In Defense of Welfare

Last week I made some mention of Disraeli and his constitutional reforms that enfranchised hundreds of thousands of people. His great rival had been Gladstone, a staunch 'Classic' Liberal. Following the era of Disraeli & Gladstone's rivalry there was a shift away from 'Classic' towards a 'Progressive' Liberalism.

The dichotomy between Disraeli's policies of enfranchisement and Gladstone's freedom through a free market in many ways could be seen to have produced this progressive shift, paving the way for Asquith & Lloyd George's more moderate and proactive government. You see the struggle between the two rivals that led Disraeli's Conservatives to push through constituency reforms, generated a newly powerful working class voting block. This new voice had gotten a taste for reform and the progressives where quick to push their legislative agenda.

The gem in the progressive crown was the Liberal Welfare Reforms. Through the combination of a policy program and budget, the Liberal government brought about a complete shift in the British approach to poverty and responsible government.

My concern is that 'Workfare' is missing the point of a century's worth of scientific research. It seems be attempting to reverse the progressive shift, favouring instead the idealistic traditionalism that the Tories have been criticised for in other policy areas. (Teacher Talks, 2010).

The crucial point they are missing is that money is not the motivator they think it is. This has been shown time and again by the studies of institutions such as Stanford and MIT. Professor Ariely discusses the merit of money motivation here (Ariely, 2009).

It strikes me then as an ideological attempt to enforce unrestricted competition that favours those that start with means, the strongest and the most imposing. It also risks a return to the 'poor laws' and utterly unethical 'workhouses' of old for those who cannot keep up.

This should not be taken to mean that competition is evil. But rather that unregulated competition leads to destructive, ruinous and counter-productive mentalities that put the market at as much risk as it does society.

Welfare can be a great leveller. It demands that no one gets left behind. It demands that those who are born into privilege are not able to exploit those unfair advantages at the expense of those who were not so fortunate in their economic background. It demands that the privileged and not so alike begin from a level playing field, to all have a fair chance.

But welfare is more than that. As it enfranchises those without, it enriches those with, by creating the fair competition that those so enamoured of the market tell us is the key to getting the best from people.

The Deputy Prime Minister Mr Clegg has been trying to provide a counterpoint to Mr Duncan Smith's presentation of Welfare Reform (Clegg, 2010), trying to convince us that this is what the Coalition policy will achieve. The Tory minister has advertised this reform to voters as a means to curtail abuse of Welfare, through harsher penalties and stricter terms. The Liberal Democrat leader on the other hand has been trying to push it as a 'work positive' approach.

But the more Mr Clegg tries to make us see these reforms as 'making work pay', the more I cannot help but see it as a thinly veiled acceptance of a policy of 'work because you have no other choice'. It is motivation less in the form of 'follow this carrot to freedom' and more 'chase this carrot or we'll beat you with this stick'.

The Liberals are doing all they can to honour the responsibilities of being in government, a coalition government no less; dealing with the compromises of everyday politics. But it is a difficult tightrope walk to balance duty & conscience.

That conscience is well summed up by David Lloyd George, on presenting his budget to fund the Liberal Welfare Reforms:

“This is a war Budget. It is for raising money to wage implacable warfare against poverty and squalidness. I cannot help hoping and believing that before this generation has passed away, we shall have advanced a great step towards that good time, when poverty, and the wretchedness and human degradation which always follows in its camp, will be as remote to the people of this country as the wolves which once infested its forests".

It is well worth watching this video if you want to learn more about the science of motivation.

==========
References:
==========
+ The Coalition Welfare Reforms:
21st Century Welfare, Forward by the Secretary of State
Unemployed told: do four weeks of unpaid work or lose your benefits
Long-term jobless 'could face compulsory manual labour'
The existing New Deal scheme already includes four weeks labour

+ Teacher Talks' 'Gove scraps a rule that doesn’t exist';

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

+ Nick Clegg's 'Poverty plus a pound isn't enough';

+  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_welfare_reforms

+ Dan Pink's 'Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us'; RSA Animate, 2010.

The Man Who Would Be Disraeli

Earlier this month I wrote what might be interpreted as a criticism of Mr Cameron. Well today I feel I should adopt a pose more suitable to any self-respecting rational gentleman. So here is a more different stance from which to consider the enigmatic Mr Cameron; and to also consider how well he is to be trusted with the faith put in him by some voters (and the voters who put their trust in someone else and still got Mr Cameron).

Benjamin Disraeli, was born in 1804 and was in office as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom first in 1868 and again between 1874 and 1880. His methods for successful conservatives are described quite succinctly by The Times (2010), in his own words, as 'Tory men and Whig measures'. During his term in office his most memorable act for many in the north - such as Ormskirk, which is graced with a statue of him - was his policy of enfranchisement (Reform Act, 1867).

It seems to be this focus upon the working class that best represents the reformist spirit that Cameron is seeking to emulate as he edges the Conservatives towards the moderate middle. Cameron also seems to fancy the rebel in Disraeli, as he has also drawn criticism from his own side for his 'radical' positions (Kenneth Clarke, 2009).

David Marquand went further with his assessment comparing Mr Cameron to a 19th Century 'Whig Imperialist':

'We can't know if Cameron will become a second Baldwin, Butler or Macmillan, but there is not much doubt that he would like to. Of course, he will not be a clone of his Whig imperialist predecessors. He aspires to govern a different country, with a different class system and economic structure; and he has learned a great deal from that magician of ambiguous populism, Tony Blair.'

Critique of Disraeli's approach (and motives) to pass the reform acts seem to be aimed at who he really wished to enfranchise, the people or the party. But whatever Disraeli's motive, his Reform Act is still the basis of the electoral system we use today, 143 years later, though much amended by subsequent Representation of the People Acts.

Cameron has come under similar criticism. This leads me to ask if it matters about ulterior motives when reform is on the cards.

+ First, whether a reformist approach, when ultimately for personal or affiliate interest will have a lasting impact upon the political process.

+ And secondly, if the individualist approaches suggested above are able to effect positive societal changes, does this signal that trickle down approaches really offer society viable & consistent affluence on all levels?

For me, motives matter. However, when results are achieved it is harder to get serious criticisms and anxieties taken seriously. Just look at the Labour years. Not until the sun began to set on 'New Labour' did we see the knives and old grievances coming out. When you're winning, few seem to care how you're winning.

==========
References:
==========
+ Reform Act, 1867; formally titled as: Representation of the People Act 1867

+ Dominic Lawson's 'Cameron, the Whig in Tory clothing';

+ David Marquand's 'Labour has got Cameron wrong: this is no crypto-Thatcherite but a Whig';

+ Laura Miller's 'Ken Clarke calls Cameron's marriage policy "social engineering";