Gazing at the present through the past.
Before the general election, the Independent published this article. The journalist who wrote it is on my twitter feed, and re-tweeted a link to it today. I did read it at the time, but reading it today has had a profound impact on me.
Personally speaking, I'm not in a great deal of danger from Cameron's cuts. I don't rely on benefits for income and I'm a high-skilled worker in a high-demand industry. Sure, I still don't feel well-off as I spend a significant fraction of my income on mortgage, student loans and other debts, but certainly benefit cuts are the least of my worries. Besides, I live in Scotland which, thanks to devolution, dilutes the possible impact of the cuts. "Personally speaking", though, is not the point.
My parents both grew up in council houses in Glasgow. Neither had an easy childhood. My dad talks of blatant anti-Catholic discrimination and attacks; he talks of dealing with adults with real drink problems. My mum's dad was a sailor and away a lot -- and when he was home he was often drunk. The reason my siblings and I didn't also grow up in a similar environment is because my dad went to university and got a degree. He could do this only because the state paid for it. Similarly, my parents got on the housing ladder because of an incentive the council he worked for were running to encourage graduates into teaching.
More than thirty years later, my parents have five children. I've got a doctorate and a high-skilled job in the wind industry. My sister is a sales executive and a highly successful one. My brother is a qualified engineer working in the oil industry. My brother is currently studying third year mechanical engineering and wants to go into the oil industry. My sister is at school doing advanced highers, with a view to studying chemical engineering. Maggie Thatcher's conservative government got into power around about the time I was born -- apart from my dad's degree and the help with housing we claimed little else from the state. Not a bad return on their investment; particularly given that all of us have had/will have to pay towards our own higher education costs.
There has to be a way out for the poorest. Not all of the poor will take it, some won't have the skills, some won't have the will -- but for those with both there has to be an option. It's better for all of us as a society. I know from teaching that it's far harder for a smart kid in a poor area to get to university because of social barriers -- the smartest kids I taught in Castlemilk were no less clever than my peers in East Kilbride, but they had no competition and so far less drive to succeed and far less incentive to make the most of it. Adding enormous financial barriers to this in the shape of post-graduation debt is a huge mistake: you need to make it easier for these kids, not harder, so that like my dad, they and their kids can then spend their lifetime earning and working for society rather than scraping the bottom of the welfare state every day.
Cameron's theory seems to be "big society, small state". But to me that's not just nonsense, it's terrifying nonsense. If something is important, than it should be provided centrally, funded by all and available to all equally (where equal need is identified). That means the state should cover the really important things. Volunteers, however willing, cannot ever match the state in terms of their power to create a fair society. Firstly because few of us have the time or the luxury of giving away our spare time when home, family and work take up such a huge proportion of the rest of it. Secondly because volunteers can't provide equal opportunities for aid for all who need it across the country. And thirdly because there's no redundancy in the system -- when a willing volunteer drops out due to illness, who steps into their place?
So next is to identify what is really important. To me, in approximate order of priority, it seems clear that:
I am not at great personal risk from Cameron's cuts, despite being firmly in what the newspapers are calling "the squeezed middle". But if for any reason I or Dave stop being able to earn money by working -- either through long term illness or something else -- then we're at as much risk as anyone else. Even maternity leave is going to be a squeeze: my income will eventually drop to the statutory £120 per week which doesn't even cover my half of the mortgage.
From observation of social commentary on the TV and elsewhere, it seems to me that there's a stretch of middle-England who don't know how rich they are. People who will complain at losing child benefit while paying for independent schooling for their children. People who can afford to have a stay-at-home parent, or employ a nanny. People whose homes are worth upwards of a million pounds. These people seem to know nothing of the reality of poverty in today's Britain, and appear to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the "they're all scroungers" school of political discourse. I say England because Scotland's population is highly concentrated in the Central Belt, and it's difficult not to have to travel through the really poor areas on occasion -- up here we see the boarded-up shops and the broken windows and the grafitti. Besides, "well-off" in Scotland doesn't seem to be anywhere near the level of richness you see in England.
I want to live in a country where the poor, and the sick, and the desperate can find help. I want my taxes to be spent on feeding those who can't feed themselves or their families. I don't particularly care about the mega-rich -- the mega-rich can, do and always have take care of themselves. They're not vulnerable, they don't need my help. I don't want my money to subsidise their tax breaks.
I do not want to live in a country where the things described by the article I linked to at the start ever happen. The very idea of it sickens me. Who was the council worker who turned away the abused pregnant woman and made her sleep in a park? Who was the councillor who instigated the policy that checking that people genuinely have nowhere to go was a higher priority than providing emergency housing? (Seriously, like anyone who didn't have to go would choose to go to a shelter just to get money off the council?) "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"
And I seriously resent Cameron's rhetoric. How dare he imply that I'm not doing enough towards society when I have to work so many hours just to cover bills? How dare he sit in his tax-funded home in central london with his multi-million pounds and his hundred plus k a year tax-funded salary and sneer at people on benefits for taking from the state? I knew he was a Tory and a toff, but his golden tongue fooled me pre-election that it might not be so bad. (Not that I voted tory, you understand *shudder*) Now I'm just horrified by how quickly he seized power and how fast he's running with it, slashing everything the welfare state was and cuttinf jobs and telling us it's for our own good as he does it.
We emerged from Thatcherism slightly poorer as a society. How much is there still left to lose? And can we really afford to lose it? And how, in a democracy, can I feel so powerless to make an impact?
Personally speaking, I'm not in a great deal of danger from Cameron's cuts. I don't rely on benefits for income and I'm a high-skilled worker in a high-demand industry. Sure, I still don't feel well-off as I spend a significant fraction of my income on mortgage, student loans and other debts, but certainly benefit cuts are the least of my worries. Besides, I live in Scotland which, thanks to devolution, dilutes the possible impact of the cuts. "Personally speaking", though, is not the point.
My parents both grew up in council houses in Glasgow. Neither had an easy childhood. My dad talks of blatant anti-Catholic discrimination and attacks; he talks of dealing with adults with real drink problems. My mum's dad was a sailor and away a lot -- and when he was home he was often drunk. The reason my siblings and I didn't also grow up in a similar environment is because my dad went to university and got a degree. He could do this only because the state paid for it. Similarly, my parents got on the housing ladder because of an incentive the council he worked for were running to encourage graduates into teaching.
More than thirty years later, my parents have five children. I've got a doctorate and a high-skilled job in the wind industry. My sister is a sales executive and a highly successful one. My brother is a qualified engineer working in the oil industry. My brother is currently studying third year mechanical engineering and wants to go into the oil industry. My sister is at school doing advanced highers, with a view to studying chemical engineering. Maggie Thatcher's conservative government got into power around about the time I was born -- apart from my dad's degree and the help with housing we claimed little else from the state. Not a bad return on their investment; particularly given that all of us have had/will have to pay towards our own higher education costs.
There has to be a way out for the poorest. Not all of the poor will take it, some won't have the skills, some won't have the will -- but for those with both there has to be an option. It's better for all of us as a society. I know from teaching that it's far harder for a smart kid in a poor area to get to university because of social barriers -- the smartest kids I taught in Castlemilk were no less clever than my peers in East Kilbride, but they had no competition and so far less drive to succeed and far less incentive to make the most of it. Adding enormous financial barriers to this in the shape of post-graduation debt is a huge mistake: you need to make it easier for these kids, not harder, so that like my dad, they and their kids can then spend their lifetime earning and working for society rather than scraping the bottom of the welfare state every day.
Cameron's theory seems to be "big society, small state". But to me that's not just nonsense, it's terrifying nonsense. If something is important, than it should be provided centrally, funded by all and available to all equally (where equal need is identified). That means the state should cover the really important things. Volunteers, however willing, cannot ever match the state in terms of their power to create a fair society. Firstly because few of us have the time or the luxury of giving away our spare time when home, family and work take up such a huge proportion of the rest of it. Secondly because volunteers can't provide equal opportunities for aid for all who need it across the country. And thirdly because there's no redundancy in the system -- when a willing volunteer drops out due to illness, who steps into their place?
So next is to identify what is really important. To me, in approximate order of priority, it seems clear that:
- Clean drinking water should be available to all
- No-one should be in danger of starvation or malnutrition through lack of income
- No-one should be left with nowhere to go
- Those who need healthcare should be entitled to appropriate treatment whether or not they can personally afford it
- Those who cannot work should have a means of support
- Everyone should be able to heat their home
- Everyone should have the opportunity to make the most of their talents
I am not at great personal risk from Cameron's cuts, despite being firmly in what the newspapers are calling "the squeezed middle". But if for any reason I or Dave stop being able to earn money by working -- either through long term illness or something else -- then we're at as much risk as anyone else. Even maternity leave is going to be a squeeze: my income will eventually drop to the statutory £120 per week which doesn't even cover my half of the mortgage.
From observation of social commentary on the TV and elsewhere, it seems to me that there's a stretch of middle-England who don't know how rich they are. People who will complain at losing child benefit while paying for independent schooling for their children. People who can afford to have a stay-at-home parent, or employ a nanny. People whose homes are worth upwards of a million pounds. These people seem to know nothing of the reality of poverty in today's Britain, and appear to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the "they're all scroungers" school of political discourse. I say England because Scotland's population is highly concentrated in the Central Belt, and it's difficult not to have to travel through the really poor areas on occasion -- up here we see the boarded-up shops and the broken windows and the grafitti. Besides, "well-off" in Scotland doesn't seem to be anywhere near the level of richness you see in England.
I want to live in a country where the poor, and the sick, and the desperate can find help. I want my taxes to be spent on feeding those who can't feed themselves or their families. I don't particularly care about the mega-rich -- the mega-rich can, do and always have take care of themselves. They're not vulnerable, they don't need my help. I don't want my money to subsidise their tax breaks.
I do not want to live in a country where the things described by the article I linked to at the start ever happen. The very idea of it sickens me. Who was the council worker who turned away the abused pregnant woman and made her sleep in a park? Who was the councillor who instigated the policy that checking that people genuinely have nowhere to go was a higher priority than providing emergency housing? (Seriously, like anyone who didn't have to go would choose to go to a shelter just to get money off the council?) "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"
And I seriously resent Cameron's rhetoric. How dare he imply that I'm not doing enough towards society when I have to work so many hours just to cover bills? How dare he sit in his tax-funded home in central london with his multi-million pounds and his hundred plus k a year tax-funded salary and sneer at people on benefits for taking from the state? I knew he was a Tory and a toff, but his golden tongue fooled me pre-election that it might not be so bad. (Not that I voted tory, you understand *shudder*) Now I'm just horrified by how quickly he seized power and how fast he's running with it, slashing everything the welfare state was and cuttinf jobs and telling us it's for our own good as he does it.
We emerged from Thatcherism slightly poorer as a society. How much is there still left to lose? And can we really afford to lose it? And how, in a democracy, can I feel so powerless to make an impact?