Welcome to Osborne’s Hunger Games

Welfare reforms are designed to divide society against itself



In the last century our politicians’ made a promise. If you’re out of work, if you are sick or disabled, if you hit hard times, if you are young and vulnerable, if your employer doesn’t pay you enough to live on or you’ve reached your later years, the nation will provide you with dignified support.

Now these fundamental values of fairness and compassion are being stripped out of the welfare system by the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which will create a permanent system of social insecurity and uncertainty for millions. Coupled with the cuts announced in the Budget, it will remove a basic level of social protection and empowerment.

Last night the majority of the parliamentary Labour Party shrugged their shoulders in tacit resignation. This morning, George Osborne can claim forcing 330,000 more children into poverty is ‘progressive’.

But Osborne’s new social contract is fraudulent. He has distorted the facts and misrepresented not just the cost of welfare but William Beveridge’s legacy. This is a ‘Hunger Games’ politics which has divided society against itself, based on a falsehood that one group is not as worthy as another.

The extra help currently available for the sick and disabled will be slashed by a third. Lone parents looking for work will be excluded from receiving childcare. The under-25s won’t be allowed the minimum wage. Vulnerable under-21s will lose housing benefit. Vital tax credits will be slashed, hitting women and those from minority groups disproportionately. Those who have a third child will be denied support.

And at the centre is the pernicious welfare cap. The new Bill would entrench this cap, and give the government the licence to lower it at will and without debate. It is here that the principle of meeting basic need is being undermined completely.

The cap takes no account of the underlying drivers of destitution: spiralling house prices which push up housing benefit, low wages which necessitate support and an ageing population which increases the need for incapacity and disability benefits

Instead, the cap punishes people for being the victims of circumstances beyond their control.

For progressives, this should be where the line is drawn. We must confront the false narrative and build a new story.

When I was at university I befriended a woman who, after suffering abuse, left home at 16. She took part-time work, and worked her way through A-levels and then university. But it was only because of housing benefit that she was able to do this. She achieved a first class degree and went into a job where she could support others with similar experiences. She was caught by the safety net, and consequently was able to give support to others.

This is what social security really means, and it’s a reality George Osborne just can’t understand.

After the Second World War, when our debt was much higher as a proportion of GDP than it is today, we established both the NHS and the modern welfare state. Our national social security system should be as valued and engender as much pride from progressives as the NHS.

There is always room for improvement but welfare is fundamentally a public good, and we can make it even better. Welfare doesn’t just provide a safety net, it empowers and improves the life chances of the overwhelming majority.

It is time for progressives to say so loudly and proudly.

Jonathan Bartley is the Green Party’s Work and Pensions Spokesperson. Follow him on Twitter  

10 Responses to “Welcome to Osborne’s Hunger Games”

  1. Jayne Linney

    This is true Jonathan and what’s worse all the time Osborne gives BILLIONS away to private Companies – https://jaynelinney.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/20billion-more-cuts-to-fund-another-93billion-in-corporate-handouts/

  2. stevep

    The trouble with Labour (except for the rebels) giving their tacit acceptance to the bill, is that, from now on, every time they try to attack the Tories on welfare, it`s going to be thrown back in their face.
    Stupidity of the highest order.
    Labour need to stand up for something.

  3. Chris Holt

    Well said. Thank goodness there is growing and intelligent Green Party to stand up for the values of fairness and compassion – values that the majority of British people have always been proud of. Labour seems scared to do so.

  4. Bond James Bond.

    I totally agree we shouldn’t be subsidising companies with bungs, but do you agree we should limit overseas aid? Maybe just to anti-malaria drugs, mosquito nets, rather than giving cash as this cash is then used to buy British weapons from BAE et al. Why should Britain subsidize regimes with a space program or large standing armies kitted out with the latest military hardware. Surely if we are cutting essential services here, the first thing to go should be overseas aid. After all the priority of government is to keep its people safe and provide for its most vulnerable. Why do we continue to borrow to give money away? It seems ludicrous.

  5. Luke Blakey

    We do not “just give cash” Jayne and linking aid to weapons sales went out of fashion (and legality) in the 90s. Aid to india stopped in 2015 despite the fact 500 million of the billion poorest people (,’counties’, and regions of the world) live there.

    I honestly suggest you look at dfid.gov.uk for all the details of every penny distributed in projects in the 25 or so countries poor enough (or ex-/british enough) to receive our support. I have and while many of the projects are wordy,paper driven or would have to be seen personally to be understood I have no doubt that our investments in human rights abroad will bring us massive returns on investment (and support repayment of debts) beyond the 3% p.a we pay on sovereign gilts.

    Regards AP

  6. Faerieson

    It seems like only yesterday that Left Foot Forward was rallying behind the more ‘moderate’ Labour candidates, presumably those that didn’t vote against welfare cuts. And, if opposition is now encouraged to ‘mirror’ the Tories, well we might just as well support this butchering of welfare.

    A mite of consistency might help in focusing opposition. And preferably not in support of the likes of HH.

  7. Sean Garrity

    I agree so lets start by calling the Tories and anyone who supports them for what they truly are.
    Murderers, Criminals, Oxygen stealing bottom feeding slime.

  8. Frann Leach

    It’s time for a new genuinely left wing party with a spine. Labour doesn’t fit the bill any more.

  9. remarx

    Truly this man, in fact this man and his ‘chums’ need bringing to justice. Surely his punitive measures against the already suffering sick, underpaid and vulnerable must go against some humanitarian laws. Every time the man casts one of his evil spells against the poor Britain becomes more American, where only business counts, the poor can die – who cares.

    All the struggles of our forebears to create a just and humanitarian society including the formation of the Labour Party lay in ashes. Yet we do nothing but talk. The rich are still – blatently – getting richer at the expense of the poor. There obviously is money available for the alleviation of poverty in this country but this man is still able to wage his class war unchallenged. Hyperbole perhaps, but how long before the new underclass? How long before new ghettos appears? As the NHS is broken up and passes into the Private Sector, how long before the poor and sick people die because they cannot afford health care insurance?

    We are afraid to protest openly. Marches and public protests are either broken up by the police or go unreported on national television, and who knows who is watching our online protests and making notes.
    In four years this party of the rich for the rich has taken this country back – for the working classes – 100 years.

    It is time to challenge this abuse. In the 21st century it is unacceptable. But it is the British way to do nothing but shrug shoulders and accept. Truly I despair.

  10. Chris

    If there is a promise to give everyone dignified support without any strings attached then what is the insensitive to better ones self. if I choose not to work and still have a good life paid for by others then why work. As more people choose not to work those paying get less and less. is it fair that one person who works to support them selves and their family should also have to support 4 others who choose not to work. All it does is mean that those genuinely in need and should be supported by society get less and less as the money is shared with more and more people who don’t have a genuine need.

Leave a Reply