-Caveat Lector-
>>>Begin article<<<
www.wsws.org
WSWS : News & Analysis : Europe : Britain
Labour's "anti-poverty" audit aimed at final dismantling of British welfare
state
By Julie Hyland
1 October 1999
Back to screen version
The latest policy document from the Blair Labour government— Tackling Poverty:
Providing Opportunities for All —has been hailed as a "landmark". The first
report of an annual "poverty audit" is supposedly in line with Prime Minister
Tony Blair's pledge that his government will eradicate child poverty by 2020.
Launching the document, Social Security Secretary Alistair Darling said it
heralded "the most far-reaching campaign against poverty since Beveridge ...
for the first time a government is standing up to be counted setting specific
standards against which we will be judged tackling poverty and its causes."
Such bold claims deserve careful examination. The “Beveridge Report”, published
in December 1942, laid out the foundations of the post-war welfare state system
that existed in Britain without any real challenge until 1979. It was named
after Sir William Beveridge, who chaired the committee set up during the
wartime coalition government to examine social insurance schemes.
Published in December 1942, Social Insurance and Allied Services became the
basis for a system of universal state-run insurance, paid for by employers,
employees and government. Its stated objective was to eliminate "want" by
government establishment of a social safety net—a minimum subsistence
income—below which no one would be allowed to fall.
The proposals were part of a broader political framework adopted by the British
ruling class to ameliorate class antagonisms. This centred on a limited
redistribution of wealth from rich to poor, through progressive taxation
schemes.
The Conservative government of 1979 marked a fundamental break with this social
reformist agenda. As part of their free market policy, the Tories sought to
undermine the benefit system and ensure a redistribution of wealth back to the
rich. Whilst it achieved no small success on both fronts, it proved unable to
wholly eliminate the state-backed "social safety net" in the face of mounting
unpopularity. As government policy and economic restructuring increased
unemployment and social deprivation, the numbers eligible for welfare
assistance rose exponentially. By the end of 18 years of Tory rule, overall
public spending had fallen by just 4 percent.
Today, some 12 million people in Britain are officially designated as living in
poverty, of these, 4 million are children. Big business and the rich regard the
maintenance of the universal benefits system as an intolerabl
e tax on their own wealth and profits.
Labour's turgid 178-page document is a declaration of intent to finish dismantling the
welfare state. At the centre of this lies the overturning of the conception of welfare
provision as a universal right. Prime Minister
Blair's favoured theme is that of "no rights without responsibilities". This means
that civil liberties and access to social provisions are increasingly determined by
individuals and their families obeying government dict
ates. Benefits are to be paid only if an individual meets certain requirements;
council housing will be allocated only to the "deserving", etc. According to Blair,
moreover, the role of government is not to provide, but t
o "facilitate".
The report states that the current benefit system "has become part of the problem; not
the solution". Its answer is to create a "pro-active" welfare state aimed at “getting
people off benefits and into work”. Threats to w
ithdraw assistance are a prime means through which this is to be achieved. The
document is filled with references, every three or four pages, to government
initiatives such as the "New Deal" work-for-your-dole scheme.
Two of the four main points on which Labour says it wishes to be judged are in the
reduction of the proportion of children living in households without a wage earner,
and the proportion living in households with "relative
ly low income". This is shorthand for reducing the numbers in receipt of social
security—not for raising living standards.
Whilst the report lists 40 indices of poverty and social exclusion, the pitiful rate
currently paid in welfare benefits is not mentioned. Social security payments have
been undermined to such an extent that current allowa
nces give a family of four £30 a week less than what independent experts consider the
minimum needed for survival. This undermining of benefit rates is one of the primary
causes of poverty, especially amongst children.
Labour's "welfare to work" policies centre on expanding the supply of a cheap labour
workforce. The "working families tax credit" underscores this approach. The new tax
credit is aimed at those having been forced off bene
fits, particularly mothers, who must take up low paid work. The government has
triumphantly declared that this scheme will ensure a minimum income of £220 a week for
a family of five, in which at least one adult works. In
effect, Labour has created a new and even lower subsistence level. An amount that is
less than that paid at current unemployment benefit rates is now defined as an
acceptable income for a working family.
Besides forcing parents into low-paid work, Labour's only proposals for eradicating
poverty amongst children are aimed at streamlining existing social services. Its "Sure
Start" scheme, aimed at children up to the age of
four living in deprivation, simply co-ordinates the response of health, education and
other agencies, supposedly in order to promote issues such as healthy nutrition during
pregnancy and cutting the number of teenage preg
nancies. Similarly, the education system is to be adapted "to the changing labour
market", so that the numbers of 19-year-olds with "two A-levels or equivalent" are
increased.
The government's stated intention of reducing the unemployment roll is therefore to be
achieved at the cost of expanding the ranks of the working poor, a process that is
already well under way. Labour thinks it can mask t
his fact by arbitrarily creating a new definition of poverty, in which it is not so
much money that the poor lack, but "opportunities to improve their position". The
report even states that periods of "low income may not
damage an individual's well-being or their prospects in the longer term". Social
Security Secretary Darling repeated this when he stated that poverty today "is
complex. It's not just a simple problem about money, to be so
lved through cash alone". Blair's pledge to eradicate child poverty is based on a
sleight of hand. Like a crooked businessman, Labour intends to cook the books by
introducing different statistical criteria.
The new policy document was released amidst reports that the government is expected to
have built up a £12 billion surplus over the course of this parliament. This has been
achieved through a massive increase in indirect
taxation and a freeze on public spending. Yet neither this announcement, nor the
government's policy report, caused any serious critical comment. Whilst some sections
of the media cautioned Blair that his anti-poverty ple
dge may backfire, the majority praised the changes and urged more. Writing in the
Guardian on September 29, Carey Oppenheim waxed lyrical that the report had set "an
ambitious and radical agenda predominantly driven by th
e treasury which sees work as a route out of poverty; a role for redistribution via
tax credits and a stronger emphasis on the responsibilities of claimants through
tougher sanctions and firmer action on fraud".
An insight into the social outlook of the layer upon which Labour rests—a small but
vocal coterie of former liberals, ex-radicals and disgruntled Tories—was summed up by
Independent columnist David Aaronovitch, a former l
eader of the Young Communist League. On September 17, under the headline "A full
wallet doesn't mean you have a soft head", Aaronovitch vented his spleen against two
beggars that had dared to take up residence in his home
town, and a group of poor children in British cities whose plight had been
highlighted in a recent BBC documentary, The Eyes of a Child.
Redistributing wealth towards the poor is futile and useless, Aaranovitch
wrote. It would simply mean lining the "pockets of pushers, publicans and
betting shops". Having watched the documentary, he continued, "I cannot have
been the only one whose treacherous alter ego whispered ‘eugenics' in their
mind's ear".
Copyright 1998-99
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
>>>End Article<<<
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said
it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your
own reason and your common sense." --Buddha
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
