Dignity is in providing, not working

Following on from the Karen Mathews trial, Raedwald has posted about the breakdown of society and makes this comment, with which I have little to disagree:

I'm not interested in making a moral judgement on the lifestyle of the underclass, or on bastardy, but the economic and social cost to the rest of us is already vast, will get much worse during the recession and is simply unsustainable in the long term.

There is a simple truth that Brown and his party are just too thick to understand, and it's that welfare causes poverty. The most effective measure in tackling poverty is restricting welfare. Clinton's reforms in the US have won for millions the dignity of work and the benison of belonging that the caustic effects of welfare had taken from them.

It did make me wonder about the phrase "dignity of work" and whether this really is the case? Do we really value work so highly to the point where it provides dignity? I think not, but I do believe there is/was dignity in providing for our family and when that doesn't need be done there is no reason to work, especially if you are at the bottom end of the social and education ladder.

Firstly, when The Sprog was at school he used to complain bitterly when teachers tried to bribe them in to working hard by claiming that if they didn't they would end up as street cleaners or dustbin men. His point was that these jobs are something that we need doing and we should value the work, even if it is not highly paid. He makes a very good point, if those who aren't academically bright and will end up doing these jobs don't see them as worthwhile; they won't be at the front of the queue to do them, unless they feel they have no choice. But the welfare state means they do have a choice.

Secondly, I remember the feeling when The Sprog was born and I brought him home from hospital. It was an almost immediate transformation in my approach to life. I had always worked hard but did have a laissez-faire* approach to life but the new responsibility made realise I had to take control and ensure he and The Great WiseOne would be looked after if anything happened to me. I also wanted to ensure I could provide a comfortable life for them, even if it meant personal sacrifices. I know we men aren't supposed to talk about things like this when we are together but when I have discussed it with them they admit to similar feelings.

Now, I was brought up to believe that I had to provide for myself and family to the best of my ability by my father who was born and raised in the slums of Bradford, long before the welfare state was created. I remember that this was the approach of most of his friends and all my relations. They all took great pride in looking after their family and ensuring they were provided for, but then they grew up when the had no choice. I remember that they would have been appalled at having to take "handouts" as they saw them to ensure their family fed and most of these were miners, dustbin men and street cleaners.

So why don't those like Karen Mathews and her boyfriends have the same desire to provide for their children and seem happy to rely on benefits to provide not only for themselves but also their children? I often think "do they have no pride" and I suppose the answer is no they don't, well not in the same sense that I do.

Reading Raedwald's post made me realise that the Welfare State, in its desire to ensure that the poor don't have the hardship of the past, has crushed this desire to provide their family out of them- they don't need to do it and so don't see why they should make sacrifices to provide. This, added to our desire not to be judgemental about lifestyle choices, has meant that they don't have any shame; it doesn't worry them that the rest of us are working to pay for their lifestyle because they have been told that the money they get is an entitlement and anyway, any jobs they can do, like street cleaning or emptying the bins are sneered at as for failures and that doesn't include them

Now comes the difficult part, how to change that attitude? I don't have the answers other than reduce benefits to the point where they have no choice but to go out and work, or steal or beg and sadly the latter 2 will probably be the chosen options. The other problem is that we do as a society want to genuinely look after those who have suffered life's outrages slings and arrows of misfortune.

*The true (wiki) meaning of the words: "a term used to describe a policy of allowing events to take their own course with minimal intervention."

Blunkett has a point, at last

I never thought I would find myself in agreement with David Blunkett, but he has made some good points in his latest speech to the Counsel and Care charity in London. I accept I haven't read the whole speech so I may be missing some of the nuances, but here goes anyway.

Older people should be prepared to work after they reach retirement age for as long as they are physically able to, former cabinet minister David Blunkett said today.

Blunkett said that as the number of older Britons continues to rise, it was wrong to assume that the government should have "prime responsibility" for elderly care.

As a socialist he confuses Government with tax payer, but we'll ignore that one.

For years Maggie banged on about this problem but it was ignored. When the welfare state started there was over 10 workers to every pensioner ** and it is fast approaching 2:1 and will be 3:2 by 2040 according to some estimates. This is clearly unsustainable and its a pity that Blunkett had his head in the sand when he was in office.

The main problem is that we have a pay as you go scheme which a large part of the population doesn't appear to understand and think their NI contributions are paid in to some kind of fund they can draw down. Furthermore we are living longer and starting our working lives later, and with the debt of funding university courses. This means that people aren't being given the opportunity, let alone the will, to save enough for a long retirement.

So something has to give, but he misses the point. Only those who haven't saved enough during their lifetime should be prepared to carry on working until they meet incapacity or the grave. Or turning that round you have a choice - don't save and keep enjoying yourself with expensive cars and holidays but be prepared to keep working until you die or save now, relax later; its your choice.

But this implies a grown up conversation between the Government and the Governed and we don't have any major politicians prepared to have that discussion, what with the Tories trying to outdo Labour in the socialism stakes. And as we know, socialists don't trust the proles anyway.

"In our endeavour to protect people's inheritance, have we not made enough of, and are we not clear enough about, the release of equity from the enormous home ownership that exists in Britain and the divide of those with and without assets which this trend has accelerated?" he said.

Harsh as it seems it is not the job of the tax payer to protect Middle England's inheritance. If you have capital in your old age then you should be obliged to use it for your own care or continue working. Yes I know its harsh, some people get to live a long time and use up all their savings (so their children miss out on free money), others die yong and leave their savings to their family, life isn't fair; but its a damn site fairer than a 3rd party protecting the inheritance of those whose parents have money but don't want to pay for their care.

Again, this needs another grown up conversation and a few truth's spelled out, but I suppose that won't win elections so again probably won't happen.

Finally we have the real clincher. It has finally dawned on him that the welfare state creates a moral hazard, and what's more the cost of that moral hazard is becoming unsustainable

"Why should someone who's not saved, who's not put money by, expect those who have to sustain them to do so not just in working life but in retirement as well."

A very good question and one some of us have been asking for years. Lets hope that this message sinks in and come the next GE we have politicians with the metaphorical balls to stand up and say what the real problem is - we pay ourselves too much, for doing too little for not long enough.

Ah, I here you say, but what about people can't even make ends meet, let alone save for retirement.

Yes, there a number of people for who have been dealt a bad hand and these are the ones we need to protect - maybe a partner has died and they have a young family, maybe they suffer a chronic illness or have disabilities or they have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune; these we should protect. But there are far too many people who think that they can go through life not caring about the decisions they make and expect the rest of us to pick up the pieces.

**I couldn't find the exact figure but in this paper the Minister of State for Pensions states "When the State Pension was introduced in 1948 the ratio of working age people to pensioners was 5–1." Given that women weren't generally working and that not every man of working age was employed - many were disabled from the war so I have just doubled the ratio. I reckon this is too low and seem to remember reading somewhere that the ration was nearer 12:1