute towards society and therefore they will use whatever means they can to avoid doing so. To listen to them one would think that they have a monopoly on paying taxes, but the reality is they will use whatever means possible, legal or illegal, to avoid doing so. We should never forget that in the past many Tories vehemently opposed all progressive legislation which assisted weaker members of our society and it seems they are determined and eager to revert to 19th century methods of nasty vindictive bullying. In the meantime their nasty propaganda war, aided and abetted by the mainly reactionary press, continues.
far too much there for me to read in one go. AND take it in. but one thing did strike me…….. and i do take exception to this…….. the bit about people being unable to budget and cook…. what do they in Westminster ,particularly cameron,IDS, Osbourne ,know about budgeting. the chancellor cant add up. cameron seems to have ideas pop into his head and “oh yes we will do that next” no ability to think things through. IDS we know has spent millions on programmes that are failing or not even got off the ground. me? Ive spent my life budgeting and producing meals from next to nothing,. bet not one o that lot could make 4 meals for a family of 4 from 1lb minced beef.or 4meals again for same family from a 3lb chicken. (each mince meal used 1/4lb of mince.) i.e. mince, tin mixed veg.condiments, short crust pastry = Cornish pasties. enough for 1 main for 2 adults & 2 kids and freeze rest (about 3) for another time. …mince mixed into Yorkshire pudding batter and tablespoons-fulls deep fried (ok not exactly healthy but edible n filling.).. rest of mince with onions & gravy in scooped out white cabbage covered in foil ,baked in oven till cooked. served with white sauce flavoured with nutmeg or mustard. (enough for 2 meals.) all served with other veg and mash or chips…chicken.roasted one day with veg etc. cold the next, with salad,pick the bones, add mixed veg, white sauce and boiled rice (herbs/spices of your choice) to make chicken fricassee…. bones boiled to make stock… strain,. add pureed veg to make soup. french onion soup…. 1lb onions.. oxo and herbs etc. served with crusty bread. meal in itself. ok sorry to go on. but people like me have spent our lives budgeting and making up filling meals for our families and that lot who probably have cooks anyway probably dont know how to boil water. it makes my blood boil. grrrrrrr
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’d suggest reading with a cuppa, in instalments. I have attention problems, too, due to illness, and so that’s how it was written: in instalments with plenty of cuppas for sustenance 🙂
Yes, it was an exceptionally infuriating, patronising and deflecting comment from a privileged peer, and hence the scathing satirical piece I wrote on it elsewhere, as like you, I have spent my life budgeting carefully to meet the needs of a family. – https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/poor-people-are-rubbish-at-being-poor-says-conservative-baroness-jenkin-of-kennington/
LikeLiked by 1 person
You should publish a recipe book, incorporating budgeting as you have here, by the way. It would inspire others, and shut the tories up all in one go.
You’re absolutely right, the poor have made pennies feed their families for generations. I have a cook book that came down through the family, that had a list of “basics” for feeding a family for a week, The first thing that strikes me is that the calorific / protein values for each person was much greater than today, (even allowing that it assumed bread was home-made). The second is that first my grandmother & then my mother annotated that list with the prices they were paying (1930’s, & 1950’s) which opens up a window back in times to how the working class ate & survived. Your recipes sound just like the food we were raised on and still cook. As an 8 yr old child, we were so poor I knew real hunger. Our local butcher actually gave away some cuts, like breast of lamb, lambs hearts, raw suet, as people didn’t want it, and gave it to their dogs, and when he found out I was taking it home to eat, he would give me cooking hint’s and better cuts. We could get hot fresh boiled pigs trotters for tea literally 2 a penny – who would eat that now? These are indeed the cultural aspects of the working class, which those who are our so-called representatives have no idea about. I entirely agree that hearing the remarks of Baroness UppitySelf makes my blood boil, and the fact that it is reported without analysis of any veracity is further evidence that the press just don’t think it’s possible to refute it!!! The reason fish*& chip shops, and the “hot trotters” places existed was because the whole family worked, mothers included, and they didn’t have the time to cook after a 12 hour shift in the mills (where I grew up). This was not because they couldn’t cook! These are cultural issues, where by the UK working class history and experiences are given no space, It’s the expectation that every woman had all day to cook, when we are expected to out working too.
Sorry for such a long reply – get a cuppa & read it in bits, but just to say, I know exactly what you say is true, and you’re not alone in feeling very, very, angry.
LikeLiked by 2 people
my daughter has a big hard backed foolscap size book about 2 inches thick with all those recipes in it plus mums and even back to my great great grans Xmas cake (very extravagant that was compared to today’s recipe we both use WHEN we make Xmas cakes.(or she does ..i don’t bake these days). but most of us don’t eat it now). talking to my daughter today about this subject, was very surprised how many of those meals were far from unhealthy. a few were not very healthy at all though.might think of that idea though. may help some of those who are having a hard time of it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What’s healthy? What’s unhealthy? These are modern value judgments for modern lifestyles of the middle class where food is plentiful and choice exists. If you’re eating a meal to last all day of physical work, then a cooked breakfast, with it’s combination of slow-burn fats and carbs is perfect. Calories in the form of fats can be healthy when eaten with reduced amounts of protein. If anyone is actually suffering food poverty, then there is no such thing as an unhealthy meal, especially for growing kids.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on dainagregory.
Reblogged this on Citizens, not serfs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on The Greater Fool.