Is Kemi Badenoch the Prime Minister? I ask because last week prior to Keir Starmer's announcement about increasing military spending, the Leader of the Opposition said it should be part-funded by cuts to social security. And on Wednesday, the BBC was leading with news from "sources" that this is exactly what Rachel Reeves plans to do.
It could be this is more muddying of the water. The government's comms haven't exactly been on point, and "anonymous" downbeat briefings have been made in the past that came to nothing. But in this case, I don't think so. The contempt Reeves has for those subsisting on social security has been known for a decade, since she said Labour doesn't want to represent people who are out of work. Readers will recall that, as Chancellor, Reeves has followed it up with stripping away winter fuel payments and keeping the two child benefit cap. Before Trump came back, there have long been mutterings about doing something about the benefits bill, with disabled people and the long-term sick in the crosshairs.
The way this is being presented is typical of a government drenched in dishonesty. In April last year, 1.5m people reported inconveniences associated with long Covid and a further 381,000 said their day-to-day activities had been limited a lot. A good chunk of whom would be in receipt of sickness benefits. Another gift of Covid and the preceding government's lack of seriousness has been the co-morbidities arising from infection. Susceptibility to auto-immune diseases, cancers, heart disease, respiratory conditions, and more are well known and are exacting a toll from a population that have contracted it many times. These too are adding to the sickness bill. But the most common problems are musculoskeletal conditions to the point of debilitation, and mental illness. We never hear about what's driving these, perhaps because it raises inconvenient questions.
Politicians know some ill and disabled people are unsuitable for work and that the overwhelming majority on sickness and disability benefits are there precisely because of that. Which is why the Tories are past masters at scapegoating them by tarring them with the scrounger/skiver brush. Labour are not so crude, prefer to say the system isn't working for them, and is creating "perverse incentives" to stay away from work. But the effect is the same: the delegitimation of the long-term sick, a denial that their system chews up and spits out broken bodies and damaged minds, and has no further use for them.
The Italian autonomists used to talk about the social factory in which every occupation, including unpaid domestic labour, reproduced the system and were therefore productive of capital. Perhaps we should think about the social workhouse, which is productive of stigma, fear, and forcing unwell people into work. This isn't primarily to make money out of the disabled and the ill, but to reinforce the discipline wage labour depends on. Clamping down on benefits is Labour's way of telling their bourgeois backers that the management of class relations is safe with them.
Image Credit
2 comments:
And what is unpleasant is the pleasure they take in announcing that they have made a 'hard' descion to cut welfare and the sheer joy they have in telling us we need to spend more on war preparation - and the money can be found from welfare savings and breaking iron fiscal rules. What a world.
The Red Army needed 7 million troops, aided by 8 million in Western Europe to defeat Germany in 1945. We are to believe that the present Russian army can sweep across Ukraine, Poland, Germany and France, cross the Channel and water its horses in Trafalgar Square.
I suppose Starmer wants to be considered agrown up in the room, and we know that war is what grown ups do, not overgrown school boys and girls that want to play soldiers.
Fundamentally there aren't enough net contributors to cover the 'explosion' in the Welfare bill, and I don't think it's failure to ask serious questions that's the problem; it's that the serious answers are unpalatable.
A left-populist (non)solution is to squeeze 'the rich', but the Treasury knows this is a dead end. More economically beneficial immigration could help, but there's already too many uneconomic immigrants (and given we can't deport serious criminals, we're unlikely to deport those who simply need subsidy). We could try incentives to bring 'economically inactive' back into work, but current policies (including that uneconomic immigration) work against this.
So it largely comes down to prioritisation, and right now we're about to pump billions into Net Zero fantasy projects which will strangle the economy, weaken energy security, increase the cost of living, and have negligible effects on global emissions. But somebody's got to pay, the poor are powerless, and making the poor poorer is a worthy sacrifice to making virtue signalling, quasi-religious zealots happy.
Post a Comment