There is no correlation between high public spending and social and economic equality.
I favour much greater redistribution of both income and capital than allowed by the current political consensus in the UK. But I also favour much greater cuts in public spending – perhaps four times greater, over a decade – than Osborne just delivered. The two are not incompatible.
Under New Labour there was a massive step change in levels of public spending and in the percentage of GDP comprised of state activity. Did social equality improve? No. The wealth gap between the wealthiest and the poorest yawned wider and wider. Even in the public sector itself, the gap between richest and poorest grew until it is now seriously proposed, with a straight face, that the situation be redressed so that the highest paid executive in a public organisation should only (!) be paid twenty times more than the lowest paid employee.
Blairism should have shattered forever the notion that very high levels of public spending are the answer to social inequality. But it is a notion to which the left is addicted.
I favour redistribution because Sir Fred Goodwin, Wayne Rooney and Tony Blair area perfect reductio ad absurdumof the notion that a system that rewards the ability to grab money in a laissez faire manner has desirable results. The Duke of Westminster does the same for accumulated capital. I also truly hate the pvoerty in which so many good people are trapped. But the notion that Britain’s vastly over-inflated bureaucracies address this problem is tenuous, to say the least.
I also believe that it is not coincidental that New Labour’s huge physical increase in the state coincided with a massive erosion of civil liberty.
So I view those protesting against cuts in public spending as well-motivated but trapped in a historical accumulation of palliative devices which each attracted a massive superstructire of self-interested providers and administrators.
ps re self-sufficiency, have not done enough research so not suggesting it as a serious proposition, in fact. but it seems common sense that we should be investing in growing more and varied arable crops: sunflowers, sweet chestnuts, grapes.
instead farming here is increasingly set to become simply the production of fodder for giant animal factories. already it is often a dark and quite soul-destroying business, which seems wrong.
That’s what I meant – local coops composed of groups of NHS people/ GPs, etc. are not being given tenders and they are not being given the tenders purely for ideological reasons, while TESCO et al is. That’s capitalist monopoly. Not so free a market then, after all.
You’re right about the increasing costs, though, that’s multifactorial, of course. Someone is making a killing! Big pharma et al.
I know you weren’t serious about outsourcing HMG, Alfred.
“I know you weren’t serious about outsourcing HMG, Alfred. ”
Well actually, Suhayl, it would be better outsourcing the gov than the manufacturing and intellectual service jobs, don’t you think? I mean, why should the public sector be protected?
I don’t think there has to be such a ‘choice’. Public services (public transport, education, health, etc.) should be public, paid for by us; everything else should be the market. Manufacturing is the goose that lays the golden egg-sector. Unfortunately, I agree, successive govts preferred to kill the goose and plump-up the fox.
Suhayl: I’d go a bit further than that. All natural monopolies (water, public transport, energy, post, etc.) should be publicly owned and operated . I don’t recall that the state did a terribly inefficient job when they ran the waterworks and so on. Bills were reasonable, and the service good. Now service is not so good, fixing leaks and so on is treated as a cost/benefit decision, and vast profits go abroad. How can taking a huge amount of money out of a system improve it or the country? This religious belief that governments can’t do anything right, and corporations sprinkle magic efficiency-dust over everything they touch, has ruined this country’s infrastructure.
I agree: That’s what I meant, Glenn, by ‘public services’.
Sorry, Suhayl, I should have realised.
No, no, it’s good to clarify! Rock on! or should I say, Ride on!
Craig, of course, must carry on the good work. On this particular subject, however, there is a distinct issue of competence in play, namely that of Osborne’s. He lacks it. Sorry, but it is hugely obvious, and his speech was that of a man who hasn’t much idea of how it all works.
Now, there is an argument to have a smaller state, and that a smaller state serves its people better. I suggest, though, that this argument is ideological, and, as such, one to have *in a few years time*. Just now, we need a stimulus, not cuts, so Stiglitz suggests, and I agree with him. Our economy is in a mess, and putting people on the dole can’t help.
On the wider point we should I think, Craig and others, be wary of conflating ‘Blairite Public Spending’ with ‘Public Spending’. Again, the issue of competence rears. Blair, to my mind, was fundamentally lacking in the basic competence for the job, his skill with media bullshit aside. His ‘reforms’ were cack-handed, and often done with Murdoch and Big Business in mind, and so they mostly failed. This doesn’t, of itself, mean that public spending is bad, if done correctly though. In truth, the opposite of Blairism is probably the wisest path, always. Ditto: Murdochism.
Spot on, Brendan.
Wow. I basically agree.
According to Child Poverty Action there are neally four million children in Britain who live in poverty. Many of these children have parents who depend on incapacity benefit for their weekly income.
“..after years of slow improvement, last year’s figures showed the numbers[of children in poverty] rising again.” – David Cameron 9th March 2008
“The group that causes me most concern is children who depend on incapacity benefit” – David Cameron-Telegraph
In it’s analysis of child tax credit the Treasury has failed to take into account the benefit changes, including the restrictions on housing benefit. The figures in the IFS calculations show that the child poverty target for 2010 will not be met. This coalition has not even declared a strategy that by law must show that the government HAS to meet the 2020 target of eradicating child poverty. The Child Poverty Act 2010 is legally binding. Progress will be assessed using four measures, the most watched of which is likely to be the relative poverty target (a rate of less than 10%, measuring incomes BHC). The coalition government must publish according to the Act, its first strategy by 25 March 2011.
Statements received:
“The child benefit cut is a tax on children. Families are right to ask why it is just parents taking this hit rather than all taxpayers. It is the destruction of a one nation system that unites all parents under a shared national belief in childhood and the support and recognition it deserves from our government. For decades it has meant families who suddenly lose their financial security, have a life raft to carry them through the weeks before means-tested support arrives.
“Words mean little without action. So we will only know the Prime Minister is sorry when this appalling assault on family security is taken off the table. The principle of the wealthiest paying more is sound. But, most wealthy households are immune from this measure.
“It is the same as a basic tax rise of almost 5p for the typical family just above the higher earnings threshold. A 1p tax increase on high earnings for all wealthy people would save the same amount without the unfairness.”
Child Poverty Action Group
“The coalition has committed to ending child poverty by 2020, but its cuts are hitting the poorest families hardest. It’s not fair that children should have to pay for the cuts and shocking that the poorest families are bearing the brunt of them.
The coalition must re-consider its cuts, including changes to Housing Benefit and uprating benefits. The spending review will need to show clearly how the Government will deliver on the commitment to ending child poverty, ensuring that cuts fall on those most able to pay.”
CPAG
MJ is absolutely correct technicolour, the ‘roll-back’ has been discussed at a meeting of Agent Cameron’s baby, the National Security Council – a secretariat that takes a chunk of Home Office Budget and more.
Freedom Bill or not it seems the government still views us as an inconvenience to be tagged, tracked and monitored. It is the mentality of Whitehall at work, the “deep state” as Anthony Barnett has referred to it, murky, power-hungry and unaccountable, with a deep-seated loathing for the public.
Henry Porter recently warned on OK that “we are still building the infrastructure for a potential police state without a care in the world”.
The Secretariat:
http://download.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/organogram/co-organogram.pdf
But take no notice of me – I’m just a conspiraloon from Absurdistan?
Good point – where is the teabagger from St. Loony – isn’t this conversation worth derailing?
This is an interesting train of thought you’re pursuing, Craig, but does feel a bit off topic in the context of this actual Spending Review.
I personally would be interested in hearing more on your thinking re a radical liberal approach to tax, spend and redistribution.
However, there is the small matter of the crisis at hand – a thuggish gang of Bullingdon Club Thatcher Youth actually smashing up our homes as we speak.
So, as has been pointed out, we need to know what you think about Osborne’s actual overall deficit-reduction strategy, budget and *these* spending cuts as well.
Osborne’s choices are not merely going to have the effect of dreadful immiseration and increased social inequality, they are intentionally designed to do this.
The question we need to have the answer to, is what does a radical liberal such as yourself do about the LibDem party being hitched to this Bullingdon Club administration?
It is a fair point that a radical liberal should not overnight forgive all the errors of Old or New Labour in government, or become ideologically a socialist or social democrat. But the matter at hand is how should a radical liberal react to a situation where he is giving cover to a psychopathic assault on the helpless by the strutting thugs of the Thatcher Youth?
Child poverty
I work in one of the most deprived areas of the country in a job that brings me in contact with the most deprived people and children in the country. Yes I agree that they are victims of a system yes I agree they dont have many choices. I have seen over the past few years millions of pounds spent on them old tower blocks torn down new beautiful homes built for them with new furniture and kitchens I could never afford. But my heart breaks when people given new chances and every break throw it away wreck the house in weeks turn what could be nice estates into slums. I have been involved in moving problem families to nice estates out of the city and into the suburds with a nice enviroment,schools and infrastructures just to see them offend again and be moved again and again until they get locked up killed or grow up eventually. I see families where neither parent works or have ever worked and they live in real luxury with a disposable income far higher than mine with plasma TV’s in every room and not wanting for anything. I know this is cliche but its true. True poverty in this country is largely self inflicted. The only truly poor people I come across are illegal immigrants or legal who choose to live and work in poverty 12/15 in 1 bed flat working far below minimum wage being exploited mostly by their fellow countrymen who get rich on the backs of these poor people so they can send a few pounds home to their families in pakistan somalia or Lithuania.
I have lost count of how many intervention conferences I have attended trying to divert young kids and families from crime or ASB. How many chances can you give someone. The old saying you can lead a horse to water but you cant make them drink springs to mind.
You cant cure poverty by throwing money at it. We have lost a generation or two now we need to start looking forward. Restore discipline at school. Let the police do their real job of upholding the law without hindrance from do gooders. Take benfits from feckless parents that sit bye and watch their kids run wild. Tough love is the only way forward. I know you will all jump in with examples of poor families and criticise my post but believe me I am not a right wing nutter or a left wing liberal I am a straight compassionate working guy with a tough job trying to do some good where I have influence but keep getting blocked by do gooders and bureaucrats.
Thanks somebody for trailing up the dross on Atos, another french interloper with their hands in our pockets.
Writerman’s very close insider account tells us that we are on a ride without holding the reigns, many will fall off after these cuts.
Steve, what happens to the kids when the money to their parents is stopped?
what will happen to them if dad/mum do not get their hand out/fix/bottle of buckfast?
Call me a do godder if you like, but how can you influence the parents and their habits, without taking the kids into foster homes?
There are truly poor people in this country, many of our OAP’s are too proud to ask for help, the annual non take up rate of bvenefits clearly shows this. This country has 4 million kids living in poverty.
yesterday on Hugh fearnley whittingstall programme, one of his chefs gave out muesli bars to kids going to school, a vast majority of them unfed and hungry.
You learn better in the morning and to leave a learning mind without nourishment can’;t be good for you, so its the parents that must be targetted.
Kids ideally should not be allowed into school unfed, imho it is so important, how can we possibly get results and achievement from our kids, if we put nothin’ into them?
Tough love. yes by all means, as long as those who have suffered from their parents, something they do not feel as suffering btw.,most kids love their parentrs, regardless,are not suffering from the ‘cure’ you might want to apply.
Quick, get on Duncan Smith’s bus before the service is cut to find the holy grail – a ‘job’. The bus has replaced Tebbitt’s bike.
Where are the jobs? Is there a factory that makes them? How can I find one? What is a ‘job’? Can we all have one?
Do you remember Gi’ssa job?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9116107.stm
Steve: what I think you’re dealing with is the underlying nihilism caused by a society where children & adults are flooded with propaganda about war and consumption. These poor people surely know they will never afford most of the things on show, and have no power over the images of death and despair they’re forced to see daily. And how many of them are on medication: the zombie drug ritalin; the SSRI’s which can cause everything from depression to hallucinations? And how many of them can afford decent, non-pesticide swamped food: a vital component of life which fundamentally alters people’s behaviour for the better?
“Restore discipline in schools” indeed: this might be possible had successive governments not crushed our teachers under the national curriculum; introduced insane targets and even madder marking systems; labelled children with crazy tags which will stick (Behaviour Emotional Social Disorder indeed) increased hours; and created a system so paranoid that teachers are told never to be alone in a room with a child. Education is of course the way through the mire of marginalisation, but not in this system.
As for not curing poverty by throwing money at it: surely it’s the only way to do it. Of course it depends what you spend the money on.
Good piece from Johann Hari which is relevant:
“There is one stark symbol of how unjust the response to this economic disaster caused by bankers is. They have just paid themselves £7bn in bonuses ?” much of it our money ?” to reward themselves for failure. That’s the same sum Osborne took from the benefits of the British poor yesterday, who did nothing to cause this crash. And he has the chutzpah to brag about “fairness.”
Ingo: “take the kids into foster homes”? Have you some idea of what these foster homes would be like? Have you been in any of our children’s ‘homes’?
Poor parents love their children too. If society gives them no hope and no direction; and sets an example of a greedy amoral and merciless elite instead, who do you blame?
ps ‘luxury’ isn’t a plasma tv (they are probably acquired on the black market, anyway). ‘luxury’ isn’t a new kitchen, either. it’s the choice and direction which these people need. stick with it!
Very strongly second glenn’s proposal that monopolies should be publically owned, especially where they concern essentials of life like water. Public ownership should also be automatic where there is no real market, just a few providers masquerading as competitors but acting as a cartel, e.g. in domestic energy provision.
I rather liked Alfred’s idea of outsourcing government. Nasty policies always get applied to *us* never to *them*. Why not privatise/outsource the bloody useless things – leaner, fitter, Royal Family, anyone?
Techncolor
I told you lots of these people have choices they choose not to work they choose to commit crime and they choose to buy plasma screens in currys like everyone else. And yes foster/care homes are run by millionare property developers who take up to £5000 a week to care for the most troubled children who should have up to 2 qualified social workers to care for them 24/7. But they dont get that and social services dont care they get 1 minimum wage social worker who sleeps in a locked office whilst the kids do as they please I went to one home where all the kids had pushed mattresses into one room and 8 boys and girls were sleeping together on the floor like animals with one poor gut locked in his office not caring. The owners and social services dont care but they make many people rich. Throwing more money after bad. Yes the kids are medicated sometimes and yes the parents are drug addicts sometimes but that is a choice.
I have dealt with kids who are getting straight A’s at school when they attend. But they choose to become criminals or drug addicts or both. Stop making excuses for people sometimes you have to face facts all people are not the same and all people make life choices. Look at the idiot that won 9 million on the lottery bought a beatiful house in Norfolk trashed it and spent the rest of his cash on prostitutes and drugs. He could have become a benelovent benefactor and charity worker or an entrepeneur but he chose to be a looser. Money dosnt stop crime money dosnt help poverty. Deterence, Education, punishment, rewards that can help some others will always be poor. Every country has an underclass eutopia dosnt exist.
steve, been at that home, i think. otherwise rich children become nihilistic drug addicts and tragic wasters too; so you’re right, it’s not a question of money, in that sense. it’s about having a purpose and a sense of responsibility and direction. instead these poor children (and indeed their parents) are flagrantly being used as cannon fodder (sometimes literally) to make other people rich; you are quite right there too. i’m not sure how that helps a sense of self worth.
yes, education’s an answer. if people can’t easily read, or get access to books, plasma tv’s are the only entertainment they can afford, flash looking but easy to get on credit, and often the only entertainment on offer.
by the way how is being medicated a real choice? aren’t poor parents bribed into medicating their children (if they’re on ritalin they get disability allowance i believe) and doctors are often quite insistent in prescribing it, as well as amazingly casual about prescribing ssri’s. even articulate confident parents have felt forced to go along with this.
and must make the point that you are talking about a small percentage of poor people. it must be very dififcult to deal with the results of our society at this bitter end.
Steve:
Training is key for those poor families you mention and that means getting down and dirty at grass roots with these families, instead of spending endless hours at conferences talking round the problem.
Some years ago now I was a governor at a primary school and I have attended meetings with representatives from social services, child psychiatry and the local constabulary who often referred ‘problem’ children to child psychologists who then recommended some form of drug treatment like ritalin as technicolour tells us.
In many cases we found it was the family environment that was the main problem. Some families were never taught basic hygiene and failed to even keep the house clean and tidy.
Poverty is not self-inflicted it is a reflection of societies neglect, disregard, ignorance and thoughtlessness.
I agree with technicolour that society is the cause of many family problems and money can be better spent on training those poor families who do love their children but need guidance on discipline, routine, abuse, money and hygiene.
“I have come to realise that caring in politics isn’t really about caring”
Tony Blair – Labour conference Sept 2006
I understand it is very hard to believe that people make a choice to stay poor but they do because like I said they are not poor. Most familise on the poverty line are getting incomes far in excess of £25000 a year. Its what they choose to do with that money that makes them poor. If you dont pay rent you dont pay council tax or income tax and you are getting a couple of hundred pounds a week thats disposable. We have to pay mortgages, rent tax on our income then if we are lucky we get a couple of hundred left at the end. The welfare system in this country is very generous. If you save a little buy some nice things do your RSL house up buy the kids plasms any games you can live comfortably maybe not in luxury but compared to some poor indian pissing in a bucket in a calcutta slum then in reletive luxury. If that person motivates themselves to get up shake off the depression from being unemployed or poor and get a job he/she looses this lifestyle. Hence the term poverty trap. If they engage in black work or criminal behaviour they get both a nice comparitively lifestyle and lots of cash from us in benfits. If all your neighbours are doing it it cant be bad and becomes socially acceptable. If your parents are stealing from the state why cant the kids steal? Its a cycle of misery and crime that unless you are very motivated or punished severely to dissuade you from doing it then its an easy option. Its far simpler than you are al;l making out and its the fault of us all. If you feel sympathy for criminals instead of contempt and loath then society is screwed forever.
Yes, I’m not sure that feeling ‘contempt and loathing’ is ever the way forward. If it were I might be inclined to reserve it for the people who have millions to spare each week, not just a couple of hundred quid.
“Most familise on the poverty line are getting incomes far in excess of £25000 a year.”
A man in a job centre once told me that they *expected* claimants to work on the black market because otherwise they could not survive. You quote this figure of £25,000. How do you get there? Where’s your evidence that ‘most families’ receive it? I agree, that is not ‘poverty’. But the JSA is going to be set at around £50 a week. Housing benefit is often less than rent, meaning that people can be £20 a week short, leaving them with £30 a week to pay for food electricity etc. Have you tried living on £30 a week? This is admittedly for a single person, who will include the lost and desperate youth (although they get less money in fact).
You are right, it is a cycle of misery, a poverty trap, as the churches pointed out in a report ten years ago. How you square this with feeling general ‘contempt and loathing’ I don’t know. Sure there are major criminals out there, who in another life would have made excellent hedge fund managers, but you seem to be reeling from their ability to play the system to their own benefit while ignoring the fact that for most people this is not the reality, at all. And indeed, Calcutta boasts some fearsome poverty, as do some housing estates in Leeds, but this is not the reality for most Indian people either.
and finally, Steve, it is not just a question of people chosing not to work: *there are not enough jobs*. Surely you know that? The last time I looked, in fact, a year ago, there were half a million job vacancies. And an official total (massaged down to the bone) of around 2 million unemployed.
An observation I have made is the amount of cash that people have in their pockets. When arrested for offences. I dont mean dishonest offences I mean minor domestic assaults or fights in street or traffic matters. You ask occupation they state asylum seeker or unemployed. You then search them. Often sums as much as £2000 in cash come from them. Where did you get that ? you ask they look at you as if you are stupid the kind of look saying dont you always carry a wad. They say with a smile “its my benefits” I know and they know its lies but you cant prove it either way. The point I am making is how much do you carry in your pocket in cash or card with clear avaliable cash not credit? This is not a minority but most poor people carry large sums of cash. We know where it comes from and why. If you put money in a bank form your dodgy job or renting your council flat to 15 Lithuanians whilst you have a mortgage with the woolwich people will ask questions. We are only scratching the surface of the dishonesty and corruption that goes on at our expense. And truly poor people go under the radar until they end up dead or in hospital. Pensioners are poor working all their lives to get a pittance from the state.
Technicolour
Stop reading reports and live and work in the communities you talk about. Dont quote unicef or churches go and see the estates speak with the people at length not the chosen ones to attend the meetings by the council who have the worst hard luck story. People are poor and live in shitholes and yes some dont have a huge choice because we are spending millions on corrupt people instead of targeting the needy. The figure £25000 is a total figure when you role in everything child support jos seekers rent rates motobility car. freedom pass worth nearly £3000. True not everyone gets it but believe me the profeesional claimant gets far more. And how can illegal immigrants I see always have a job or the drunk Lithuanain on a Saturday night manages to keep down a job who hardly speaks english but mr smith in coronation street with 5 kids cant find one? Jobs are out there and anyone looking will find something. Your friend at the Job centre should be sacked with an attitude like that. If people didnt screw the system we wouldnt be in such a mess now.