Wednesday, 3 March 2010

Standard's poverty shame proves Welfarism doesn't work



There is no doubt that extreme poverty exists in parts of London cheek by jowl with extreme wealth, and the Evening Standard this week is doing a fine job of reporting with sympathy and balance a few of the individual stories of the 'dispossessed'. With the exception of the horribly irritating phrase 'she fell pregnant' which the subs should have edited (eleven times in the case of the woman, below, who's had eleven children by five different fathers) and is used with depressing repetition, the articles paint a picture of a class of people whose physical, intellectual, emotional and moral capacities are unequal to taking responsibility for their own lives.

What is clear is that not only does Brown's redistributive economic policy not work, but Labour's culture of Welfarism has actually made the problem worse. What many of the underclass suffer most from is indifference; no one cares what they do to themselves. There are no neighbours or local leaders to chastise them, communicate standards of morality and behaviour and demonstrate the joy of belonging. The very class of people most in need of guidance, support and supervision from civil society, those with the most diminished capacity, are those least likely to get it, and because it's not the State's job to provide these things, no one does. So they farrow like fecund sows, flounder in improvidence, degrade eachother and their pens and live short, unhappy and desperate lives. Simon Jenkins has the kernel of it in his comment to the piece;
In 19th-century London that sort of local welfare came first from parish and corporate charities and then from the early London municipalities. By the end of the Second World War, London's borough and metropolitan health and welfare authorities were the envy of Europe. That is true no more. The freedom to innovate and decide local priorities has, since the Eighties, been removed to central government, where it rests inert to this day.

Excessive state regulation has sapped the philanthropic urge and disempowered communities. Tens of thousands of Londoners are clearly falling through the net. The reason is that Whitehall tries only to meet the target, not the need.

I doubt if the cases described in the Standard this week can ever be cured by central government action, however much money is hurled at surveys, consultants or task forces. Look at the fate of the “homelessness initiative” or countless wars on drugs. Nor is there likely to be new money, as the public sector girds itself for fewer resources and fewer people in years to come.

I would delegate much of London's welfare fiercely down to boroughs and below, to community and neighbourhood councils, letting them levy small local taxes to relieve the acute poverty which they, and probably no one else, see around them.

But another answer lies in an unfashionable quarter, in reverting to the voluntary and charitable sector from which London's welfare state emerged. We thought we could do without soup kitchens, the Salvation Army, church day centres, charity lying-in hospitals, citizens advice and private colleges. Now I am not so sure.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Two things.

Salvation Army, church day centres, charity lying-in hospitals, citizens advice and private colleges have one thing in common. They all stand for localism and Labour does not. So they ain't coming back any time soon.

Welfare isn't there to support or make betterment for families. Its there to nurture a dependence on the state. Labour buys voters. Immigrants, welfare dependents, 618,000 additional pen-pushers. All of them dependent on Labour.

Sadly, this has gone so far that a Con win at the election is really no forgone conclusion.

Coney Island

Weekend Yachtsman said...

"a class of people [who] are unequal to taking responsibility for their own lives."

A whole class of people as deficient as that.

Is there any precedent, in the entire history of the world?

In every generation there will be a few people in this sort of sad state.

A few.

But to produce a whole class of such, numbering perhaps in the millions (because the scenes you describe exist in all our large cities), is surely a unique tragedy for all concerned.

Is there no end to the hubris of the socialists and the do-gooders? Can they still not see the harm they are doing?

English Pensioner said...

In the days of Parish Relief there was one important principle "That no person on parish relief shall get more than the lowest paid person working full time in the parish".
There were no increases for families, that was the individual's responsibility. Mothers were obliged to reveal the identities of their children's father, and he wa made to pay where possible.
If they didn't like it, they could go into the workhouse or appeal to the local magistrates.
Time we brought this back!

JuliaM said...

"Is there no end to the hubris of the socialists and the do-gooders? Can they still not see the harm they are doing?"

The answers to that are:

No.

Yes, but they don't see it as harm.