The chancellor presented his spending review framework document to parliament last week. It received relatively little attention – yet in just 19 pages it tells us much about the ideological approach of the new government. The guiding principles to be followed by the government in carrying out its deficit reduction plan are to be “freedom, fairness and responsibility… to demonstrate that we are all in this together”. But the likely impact will be quite the opposite. This spending review lays the ground for a residualised and minimalist welfare state.
Here are the strategic priorities the document lays out. Spending cuts will take precedence over tax increases. Public sector pay and pensions will face restraint. “State monopolies” will be challenged in the search for “a greater range of service providers”. Individuals and frontline professionals will assume greater power and responsibility in allocating limited resources, and targeting will aim resources at those most in need.
That adds up to a diminished role for the state, with the focus instead on individual and community empowerment, a kaleidoscope of provision, and a minimal safety net. There’s no evidence to suggest that such an approach delivers greater economic or social justice for the poorest, and plenty of recent history to suggest that middle income households also suffer from the decline in public services that will result. Already details are emerging, for example, of planned cuts to children’s and youth services, which are causing great concern. And that of course is only the start. As unemployment rises and financial support for families is cut, as university places become scarcer and more expensive, as infrastructure investment, housebuilding and local regeneration projects grind to a halt, the challenge – and the opportunity – for Labour in opposition is great.
As the government seeks to shrink the state, arguing both ideological and fiscal grounds, we must find every way we can to remind the public of the progress of the past 13 years, and what was achieved. Too often in the election campaign we found that progress was forgotten, or at best taken for granted, as voters understandably focused on where our policies had let them down. While of course it’s right to address those concerns, we must also fight to protect the gains that were made. That requires us to re-make the case for public provision, and explain why the state has a major role to play.
The challenge now is to defend our record of public spending, and explain how public borrowing was used to protect the economy through the downturn. It is to rebuild the case for good quality provision which comes from the shared experience of systems of social support and service use, binding society more closely, reducing stigma and driving up standards, legitimising and securing the right to support. And we must convincingly demonstrate that the redistribution of power the government proclaims will be meaningless without action to address economic inequality too. For without a fairer distribution of resources, it’s frankly impossible that we will “all be in this together” – the better off will simply buy their way out.
Finally, we must not allow the cry “there isn’t any money”, that scarce resources must be targeted, to disguise the underlying threat that the government’s plans pose to a welfare state for all. In challenging the tax and spending decisions of the government, we can and we must be unapologetic in the welfare state’s defence. Fairness, freedom and responsibility – for everybody – are after all what our welfare state was built on. Those are the values we must fight to protect.
All put forward by the labour party the use of charities, the use of private companies to pay out and control the welfare, labours new ESA benefit is all about cutting benefits.
What is it we are not in power now so we can moan about it, I’ll never forgive New labour for the welfare reforms and the Pratt’s who put that forward, like the left leaning Purnell known to us with a disability and Mr Puerile.
Language is very revealing about intent and direction. It’s also worth looking at the work Peter Riddell did at the Institute for Government on the the language that the Conservatives are moving towards.
Well language is interesting laws and regulations are better two new medicals one which tell the majority of people your not disabled, you then appeal and more then likely win your appeal, whats wrong with that the company thats does the medical then does the appeal, what a nice profit maker.
New Labours welfare reforms all the Tories are doing is taking them to the max as labour did.
new Labour seem to think we are idiots
A message to women There is a problem with the women in this culture. Yes, I know, there are problems with men, too. Believe me, I have heard about them for the last forty years. Some of it true and fair, much of it neither. It was a necessary dialogue just the same. So is this. To understand this we need a brief look at history. Women, in the past, were denied voting rights, couldn’t own land and didn’t have much access to employment that would give them the freedom to make it on their own. This needed to change, and of course, did, as can be confirmed with a cursory glance at the world around you. I laud those changes. But the problem was in how we got here. The reality is that the gender roles of our history were traps for both men and women. Women were relegated to home and children; men to sacrificial roles as protectors and providers. It wasn’t a conspiracy. It was just a matter of survival, and for many thousands of years it worked quite well to that end. But once men made the environment safe enough for women to metaphorically “leave the cave,” it was only natural and right that men change and allow that to happen. And ladies, we did. This is the simple but accurate truth of the matter. Men and women developed gender roles that facilitated the survival of the species. And once those roles were not necessary, they did begin the often complicated path to change. The problem here is that your knowledge of these historical events is largely shaped, convoluted rather, by feminism. Feminists taught you that your history with men was of unremitting evil; that you were chattel, slaves to men who held all power and shut you out with extreme intent. They even gave it a name. Patriarchy. It is a word that has become synonymous with oppression. But feminists were loathe to remind you that “Women and children first,” was the patriarchal mantra, and that much of the social norms, even when misguided, were a product of a code adopted for the sole purpose of preserving your life. It wasn’t always fair, but the unfairness wasn’t always yours. Men died by that code, and trained their sons to do the same. The fact that we still do is the subject for another essay. So what happened? As feminist distortions were increasingly embraced, and intertwined with the legitimate need for change, men did what they usually do. They reacted to the message and not the messenger and unblocked the entrance to that cave. Many of you spit on us on the way out. Many of you still do. It has to stop. This isn’t just about decency. And it is not just about the chasm of mistrust that separates us from each other, or the legions of the walking wounded from this godforsaken gender war. It is about our future. The vilification of men that you have accepted as appropriate now translates to catastrophe for our sons, for your sons. The problem is that what we say, think and feel about people invariably translates into what we actually do to them. Nowhere is this more evident than with our sons, in the here and now. If you take an honest look at the academic environment to which our boys are subjected, you will see that their masculinity itself is under attack with ideology that teaches them they are inherently flawed. Christina Hoff Sommers documented this in her highly recommended book “The War Against Boys.” She writes, “The pedagogy is designed to valorize females, such as teaching history in a woman-centered way. Boys are to be inspired to revere Anita Hill and to “enjoy” quilting. At the same time, schools discourage activities that are natural and traditional to boys, such as playing ball together.” She goes on to say, with sad accuracy, “Most parents have no idea what their children are facing in the gender-charged atmosphere of the public schools.” What Sommers didn’t add to that but I will is the fact that most parents have no idea about this because they choose not to. As girls and girls programs increasingly flourish, boys are falling to the sidelines in ever growing numbers. The results of that are chilling. Boys are more likely than ever to drop out of school and engage in delinquency and other problems. They are representing less college graduates every year. With this diminishing education and wholesale marginalization, they are on a fast track to being the “second sex,” that position that so many feminists touted as the greatest evil of human history when they claimed it applied to women. This is the lasting legacy of spitting on men. Your sons will not be the exception. Young men now grow up to be destroyed in corrupt family court systems where women are encouraged to and even praised for using children, their children, like pawns in order to drain the father of assets. And those same children also have their badly needed connection to their fathers severed in the process. When those exploited, abused children start quite naturally to act out and get in trouble, we blame the father who was removed against his will, for of all things, being absent. And the “freedom” women gained on this frenzied path of vengeance and victimization? It doesn’t appear to have settled well. Women are growing increasingly violent. They are matching men in domestic violence, blow for blow, and they are causing the lions share of injury and death to children in the home. But we don’t speak of these things. We are not supposed to. In your position as the identified victim, and mine as the identified perpetrator, there is supposed to be an indelible silence on these matters. For the most part, there is. That silence is destroying us. And it is a silence that is maintained with the collusion of shallow, weak men and misguided, self-serving women, which is to say most of the culture. The only answer I can think of is for men, and for women, to change. Perhaps you will consider this before concluding that men’s rights activists are whiners or woman haters or products of bad mothers. You might actually decide that most men’s rights activists are men who above all else, seek justice. For their children, for themselves, and ultimately for you. I hope that a few of you will read this and consider it the next time you hear someone say “men are pigs,” or when you hear a woman refer to her first born child as “the insurance policy,” or before you nod your head in unconsidered agreement with whatever negatives about men happen to be making the rounds. All of this will be visited on your sons, and their sons. I hope too, that some of you look at your sons and think, and ask yourself what kind of world in which you really want them to live. When your sons choose wives and marry, I hope you consider the agony they will go through when “taken to the cleaners” and robbed of their children in the family courts. You will be forced to stand by powerlessly and watch them have their hearts ripped out. As always, it will look much different to you when the system you help maintain with your silence crushes your son, and not just some obscure, unknown male whom you quietly think is getting what he deserves. It will happen to more than half of them. The best prevention for this last one is to teach our sons to choose carefully; to scrutinize a woman before committing his life and work to her; to evaluate her morals and values as a woman prior to putting a ring on her finger. or even whether it is wise any more to marry in the first place. But how can we do this if we keep teaching them that such evaluations are the stuff of misogyny? Indeed, how can we do this if scrutinizing women at all is such a taboo? And therein lies the rub, ladies. It is indeed time, just as it was for men, for women to be held to scrutiny, and to account. More importantly, it is time for women to do this on their own. I’ll do my best to provide a fair and compassionate mirror in my writings. It is always up to you whether that mirror is a place you want to look.