Welfare and Choice

April 1st saw the passing into force of the Conservative welfare cuts. The Guardian met this date with an outpouring of effort - largely unmatched across the British press - into alerting its readers to the imminent impact (Toynbee, 2013). If left unchallenged, that impact is likely to be further reaching and longer lasting than its immediate detrimental impact upon the lives of those presently dependant upon welfare.

Welfare, in its basic form, was established in the UK as part of the Liberal welfare reforms - where a limited form of unemployment insurance was introduced. While still following this basic premise - that those employed pay a contribution, a kind of mandatory insurance, that covers them in times of unemployment - welfare has expanded to offer support against a range of problems that prevent people from working. But it comes with a proviso: support is given to get those who can back to supporting themselves.

Since the welfare cuts were announced by the government, the coalition junior partner Liberal Democrats have have been trying to stress the positives (Clegg, 2010). They have been trying to convince the world that the reductions and restructuring are designed to turn welfare from a safety net into a springboard - launching those in need back to something productive, and there-in, back to control over their own lives.

But behind this positive message, the liberal carrot, is a rather brutal conservative stick. The changes to welfare introduce yet more strict limits on the amount of aid people can receive and in what situation they can count on it; stricter limits for housing support; and stricter limits on their right to refuse work placements regardless of their suitability (BBC, 2013) - and even when they are unpaid (Malik, 2013).

Those controls reveal a cynical attitude. They suggest the presence of a deep mistrust of the poor. A mistrust of those who need help and especially those who ask for it. That cynicism is reshaping the welfare system into a means to corral the needy, at arms length, back to the self-interested, self-motivated, pursuit of wealth.

But, more than just that cynicism, the changes let slip something odd about the ideology behind it. If the self-interested pursuit of wealth is, in and of itself, a positive and liberating course, why would you need coercion to set people onto that path? Why not just champion its benefits?

It seems that the ideology driving the changes possesses a fundamental lack of belief; either in the possibility of self-emancipation through effort earned wealth (Ariely, 2009), or in the ability of people to change and become capable of pursuing those aims.

Such a fundamental disbelief in people is dangerous. Firstly, using fear to socially engineer society and control people towards a particular working attitude also has alternative effects.

For those seeking economic growth, taking away the cost of a safety net might seem attractive. But that safety net - which kicks in when times get hard and employment is limited - helps to stave off more than hunger. It also counteracts fear. Specifically, it is the assurance against hard times that allows people freedom to spend and lend rather than save.

Secondly, that fundamental disbelief is dangerous because it threatens choice. People do not react to fear by becoming innovators. They learn the exploitative tricks of those around them or seek out the solidarity and strength of the group. You can bludgeon people into the workplace, but all you will get is a subjugated or compliant workforce - and in the process you risk destroying any positive image of the value of work.

At the core of innovation is choice. Innovation requires experience of making choices, and a life controlled by fear, of adhering to orders and authorities, limits that experience - and makes it difficult to make sound decisions.

'The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation, to a little more of administrative skill or that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State, which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.' (John Stuart Mill, 1859)

Without choice, without support for their autonomy, the ability of people to motivate themselves and innovate is severely hindered. Choice means individuals standing on their own two feet, something that cannot be achieved through fear and coercion; but instead requires education, encouragement, support, compassion and, yes, an effective safety net.

==========
References:
==========
+ Polly Toynbee's 'Benefit cuts: Monday will be the day that defines this government'; in The Guardian; 28 March 2013.

+ 'Major reforms to welfare system announced'; Nick Clegg at dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk; 11 November 2010.

+ BBC's 'Benefit changes: Who will be affected?'; 27 March 2013.

+ Shiv Malik's 'Judgement expected on government's unpaid work schemes'; in The Guardian; 12 February 2013.

+ Dan Ariely's 'The Trouble with Cold Hard Cash'; in Technology Review, 5 August 2009.

+ John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'; 1859.