It was the raw early days of the coalition, and one of David
Cameron’s lieutenants was giving a frank answer to my blunt question: what
would it take for the government to pull back on its planned cuts? You didn’t
need a Mensa membership to see that this topic would define the next five
years.
On that sunny autumn afternoon, the
newspapers were full of students
besieging Conservative central office, but Cameron’s aide coolly
judged that they’d blown it by picking the wrong target. Had they swarmed on
Lib Dem HQ “that would really have put Clegg under pressure”. So what would
change Tory minds? “The crunch will come when the Mail puts on its front page
pictures of some Iraq war veteran in a wheelchair who’s lost his disability
benefits.”
That ugly logic has underpinned this government. Cameron and
Nick Clegg have justified social security cuts by reciting a litany of false
oppositions. Strivers
v skivers. Workers v shirkers. The bedroom
tax, the arbitrary
removal of benefitsfrom those infringing some bureaucratic small
print, the judging
of sick people as fit for work –£17bn
of cutbacks have been
sold by ministers, and bought by the public, as falling on the undeserving
poor: the mickey-takers on a gigantic, taxpayer-funded bed-in.
What my contact foresaw back in 2010 was
that if this political link were ever broken, and money seen to be taken from
the plainly deserving, the central plank of austerity would snap in two.
However, that Mail front page has never appeared, and yesterday Cameron was
able to warn of Labour “chaos … higher taxes for every working family to pay
for more welfare”. Even so, the Law ofWelfare Cuts has just taken two shattering
blows.
The first was delivered by the
Conservatives themselves, in the form of a leaked
paper discussing options to make more benefit cuts. Commissioned by
the Tories, written up by senior civil servants and already under discussion by
ministers, the proposals include taking allowances from about 40% of carers for
the sick; the scrapping of government compensation for those who’ve suffered
industrial injuries; and the taxing of disability benefits.
The Conservatives have tried to stamp all over this
story, and with excellent reason. Where’s the justice in taking cash off
someone who’s mangled an arm on a construction site, or who’s had to cut back
on work to look after a sick child? These savings manifestly break the
coalition law of welfare cuts: that they must be seen to be fair.
And they don’t even save that much
money. As with so many “reforms” since 2010, these reductions would turn
people’s lives upside down, plunge some into debt and tear families apart – and
in some cases raise little more than loose change. It may be that we have
passed the high tide of public support for cuts in social security – and it
would be for exactly the reason predicted by that Conservative aide in 2010.
The Tories have set a goal
of cutting another £12bn a year from welfare by April 2017. This target is so
stupidly implausible that it will force any future government led by Cameron
into ever more manifestly unjust benefit cuts. That fictional divide between
deserving and undeserving poor may be on the verge of collapse
How much of a fiction that divide really is can be seen in a new
report published by academics at the LSE. Is
Welfare Reform Working? is
based on two rounds of interviews, first in 2013 and again in 2014, with 200
people who live in the south-west of England, from Plymouth to Bath to just
outside Chippenham
– where Cameron launched his election campaign yesterday.
In my years writing on this subject, I
have read scores of reports and books on welfare reform – but I’ve
never seen anything like this. Here are hundreds of people, all living at the
sharp end of austerity. Every interviewee is a social-housing tenant of working
age, which makes them the number one target of this government. Last September
Iain Duncan Smith, in an interview with the Express headlined “We
are breaking up Shameless housing estates”, boasted: “We’re making
real progress into that stubborn part of the out-of-work group who are in
housing estates …” The work and pensions secretary was talking about exactly
the LSE interviewees – and this report allows them the right of reply: the LSE
authors let their subjects do the talking.
The first thing to come screaming out of
the report is how many of the interviewees didn’t plan to be out of work.
They’ve got a disability, or they were caring for children or a sick parent, or
they were just laid off. You meet Mrs Spencer, who spent seven years out of the
jobs market to nurse her daughter through cancer. The daughter died two months
ago and the last of their savings went on her funeral. Now her husband has been
made redundant after 27 years of work. He’s 59 and has only one eye.
Well over half the respondents claim to be coping. This sounds
like good news – until you discover what they mean by that. Getting by means
falling behind on rent or into debt; managing means eating less or going
without heat. “I’ve got a dog and I’ve got to make sure he’s OK,” one
says cheerfully. “If need be I’ll eat his biscuits.”
Re-read that sentence, remembering that
you and he live in one of the richest societies on the planet.
How has the government helped? The
bedroom tax “is a tax on my disability”, according to one interviewee who used
his second bedroom to take oxygen. Respondents hate the jobcentre, which just
holds up ever higher hoops to jump through – or else it sanctions them. Another
interviewee tells of how his sanction meant that he lost his home, and now
sleeps on a sister’s couch.
These people represent a society that
has been cut adrift by politicians of all parties: a society that will go
unaddressed by the election campaign, and uncourted by any major party. And yet
these people talk just like you and me; they just have worse stories to tell.
In that same Express interview, Duncan
Smith claimed that he had moved theShameless estate-dwellers from a “dependency
culture” to independence. Here is a different version of events from one of the
LSE interviewees: “My best friend committed suicide in March – she went through
… relentless reassessments, and found the forms very confusing. She was
disabled but they were questioning her over and over again. DWP hounded her for
information. It’s a horrible feeling, knowing that your friend was pushed over
the edge like that. I’m pretty certain that if these welfare reform changes
weren’t going on, I’d still have her with me.”
No comments:
Post a Comment