Saturday, 26 January 2019

Heidi Allen's Poverty Porn Tour

"I've absolutely had enough" says Heidi Allen of the Conservative Party's vindictive attitude to social security. Unlike her reptilian colleagues on the government benches, since entering the Commons she has talked about poverty and how the system her party has presided over makes the situation of the poorest and most vulnerable worse. Though not to the point of voting against the very legislation that tightens the screws, as many an incredulous observer have "fed back" to her via social media.

Here, Allen is exhibiting a patter of behaviour we find common among Tory MPs. They might note the increasing numbers of homeless people, the clogging up of Accident and Emergencies, the crappy state of the roads and a thousand and one other problems and infrastructural ills. And duly they get up in the chamber, or fire off a missive to the local rag saying how awful x, y, z is, but show a lack of comprehension or, more commonly, an absence of interest in why these are the case. Young people locked out of home ownership? It's just one of those things, a consequence of nothing in particular that happens for no rhyme nor reason. You could put it down to the abysmal political level of Tory MPs not possessing a a sociological imagination, but when what would normally be regarded as an individual attribute is a group characteristic, something is going on. The cognitive disconnect between Tory perception of their actions and their consequences in terms of the hardship and misery they dish out is a property of power, a by-product of the social distance between the point of decision and context of implementation, and of the indifference and sometimes gleeful cruelty this inculcates.

Tories might be in denial about their actions having consequences, but they know they really are responsible. Which is why among Tories, Allen is so unusual. You can talk the talk, as Theresa May used to, but to place yourself in close proximity to the consequences of the policies you personally have voted for is not done. A grinagog photo op down the food bank is one thing, quite another to speak with service users about why they're there and how Tory changes to income support have made life harder. For Allen, this must be an uncomfortable experience, and deservedly so. She knows and is beginning to confront what is her responsibility, but as far as Toryism is concerned her overt involvement and press work on poverty, her public displays of frustration and grief puts the rest of the party on the hook. When the cracks of British society can no longer be covered by the ideological paper of the strivers vs the skivers, Allen's concern with what the Tories have traditionally regarded as the undeserving poor is not helpful.

What to make of Allen's poverty porn tour? She herself is determined to blow the lid off what's happening and force her party to confront what they've done, and hopefully change their minds. I'm sure all readers have a view about the likelihood of her efforts succeeding, but Allen's motives appear sincere. Either that or she is an exceptional actor, we do at least get to measure her sincerity when she has future opportunities to vote on social security legislation. If you take the more cynical view and think about it as a profile raising exercise or leadership bid, then this coupled with her hanging around with a motley crew of Cameroons second vote'ers from the Labour benches is going to endear her to no one. But as far as the long-term health of the Conservative Party is concerned, as this place has long argued, Allen's trajectory is where the rest must tread.

Before she blotted her copy book with the parliamentary Tory party, I had Allen down as a future leader. A sign post as opposed to a weathervane, perhaps she will end up serving as a leader without ever being the leader. Cast your mind back again to the immediate aftermath of the referendum and the ease by which Theresa May assumed the Tory crown. She said warm, conciliatory words and affected her "grown up" approach to politics vs the reckless and light-minded record of her predecessor. She banged the one nation drum as well and talked about a country that worked for everyone. Rhetorically at least this was a break from Dave's two-nation Toryism and was well received, translating into an extensive poll lead over a Labour Party at war with itself. The moment swiftly passed as May returned to type, but her instincts were correct: the Tory party is in a a state of decomposition, and unless it reaches out to new constituencies the break down of the conservatising effects of age will do for them.

The Tory problem is there are no rising constituencies in the party. There are a smattering of relatively young and socially liberal Tories sat in the Commons, and nearly all of them post-date 2010, but they're there largely because Dave and the apparatus championed and put them there. They are atypical and do not reflect the declining membership, either demographically or politically, nor do they the Tory vote. If there's no base for a new wave of modernisation, then a defanged, moderate, one nation, and socially responsible Tory party is a pipe dream. And for as long as the Tories carry on pursuing a sectional strategy of holding together their declining coalition, the harder it will be when the day of decision comes and they can no longer win elections by trying to turn out their natural constituencies. Heidi Allen offers the Tories a sustainable future, but they won't take it and, effectively, can't take it.

The best Allen's poverty tour can hope for then is more publicity reaching more people, particularly Tory voters, and perhaps some votes down the line where Tory MPs might actually rebel on behalf of their long-suffering constituents. But don't hold your breath.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't see how it is possible for the likes of Allen to do anything meaningful about poverty and remain an MP in the Tory party. There are already whispers about deselection for her for being too left wing.

David Timoney said...

Good to see you got over your crush.

DFTM said...

The policy of the Tories was actually intended to increase homelessness, poverty and send people into destitution; they were giving it to the lazy people on behalf of hard working families. I don’t know why they don’t brag about it more so their debased, monstrous base of supporters can cheer the fact that they actually delivered on their campaign promises.

So I would say that while Heidi Allen pretends to be going on a poverty tour she is actually advertising to the Tory base that they have delivered on their promises and really stuck it to Benefits Street. It wouldn’t surprise me if when she gets home at night after a day visiting the victims of her political creed she doesn’t take off her pants and get herself off.

These people are nothing if not twisted.

Blissex said...

«Tories might be in denial about their actions having consequences, but they know they really are responsible.»

Guys, Ian Duncan-Smith resigned from an important ministry (which is not just talking the talk) and made a speech in the House of Commons and gave interviews attacking the Conservative government for being extreme far right, e.g.:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12199805/IDS-sparks-rift-at-heart-of-Tory-party.html
«He said he resigned because he lost the ability to influence where the cuts will fall, adding: “The truth is yes, we need to get the deficit down, but we need to make sure we widen the scope of where we look to get that deficit down and not just narrow it down on working age benefits ... otherwise it just looks like we see this as a pot of money that it doesn’t matter because they don’t vote for us, and that’s my concern. I think it [the Government] is in danger of drifting in a direction that divides society rather than unites it. And that I think is unfair. ... This is not the way to do government.”»

And here his colleague Vince Cable reporting the same:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/05/vince-cable-tories-collectively-could-be-appalling
«Some of the greatest pressure came on IDS at the Department for Work and Pensions, whose poor, disabled, unemployed and otherwise vulnerable clients were seen as easy targets for cuts. IDS was a significant figure, and a fundamentally decent man, but he spent much of his time fighting off pubescent advisers and Treasury officials with cruel ideas for saving money.»

My guess is that most Conservative and New Labour MPs did notice that of all people Ian Duncan-Smith specifically accused the government of being too nasty even for hist tastes.

Blissex said...

«whispers about deselection for her for being too left wing.»

An interesting aspect of the Conservative party is that ideological discipline is absolute in most constituencies and MPs can be and are deselected immediately, no "communist-style" talk allowed about immunity to deselection, if they stray from ideological purity.
Since most Conservative associations are extreme far-right thatcherite, virtually all "one nation" tories have been replaced by extreme far-right thatcherites like J Hunt or G Williamson. For the sponsors of the Conservative party this is a rather useful filter they don't have to operate overtly to ensure that Conservative MPs stay on-message.

My impression is that the mandelsonians campaigned for OMOV in order to recreate that filter in the New Labour party, to ensure that members would purge the PLP of any MPs deviating from the thatcherite line.

I guess that their miscalculation was that, having engineered a dramatic contraction in Labour membership, leaving only right-wing members, they never expected that centre and centre-left voters would ever re-join or join again the Labour party, never mind in such numbers. it is to be expected that the next time that the thatcherites have influence they will take care of that by introducing suitably asymmetrical barriers to membership, extending the expulsion campaigns of 2015-2016 period to something more systematic.

Anonymous said...

I remember Ian Duncan Smith, without any hint of emotion, saying that those who don't want work can simply starve.

So what explains his sudden concern for the plight of the people he intended to impoverish?

maybe he wanted to soften them up for the Brexit debates?

Or maybe he is a really really nice chap!

Dialectcian1 said...

Poverty and the blame game. Poverty porn relies on blaming the victim but contradictorily, also feeling sorry for them and having empathy for their plight. It's what most of 'us liberals' do in order to manage our human responses to someone experiencing pain. No one, not even a hard-nose Tory wants to be seen as uncaring. However, to eradicate any thoughts of understanding the 'situational logic' of the circumstances that led to such 'life choices', it is necessary to impose a strong moral contingent. This makes it easier for 'us liberals' to delineate between the 'deserving poor' and the 'undeserving poor'. Poverty is therefore, as Giddens would say: a 'life choice'. Its structural causes are only ever discussed in terms of feeling pity for the old and infirm but ensuring hardship on those undeserving who need encouragement (sanctioning) to 'pull themselves out' of poverty.

This Benthamite workhouse philosophy continues to dominate in contemporary discourse. It is easier to engage in hand wringing about the moral ineptitude of the poor than to critique the social structure that creates, controls and maintains inequality. The mark of a liberal/single nation Tory like Heidi Allen or Frank Field or any number of high-minded philanthropists is that they really believe that - poor people with the right attitude, following some short-term assistance - can, with one muscular pull of their boot straps, drag themselves from their self-imposed moral hellhole.

As Kurt Vonnegut cogently describes of American attitudes to poverty in Slaughterhouse 5:

"Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how hard in fact money is to come by, and therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say Napoleonic times."

Blissex said...

«intended to increase homelessness, poverty and send people into destitution»

Ah the usual "leftoid" delusion: the primary fact of english political and economic affairs is property rents and prices, and so of tory politics and economics, and “really stuck it to Benefits Street” is a secondary concern.
Tory southern property owning voters care far more about the £20,000-£40,000 work-free tax-free property profits they make every year than sticking it to the poor, and those profits damage the working poor much more than cuts in benefits.

«why they don’t brag about it more so their debased, monstrous base of supporters»

Well, contrary to the usual propaganda that conservativism is based on burkean attitudes, by talking with tory voters and reading the unguarded words of tory MPs I got the impression that the dominant ideology is social darwinism, and that the increasing homelessness and poverty show that losers do lose, just as increasing property rents and profits show that winners do win.

As to that you may remember the "lower than vermin" description of tory leaders, and there have been some lab experiments trying to test that description, and it turns out that rats are indeed not tories: in one experiment where twice the daily food ration was given to some rats and none was given to other rats, the rats who got double let the rats who got none have a portion.

“So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin. They condemned millions of first-class people to semi-starvation.”

Unknown said...

Heidi Allen was the one who Frank Field brought to tears with his (genuinely sad) tale of a desperate father struggling to feed his kids on universal credit.

She said, at the time, through her tears "no government is perfect...but by god we work together and make things better".

I thought to myself - what the actual fuck are you on about?
There must be some level of cognitive dissonance going on there. It is a bit baffling though isn't it?

Gabriel Pepper said...

The main trouble with Heidi Allen is her very long record of taalking hypocritical shite. Allen is a liar, all Tories lie, it is their default setting, wwhether it is dismal Dominic Grieve or revolting pig DC, all Tories talk rubbish. So we can view this poverty safari as more of the same from Allen

Anonymous said...

"The mark of a liberal/single nation Tory like Heidi Allen or Frank Field or any number of high-minded philanthropists is that they really believe that - poor people with the right attitude, following some short-term assistance - can, with one muscular pull of their boot straps, drag themselves from their self-imposed moral hellhole."

I don't know if any of what you said is true but I have to admire the way you put it! Quite brilliant.

Blissex

If this post had been about house prices I may have mentioned it but given it was about a Tory upset about the poor then I thought I would mention that!


DFTM

Unknown said...

I think there's a deep seam of ideological double-think going on there. At surface level, she's tapping into the traditional Christian Democrat strand of conservatism, which is genuine in its social concern, but utterly deluded as to how to address social needs. At a deeper level, my guess is that the double think is something like this: we are the good people, and thus the best people to rule, but being the good people ought to entail some being good,and in asmuch as there is evidence that we have been/are being bad, we ought to alter that, but not so much as to start giving into to socialist thinking, which implicitly discards the moral hierarchy in which we calim the good people should rule and that's us, and the purpose isn't to do good for doing good's sake, but to restore our credentials as the good people and thus protect our right to rule, which is what's above all, because we are still the good people. Because. It's a smell and refinement of home thing.