Categories: uncategorized
Date: 04 October 2011 15:08:42
Yesterday Ian Duncan Smith outlined how the Conservatives want to "reform" the benefit system - within the speech he explicitly referred to the underclass. The full text of the speech highlighted two things; firstly the way that the Conservative vision for Britain is built directly on implementing New Right ideology and secondly how New Right theory contains some attractive soundbites but is in part based on dangerous myths and mis-interpretation of statistics.
Firstly, without any irony IDS talks of the economic recovery spawned by Thatcher and then claims it was the Labour Party and '97 government who "spawned a culture of conspicuous consumption, where people were only valued in terms of how much they earned or how much they were worth." Anybody who remembers Harry Enfield's Loads of Money character will understand why IDS's comments are so ironic but in a sad rather than funny way.
Secondly, "benefit tourists" is one of those immotive terms used by the Daily Mail which belies the truth of a situation where those from certain parts of Europe are already finding it hard to get National Insurance numbers to seek work, when all they want to do is join other members of their families - not engage in "benefit tourism". A small minority of cases is being turned into a moral panic to enable the party to develop further it's right wing credentials.
IDS then goes on to refer to the underclass referring to, "That is the steady rise of an underclass in Britain – a group too often characterised by chaos and dysfunctionality...and governed by a perverse set of values." That there is an underclass arising in Britain is undeniable, that some behaviour engaged in can be described as chaotic and dysfunctional is also non-deniable and some are governed by a set of alternative values which many of us will be uncomfortable with. However, I want to argue that this group of "the underclass" is less homogeneous than IDS suggests and the expression of various behaviours and reasons behind them is more complex. The extent of the underclass is also debateable. For instance did you know for over a decade the number of teenage pregnancies in the UK has fallen year on year not risen? For some the reasons for alternative behaviour which may be criminal or deviant can be linked to a wish to engage with criminality but for others it can simply come down to survival and a failiure of "the system" to adequately support them.
Within the speech IDS starts to refer to those who cannot keep in work. This again is complex, in our society the job market is not simple and many employers have been doing things like cutting workers over-time to keep them under 16 hours a week. The employers not only the employees have to take responsibility for the current unemployment.
He refers to high levels of unsecured debt - um....should those giving the loans not be blamed here as much if not more than those who took the debt on, often to do things like get better qualifications or to buy cars to go to the jobs that they had got themselves.
He then brings in the breakdown of the family - something I will deal with on my other blog before moving on to failing schools and a lack of social mobility. I want to suggest that for many the inability to engage in social mobility comes from the negative stereotyping of certain areas and from the introduction of student fees and loans - something the Conservatives and Labour have both contributed to. The fear of debt is actually greatest amongst working class kids in my experience as a teacher.
IDS questions what hope is there for the children of addicts, saying they will become addicts in turn. Um....cycles can be broken if there is the will involved and alternative choices can be given. Arguing there is no alternative and hope and that a self-fulfilling prophecy will occur is giving in to hopelessness.
He goes on to offer soundbites not solutions based on New Right ideological views on what the dominant norms and values should be. Now, don't get me wrong - I value many of these things and think they are right but I also remember and support the values which the Welfare State was based upon - these solutions do not support those things, rather they have the potential to send us back into a world based on social Darwinism where the strong got rich and the weak died in poverty. I'm just hoping the old skool paternalistic Tories stand up at some point and atleast start to question these assumptions and this agenda.