Jack Straw, the UK’s Justice Minister, has proposed to introduce a new British Bill of Rights, which would establish ‘rights’ to education, housing, healthcare, and so on. Click here to see our latest think piece by Rachel Patterson, in which she examines the evolution of the ‘social rights’ myth, and concludes that while we do have rights to life, liberty, and property, the provision of public goods is simply a matter for the government of the day.
With Home Secretary Jacqui Smith raising the bar on immigration, the left have reverted to type in the face of competition. Of course, little has been heard in protest from Conservatives or Liberal Democrats either, which really is not surprising given the sustained concern about immigration among a large number of people in this country.
It is quite understandable that many hard-working people are worried about immigration. Their concern is less often racist or nationalist, but practical and rational: they don’t want to support more unproductive people in this country. This is why in order for libertarians to win the debate on immigration the welfare state needs first to be deconstructed.
Certainly, this will not assuage all the tensions that the movement of people brings, but at least when people see new families from across the waves moving in down the street they will know that it won’t be them that has to pay for their support.
At present, politicians are instructing bureaucrats to try to pick out individuals who will benefit the UK through a laborious and costly vetting process. From seeing friends jumping through the hoops it is clear that the tests are profoundly arbitrary and openly discriminate against migrants from certain countries for no conceivable reason.
For Britain to compete, people (excepting criminals) need to be free to move with much more ease in and out of this country. The welfare state is the biggest impediment to a reasonable immigration system and until it is radically reformed people will always be looking over their shoulder, concerned that an increasing number of people are living off their hard work.
There was an excellent article in The Guardian yesterday by Geoffrey Wheatcroft.
The piece was inspired by a fire that occurred while he was holidaying in Switzerland. The owner of the guesthouse Wheatcroft was staying in had been called out at 4am one morning to deal with a raging barn fire – the point being that in Switzerland, as in much of the US, fire-fighters are part-time volunteers, rather than paid state employees. As he noted in his article, the same is true of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution over here: they do a fantastic job fulfilling what is undoubtedly a public service, but without receiving any state aid.
And yet most people would assume that fire-fighting and life-boating are precisely the sort of things that will not be effectively provided in a free market, and that the state is required to step in. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise.
Of course, there are plenty of other examples of things people think only government can provide, but have historically been provided by the private or voluntary sectors. Did you know, for instance, that the UK had higher rates of functional literacy before public education was introduced than we do now? Or that the vast majority of manual workers had health coverage (through Friendly Societies) before the National Insurance acts were passed? And what about the fact that most major hospitals were charitable until they were nationalized?
There is in fact a whole history of mutual aid, self-help, co-operatives and voluntarism that has been crushed by big government. The great shame is that the one thing the political left and the trade union movement could really be proud of – the historical development of a 'welfare society' – was so comprehensively destroyed by their 20th Century adoption of Marxist-inspired socialism.
All that said, there are growing signs of a renaissance in this 'private welfare'. Here's hoping it will be a thing of the future, and not just of the past.
“Working, what’s the point?" This is the title to a piece on the BBC that highlights the dim prospects of work for two un-employed twenty-somethings, in a former mining town in Northern England. But it’s also a question that they themselves raise in discussion.
So let me answer the question for them: The point is so that I can pay for others to survive whilst they look for work as opposed to insuring against my loss of income should I lose my job. I work so that I can pay for the healthcare of others should they become ill rather than paying to secure my good health in the future. I work so that other peoples’ children can gain an education, yet I know that should my own children ever want an education I will struggle to pay. I work so that the wages and pensions of those that redistribute my earnings into services I don’t require are generous. Far more generous than I could ever imagine. I work so that I can pay more to the government when I use services, when I drink, when I eat, when I read, when I heat my home, when I light my room. I work so that you don’t have to. And for that I’m left wondering, “what’s the point?"
A small percentage of my money does end up in the right place. It pays for a police force to keep the streets safe for others and me. It pays for an air force, navy and army to keep the nation safe and it pays for a justice system that prosecutes transgressors. (Or it should in theory).
Perhaps the day is fast approaching when I and others like me shrug one morning, roll over, hit snooze and also say quietly, “Working, what’s the point?"
The BBC has a thought provoking article on its website about the depressing lives of a jobless family. Entitled 'No one in our house works', it describes the mundane drama of a family that does not work. The mother is 43 and has never had a job.
It makes sobering reading. Despite the notorious cases of workless families living in palatial luxury at the taxpayers’ expense, this is surely the more usual picture: wasted lives, living on state handouts. We have nothing to envy. As the piece makes clear, this is not the life that this particular mother wanted (or indeed still wants), and it is certainly not the life her jobless children want. They have become like unemployed slaves, devoid of the essential freedoms that come through a life apart from the state.
This family is stuck in the system. This is not to negate her individual responsibility, but sometimes people need a push to step up to the demands of the natural increases in responsibilities that come through ones life: from the protection of childhood to the role of protector and provider in adulthood. For many born into jobless families, there is no imperative from within the family for the next generation to work. Through benefits, the state supports generations of jobless. They never fly the nest and it the rest of us who are left to pick up the bill.
If this generation of jobless are going to be able to escape, the benefits system needs to be radically overhauled so that we offer little or no money to those that can work. If push comes to shove, most will rise to challenge and find work. Perhaps it is inevitable that some need support, but not the numbers that are currently under our patronage, and certainly not through the state but through charities with a human face such as the Salvation Army.
We should be angered that our taxes go towards the support of such an existence, not just because it our money they are wasting, but because it is structured to keep jobless generations in purgatory which is not good for anybody.
Researchers working at the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE) at the LSE have released a report suggesting that the government develops a ‘time poverty’ target for parents alongside the existing child poverty target.
Upon discovering that better educated single-mothers are in less ‘time poverty’ the work concludes:
Government support could take a number of forms: regulation, to ensure employers provide adequate time off for employees studying for work-related qualifications; extension of childcare tax credits to cover parents’ study hours as well as paid work; and taking a more long-term view of the value of studying for qualifications in ‘welfare to work’ rules: a qualification beyond basic literacy and numeracy will not necessarily have an immediate payback in terms of employment, but it is an investment for future that in the long run will produce better job opportunities.
The report also suggests that the government set a minimum of 'quality' time parents spend with their children in order to guide policy. More regulations for businesses are unarguably a bad idea. More benefits will lead to perverse incentives and in this financial climate would prove remarkably unpopular. There is even a suggestion to raise the minimum wage. I am not sure what planet this report was written on, but it is not of this world.
Like most of the very worst public policy, the impulse to interfere here is full of good intentions. However, the time that parents spend with their children is a matter that should not be the concern of the government. This is the sacred preserve of the family and any invitation for the state to enter is a most unwelcome one. Like salesmen, once you open the door to the state, there is no getting rid of them.
Sir Richard Tilt, a senior government adviser, has called for welfare reforms to be shelved because of the economic downturn. However, the Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell has rebutted this position, retorting that in his experience, vulnerable people will not be worse off and grateful for the nudge back into work.
In reporting the story, the BBC tries, but fails (as usual), to offer a balanced position. The crucial mistake is in the use of the word ‘force’ to describe welfare reform. Force, in truth, is the government taking taxes from people who work and giving them to people who do not. Whether or not you believe in taking from Peter to pay Paul, there can be no doubt as to who is being forced. Even The Guardian is starting to get it.
As we stand, the government might be right to try the methadone rather than cold turkey approach to welfare reform. However, it is government action that created the underclass that is now trying rehabilitate. Some people have traded their freedom for state support, passing chain and lock to their children while the keys are safely stashed in the pockets of our power-hungry politicians in Westminster.
The lone parent who wants to stay at home and not work is in an unfortunate situation, but they should work simply because other people should not be forced to pay for this preference.
Plans to revise the social housing system are currently being reviewed by the new Housing Minister, Margaret Beckett. Major changes would occur to address the lack of accommodation and long waiting lists for housing that exist today. Under these new plans, people in council houses would have fixed-term contracts with stricter limitations on residency. This is due to the fact that almost 4 million people, or 1.6 million households, are currently waiting for subsidized houses, while only 170,000 open up each year. These numbers are expected to increase in the next few years as more homes are repossessed due to the credit crunch.
According to The Times, Beckett may seek to end the possibility of lifelong residency in subsidized council homes. First of all, a person could only live in council housing if he or she was actively looking for work. To ensure that no one is taking advantage of social housing, tenants would be reviewed every few years by a board of directors. She also proposed that if a tenant’s financial situation improves, he or she would be persuaded to take an equity share or else move to a private home or apartment. The tenant would then face higher rent rates if he or she does not move out. In this case, rent would be closer to the market rate, rather than only rising each year by the retail price index plus half of a percent.
This new plan is far from being implemented, but it does allow for promising changes to the subsidized housing system. It will give priority to those people who need housing the most, such as pregnant women and families with dependent children. Its more stringent rules concerning residents’ finances and work ethic would also give them the push they need to reduce their dependency on the state – a very welcome move. By enforcing limits on occupancy and employment, tenants will have more incentive to find work. At least in theory, Beckett’s plans could, in the long run, reduce the number of people seeking government aid while also ensuring that people who really needed subsidized housing would be able to benefit from it.
With Home Secretary Jacqui Smith 
The BBC has a thought provoking .jpg)
Researchers working at the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE) at the LSE have released a 
Sir Richard Tilt, a senior government adviser, has called for welfare reforms to be shelved because of the economic downturn. However, the Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell has rebutted this position, retorting that in his experience, vulnerable people will not be worse off and grateful for the nudge back into work.
Plans to revise the social housing system are currently being reviewed by the new Housing Minister, Margaret Beckett. Major changes would occur to address the lack of accommodation and long waiting lists for housing that exist today. Under these new plans, people in council houses would have fixed-term contracts with stricter limitations on residency. This is due to the fact that almost 4 million people, or 1.6 million households, are currently waiting for subsidized houses, while only 170,000 open up each year. These numbers are expected to increase in the next few years as more homes are repossessed due to the credit crunch.