Colin James on Welfare

Colin James' column in the Herald today is called "Welfare policy needs to give children belief in the future" and poses some interesting questions for those on the centre left.

In building the welfare state in its "welfare" guise - income support - the objective was to remove from those at the bottom of society the risks of poverty, want, ill-health; and to do so by giving them a standard of living more related to the general wealth of the community than the market would do.

By bringing all of society into the embrace of the "wider" welfare state through universal coverage, public services that formed part of the welfare state could be made of a good enough quality that they were actually providing a good service to those at the bottom as well as everyone else. And, importantly, they generated a social solidarity across classes that allowed taxes to be set high enough to redistribute cash income to those on lower market incomes.

Our motivation (where "our" is the labour movement, political and industrial) was a liberal socialist belief that people's life chances - and lived experience - should not be dictated solely by their market income; that people's intrinsic moral equality had to be respected by an adequate minimum standard of living, regardless of their job or lack of it; their health or ill-health; and so on.

That basic vision, one which animates democratic socialist politics the world over, has been attacked on two fronts. The economic policies which supported it - full employment and labour market regulation that helped generate a reasonably equal distribution of market income - were undermined by the neo-classical revolution, as well as a secular slowdown in economic growth following the 1970s oil shocks.

On the second front was the ideological construction of a caricature of those on welfare - lazy single mothers; dole bludgers - underpinned by a dog-whistle attributing these slothful states of being to those who were, shall we say, "not white." This has been incredibly successful in most Western countries, and public support for redistribution, through income support at any rate, has suffered accordingly.

The left's response has not always been very sensible. The Third Way thinking of people like Blair and Giddens has forced the Left to remember a simple fact: there were never rights without responsibilities. What such thinking has failed to comprehend is that the responsibilities were never just on the individuals. There were systemic responsibilities too - public responsibilities - to provide quality public services; to generate low unemployment through macroeconomic policy; to provide active training and labour market assistance to those left without jobs through needed economic restructuring.

Unfortunately, many on the left chose to attack the notion of responsibilities without focusing on what they should have meant: that individuals work within a social system. It is right to demand that people look for work; but it is also right to demand that the economy is managed in a way that ensures there are jobs, and if there aren't then people have the means to move or train to get them.

This comes back to Colin's column, which talks about the weakness of policy as an instrument in securing responsibility on the part of the individual. His parting comment is the most interesting:

Give children kindness and instil a belief they can make something of themselves - be truly "free", not just "at liberty" (the right's narrow take on "free") - and they will be much less likely to follow their parents on to "welfare".

That is not left or right. It is commonsense. What is not commonsense is to palliate ever-growing welfare rolls. That is not sustainable, fiscally or politically.

The left is beginning to grasp this but has not yet worked out what to do. If it doesn't, one day its core supporters will desert it for politicians who say they can.

A part of the equation is restoring the economy. Labour has made some progress here. Another part is improving the welfare system so it invests and does not act as a 'palliative;' people must not be deserted on welfare. Part of it also has to be explaining why people have an obligation to work; and why it's not just a one-sided one but why the community has to chip in too.

Community matters because you can't pass a law to change people's motivations. You can't undo three generations of welfare dependency by forcing people into poverty or patronising them by paying welfare through trust funds, as some others have recommended. You can't explain to people why you want them to work if they have come through some of our rougher schools.

It's a long, slow process, turning around social exclusion. It can be done, but it takes lots of intervention, early childhood education, good will, patience, and not sitting in judgement on others. A combination Labour comes much closer to than any other political party, though of course I would say that.

It doesn't involve just assuming the individual can, or should, do it on their own. Nor does it involve the passive arrogance of some on the left who say it's all the system's fault. As ever there's a balance.

I believe in the welfare state. I don't accept that the market is the appropriate way to scatter life chances and standards of living on its own. Citizens have a right to expect a reasonable standard of living by virtue of their moral equality. We're never going to have, or want, Stalinist income equality and 100% tax rates. We are not all the same.

But - and it's a big but - if we live in a society scarred by monstrous inequalities, then it is not only those on the bottom who suffer. It's those on the top too - through crime; through wasted money on benefits and prisons; and mostly through the simple moral fact that for those on top of society to ignore the suffering of their fellow human beings dehumanises both the victim of poverty and the perpetrator, not just the victim.

Jordan

Comments

[Sean]

Jordan - You say it is "also right to demand that the economy is managed". I would counter with the following quote from a WISE man - "The statesman who would attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it." I get the impression that you are acquanted with many such fools. Any 'plan' to redistribute wealth has to start with confiscation - how is this a 'moral' system? Besides, I think it foolish to promote a system in which the perpetual benevolence of the rulers is assumed!

[Jordan]

I don't argue based on libertarian premises, Sean, so I'm afraid there's not much point in engaging in a debate based on your comment. I'd just remind you that tax is not theft, and there's more to freedom than pretending to be an island, which you are not - much as you might like to be.

Jordan

[Sean]

I'd agree tax is not theft - it's 'legalised' plunder. I just think it should be minimised is all...

[Amanda]

I agree with much of what you say.

The problem with how to motivate the able bodied poor to work has always been something the left has struggled with.

Individuals have some individual responsibility. Of course, they do. But obviously its stupid and wrong to expect people who are starting from the bottom of the social heap- poor schooling, poor housing, poor nutrition etc to just gladly and easily socially integrate through paid employment and the marketplace There is no completing on a "level playing field" when the playing field isn't level. In

I don't have the answers but I think its more complex than the state generating jobs and addressing inequality in general though obviously those are good things too.

I'm now taking the liberty of recommending some thought provoking readings!! Feel free to ignore them of course

Andre Gorz, Reclaiming Work: beyond the wage- based society

Aronowitz and Cutler, Post Work

Sharon Beder, Selling the Work ethic: from Puritan Pulpit to Corporate PR

[Millsy]

The answer is quite simple - higher wages.

[span(ner in the works)]

yes it is interesting that the way to increase the productivity of the rich seems to be to pay them more, while to increase the productivity of the poor you pay them less (or expect less of them to do more work)