34
A lot to think about 29 oct - 4 nov 2010
Watts In Britain By
Paul Watts
Autumn is well and truly here. Well, it is here in Blighty but I gather from my chums on the Costa Blanca that you folks are enjoying some fine sunshine at the moment. Good for you is what I say, as I dream of having a stroll down Albir seafront and popping in for a cafe con leche at the Buddah Coffee Bar - just across from the sparkling Med. Is it still there? Buddah’s that is, not the Med. That’ll still be there when I’m long gone... Oh dear, can you catch a hint of pre-autumnal blues in this sad hack? Sorry, it’s just me bracing myself from my least favourite event of the year: the clocks going back. Yup, in two days time we’re back to GMT in Britain. And if that’s not enough to be going on with the date for the government’s Comprehensive Spending Review is drawing near, and posh-mate-David and his cabinet colleagues are seeking to justify the predicted cuts – most particularly the cuts in longterm benefits – on the ground of fairness. I recently interviewed Martyn Oliver, an ex-reader of philosophy at Sussex University, on this subject for local radio and what he had to say about fairness was most interesting. Below are some verbatim ‘chunks’ of that interview. I have edited out myself and given Martyn the floor. Over to you then Martyn: “The distinction the government seems to make is between the ‘deserving’ and the ‘undeserving’ poor. It all sounds very Victorian, and smacks of the workhouse, but in essence the politicians are right. It can’t be equitable that those who are too idle, or too cynical, to make a contribution to the collective efforts of society should be better off than those who are prepared to work. But the government’s strategy for remedying the situation is wrong. Why? Because it’s not fair! “It’s not fair, for instance, for the government, in order to preserve the vote-saving token of universal benefits, to increase the tax burden of higher earners in order to claw back their child benefit. Especially when one takes into account the anomaly of the two-
parent family whose wage-earners both come in just under the threshold and thus keep their entitlement to the lot, while the single parent whose sole salary tips them over the brink loses out. Why not just get rid of the notion of universality – it’s illusory anyway – match child benefit entitlement to household income, and be done with it? “And it’s not fair for the government to re-assess those on incapacity benefit with the declared intention to get them back onto the job-seekers register, using yet another arbitrary box-ticking exercise, especially when they cite as justification the specious platitude that the claimants’ health will be better if they do a job of work. Agreed, there is likely to be a proportion of malingerers among them, but these could be much more efficiently and fairly weeded out by means of a proper medical assessment. Too dear? Not if one takes into account the cost of the appeal tribunals that most of the tick-box-decided cases go to, and which evidence suggests most of them win. “It’s worth asking what fairness is, in relation to society. Arguably we had a much fairer society in the middle of the last century, for instance, although it took a world war to achieve it. Take the case of women, who were enabled to work in the place of men sent off to fight, and they did a magnificent job of it too, gaining volumes in self-respect into the bargain. And though there was some slippage when the war was over, the attitude to women in society has remained much more equitable since then. Rationing, too, was applied equally across society. The rich were entitled to the same pinch of dried egg per week as were the poor. There was always the black market, of course, and money could make life a lot more bearable; but even so there was a sense of levelling, of being “all in the same boat” brought about by rationing. “More specifically, it can be argued that fairness is an attribute of the way that society deals with individuals that doesn’t disadvantage one against another,
and at the same time takes their dignity into account. Another view of fairness would discount the individual in favour of the greater good of the community. “The coalition government’s way seems to rest on making distinctions on the grounds of input, regardless of capability (‘Put more in and you’ll get more out, and never mind the fact that you’re physically or emotionally unfit to work’). And that’s not fair! “Finally, we should ask what work is there for our unemployed masses to do? Very little. Very little, at any rate, that brings a sense of self-respect to the worker. It’s all very well for (the otherwise admirable) Iain Duncan Smith to prate about so many million jobs available on the Job Centre lists. But how many of them are real jobs in which, at the end of the working week, something has been made, something that can actually be used, maybe even – heaven forbid – exported? “No. Our ‘me’ society has forgotten – abandoned – its work ethic, preferring instead to be managers or entrepreneurs, getting fat on the sweat of someone else’s manual labour. Except there is no labour for someone else to do, because we sold our manufacturing industry down the river 30 years ago. The overwhelming majority of employment ‘opportunities’ are in serviceindustry jobs, part-time and at minimum wage. And if the claimant is fortunate enough to land one of these shameful excuses for a job, then it will almost certainly be three bus rides away in another town, and most of the paltry income will be sucked up in fares. And that’s not fair!” “Me, I’d just as soon dig holes in the ground, or paint window-frames for OAPs, or whatever other modernday Speenhamland system is devised to give me some notion of achievement and self-respect.” ... thanks Martyn and now a song from Abba. Phew! A lot to think about there folks. Is Martyn right? What do you think? As always the email is p.watts@roundtownnews.com