To Give a Man a Fish, or To Teach a Man to Fish: The Welfare State, by Nick Thomas
The welfare state has been a crucial focus of the Coalition government's austerity drive since 2010. 2013 alone saw controversies such as the 'bedroom tax' (reducing social housing recipients benefits if their house has spare, therefore wasted, rooms) and the continuing debacle that is the Universal Credit system. Drastic readjustments and cuts to the welfare state are undoubtedly going to continue. George Osborne recently declared that during the next Parliament he intended to cut another £12 billion from the welfare Budget, whilst Ed Miliband admitted that welfare could not be exempt from the demands for a less profligate government in a speech in Newham in June 2013. In the short term, this drastic attack on welfare spending is understandably necessary. But in the long term, whether under a Conservative-led or Labour-led government, a culture shift in our view towards welfare is necessary. We must solve the extensive fiscal and psychological problem that is those who see exploiting the welfare system as an acceptable lifestyle. However, this should not be a vicious punitive attack, but should be an effort to educate these people with the necessary skills to gain employment and support themselves. The State has failed these welfare claimants just as they have failed the State.
The State has failed these welfare claimants just as they have failed the State.
The current Government, for all its controversy and Conservative tendency towards mistrusting and misunderstanding the plight of the poor, has ruthlessly pursued its goal of balancing Britain's government’s budget. You cannot spend more than you have. No matter the morals of cutting welfare, no matter whether your chosen ideology is conservative or socialist, this truth is undeniable and unavoidable. Many people in the United Kingdom have been made cruelly aware of this fact since the economic downturn began in 2008. But when considering welfare state and government spending, many of us forget that the same is eventually true for our government. For many, the rights and wrongs of welfare cutbacks are debated ahead of this cold fiscal fact. This is a widespread failure of our collective judgement. The cost of this failure is catastrophic: a predicted £49.8 billion will be spent in 2014 servicing our past borrowing. For comparisons sake, the UK is expected to spend £88 billion on this year. Therefore, should we avoid cutting welfare in the short-term, or fundamentally damage our ability to provide proper welfare in the future?
My answer to this question would be that, in the short-term, Britain should continue to cut welfare in the short-term in order to begin balancing its budgets. This is exactly the stance that the current Government has taken in response to the problem. Yet alongside this necessity exists an official Conservative rhetoric that lauds 'hard-working families' and attacks those who leech off the state and their fellow Britons. This is nothing new from the Conservative Party, who revile those they see as committed to an existence of idleness and exploitation. What portion of benefit claimants this actually refers to, and whether they are actually a significant burden on our economy, is extremely difficult to establish. For example, a major Conservative offensive was against disability welfare recipients who abuse the system, either falsely claiming disability benefits or treating disability benefits as a life choice rather than a necessity, due to an unwillingness to find work. Yet the tightening of the Disability allowances led to broad claims from political opponents, and many clear examples, that truly disabled people were being deprived of a vital lifeline. It is easy to see how cutting the welfare state quickly becomes such a bitter and unpleasant task.
My answer to this question would be that, in the short-term, Britain should continue to cut welfare in the short-term in order to begin balancing its budgets. This is exactly the stance that the current Government has taken in response to the problem. Yet alongside this necessity exists an official Conservative rhetoric that lauds 'hard-working families' and attacks those who leech off the state and their fellow Britons. This is nothing new from the Conservative Party, who revile those they see as committed to an existence of idleness and exploitation. What portion of benefit claimants this actually refers to, and whether they are actually a significant burden on our economy, is extremely difficult to establish. For example, a major Conservative offensive was against disability welfare recipients who abuse the system, either falsely claiming disability benefits or treating disability benefits as a life choice rather than a necessity, due to an unwillingness to find work. Yet the tightening of the Disability allowances led to broad claims from political opponents, and many clear examples, that truly disabled people were being deprived of a vital lifeline. It is easy to see how cutting the welfare state quickly becomes such a bitter and unpleasant task.
Some grew up without good families, some were exposed to alcohol and drugs, some live in areas where good or even any work is difficult to come by. Often, it is an unfortunate cocktail of all of these
Therefore, we must confront central problem of welfare: why are people unable to support themselves with work? In the case of child benefits, it is clear, as they are children, obviously unable to support themselves with a living. Again, with the disability allowance, many people are seriously disabled and cannot work, or even survive with care. These are clear examples of where the welfare state is an absolutely necessity. Yet, on the darker side, there are those who do falsely claim disabilities, or jobseekers allowance, or housing allowance, who could work. It is completely acceptable to say that these people do exist.
What choices have these people made, and what social conditions have these people been exposed to, that has made them react differently to those people around them, and choose a life of exploitation instead of employment? This is a deeply complicated question. Some grew up without good families, some were exposed to alcohol and drugs, some live in areas where good or even any work is difficult to come by. Often, it is an unfortunate cocktail of all of these.
These people should not be condemned by the State, but they should also not be allowed to exploit the State. The major issue is that somewhere along the line, the personal education of this individual has failed. Families that failed to provide proper parenting or schools that failed to provide a proper education. The key to those who are unfairly claiming welfare must be seen as an education failure.
What, then, should be done? The answer is we should be focusing on the ills of our educational system, not simply in schools but also in families, and should also be directing funding in this direction. Although there may be a minority that are by nature destined to become exploitative of the state, they are a minority. The majority have been failed in the nurturing. The expansion in education spending and development does not simply have to reside within British classrooms, although this should also happen. It should also be within parental education and support and adult education. Instead of a 'Jobseekers' Allowance, which suggests the claimant must find work, we should focus upon providing adults with skills that will provide employment. Instead of proving that they are seeking work, adults should be in classrooms proving they are seeking an education. The welfare debate currently centres on whether we should cut welfare, or how we should correctly provide it. Instead, it should be centred upon how the education of some welfare claimants has failed, and how we should correct it.
What choices have these people made, and what social conditions have these people been exposed to, that has made them react differently to those people around them, and choose a life of exploitation instead of employment? This is a deeply complicated question. Some grew up without good families, some were exposed to alcohol and drugs, some live in areas where good or even any work is difficult to come by. Often, it is an unfortunate cocktail of all of these.
These people should not be condemned by the State, but they should also not be allowed to exploit the State. The major issue is that somewhere along the line, the personal education of this individual has failed. Families that failed to provide proper parenting or schools that failed to provide a proper education. The key to those who are unfairly claiming welfare must be seen as an education failure.
What, then, should be done? The answer is we should be focusing on the ills of our educational system, not simply in schools but also in families, and should also be directing funding in this direction. Although there may be a minority that are by nature destined to become exploitative of the state, they are a minority. The majority have been failed in the nurturing. The expansion in education spending and development does not simply have to reside within British classrooms, although this should also happen. It should also be within parental education and support and adult education. Instead of a 'Jobseekers' Allowance, which suggests the claimant must find work, we should focus upon providing adults with skills that will provide employment. Instead of proving that they are seeking work, adults should be in classrooms proving they are seeking an education. The welfare debate currently centres on whether we should cut welfare, or how we should correctly provide it. Instead, it should be centred upon how the education of some welfare claimants has failed, and how we should correct it.