George Osborne’s proposals to make real term cuts to welfare and the impending arrival of a new Royal baby - two things that are inextricably linked.
There are two things that are really striking in recent days: George Osborne’s proposals to make real term cuts to welfare and the impending arrival of a new Royal baby; to my mind these things are inextricably linked.
We are increasingly living in a polarised society of haves and have nots. The Tories are trying to weave a narrative that pits ‘strivers’ against ‘scroungers’. However, our attitude to the news of a Royal baby to me shows how confused our attitude to the state and state provision has become.
The British Monarchy is a cornerstone of our social structure but one that is arguably funded by the public purse. Currently, the monarchy receives 15% of Crown Estate income amounting to about £200 million a year. Debatably this land isn’t private land but land kept in trust for the public.
Further, there are myriad costs of running the monarchy including security and special occasions such as the Jubilee celebrations. While the public subsidy for the monarchy has been subject to trimming, few have expressed anything but delight at a new addition to ‘the firm’.
This article doesn’t seek to make the case for a Republic but instead to probe why we can express unreserved joy at the impending royal birth and simultaneous disgust at so called ‘scroungers’ and their families.
Osborne’s decision to increase welfare benefits by 1%, under the rate of inflation, will mean real term cuts for many. One of the groups who will be adversely affected by these cuts are mums (and dads for that matter) who will be hit by below inflation rises to child benefits and working tax credits. This has been termed the ‘mummy tax’ by Labour. The term seeks to highlight the impact of Osborne’s tax cut on real families who rely on these benefits to work and support their families.
It is a piece of misdirection by Osborne to suggest these tax cuts will affect the jobless only or in Tory lingo the ‘scroungers’. What he has failed to identify is that cuts to maternity and paternity pay mean many new parents will have to make difficult choices about returning to work early so they can financially support their families.
Meanwhile, what the celebration of the royal baby showed was the continued importance of families in our society in whatever form they may come in. So why do we celebrate the birth of one but view the others with a cynical eye? Tory language of ‘scroungers’ and ‘wastrels’ hides the impact these cuts have on many working families, who are often struggling with an increasing burden in recessionary times.
So where does this leave us? In need of a candid debate about what the welfare state is for in this modern age. Beveridge’s report ‘Social Insurance and Allied Services’ had its 70th anniversary only a few weeks ago. This seminal idea of a social insurance to guarantee a basic standard of living for all was expressed to be an attack on ‘Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor, and Idleness at home’. Welfare to Beveridge’s mind was about citizenship not dividing up givers and takers; the contributory principle meant welfare wasn’t for one class but it was for all.
When Labour talks about a one nation UK it must therefore square the circle and inject new meaning into Beveridge’s state. We must be a party that believes not only in celebrating the Royal baby but guarantees a basic standard of living for all children. Whilst this will be a difficult debate it is one Labour must not shirk from if we are to serve the squeezed working families in the UK.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
37 Responses to “Beveridge, the Royal baby and Osborne’s sickening ‘scrounger’ rhetoric”
Rahul Kamath
They are different because they have a constitutional role ordained by birth/ bloodline that no one else has. Whether this is a good or bad thing is a different question altogether. But to deny that that is the current reality is simply being ostrich like.
marje
only an idiot would believe the world to be so black and white that you either a) get paid to do nothing or b) starve
grow up
Rahul Kamath
Funnily enough when it comes to the really rich they don’t have that much money. I think the Queen’s fortune is about £450M. The civil list is possibly < £30M a year. Let's compare to say Lakshmi Mittal (£12,000M) or Roman Abramovich (£9,400M).
Seeing the pictures of Prince Andrew cavorting with various American hedge fund magnates I felt almost sorry for the man whose income is about £150K a year, has a fortune of say £10M (sale of his house) and no freedom to do anything about either of those two facts.
JM10
Are you objecting to people on benefits
a) listening to music
b) having gardens
c) being outside
d) having children
e) drinking Becks
f) enjoying themselves?
Bear in mind that the music system, music and garden may have been purchased while the owners were in work, the children may have been born while their parents were in work, and also that unless you have access to their personal records you are in no position to judge if these people are claiming their benefits legally or not. You might also bear in mind that only 2.1% of people on benefits are overpaid (due to either fraud or DWP error) and 0.8% are underpaid. You might also try to remember that there are not enough jobs for people who want them.
Newsbot9
Ah yes, so when they can’t get a job because you’ve further devastated the country by slashing services massively, you’ll have them starve. Kids can go die in the street.
And yes, your cheap foreign workers will indeed “fix” your profits, after the minimum wage is cancelled…