The New New Poor Law
Reblogged
from kittysjones:
A society with inequalities is and always has been the rational product of
Conservative Governments. History shows this to be true. Tory ideology is built
upon a very traditional feudal vision of a “grand scheme of things”, which is
extremely and sharply hierarchical.
The New Poor Law of 1834 was based on the “principle of less eligibility,”
which stipulated that the condition of the “able-bodied pauper” on relief be
less “eligible” – that is, less desirable, less favourable – than the condition
of the independent labourer. “Less-eligibility” meant not only that the pauper
receive less by way of relief than the labourer did from his wages but also that
he receive it in such a way (in the workhouse, for example) as to make pauperism
less respectable than work – to stigmatise it. Thus the labourer would be
discouraged from lapsing into a state of “dependency” and the pauper would be
encouraged to work.
The Poor Law “made work pay”, in other words.
The Poor Law Commission report, presented in March 1834, was largely the
work of two of the Commissioners, Nassau Senior and Edwin Chadwick. The report
took the outline that poverty was essentially caused by the indigence of
individuals rather than economic and social conditions. Paupers claimed relief
regardless of his merits: large families got most, which encouraged improvident
marriages; women claimed relief for bastards, which encouraged immorality;
labourers had no incentive to work; employers kept wages artificially low as
workers were subsidised from the poor rate.
The Victorian era has made a deep impact upon Tory thinking, which had
always tended towards nostalgia and tradition. Margaret Thatcher said that during the
1800s, “not only did our country become great internationally, also so much
advance was made in this country … As our people prospered so they used their
independence and initiative to prosper others, not compulsion by the
state”.
There she makes an inference to the twin peaks of callous
laissez-faire and the mythical “trickle down” effect. Yet history taught us only
too well that both ideas were inextricably linked with an unforgivable and
catastrophic increase in destitution, poverty and suffering for so many, for the
purpose of extending profit for a few.
Writing in the 1840s, Engels observed that Manchester was a source of
immense profit for a few capitalists. Yet none of this significantly improved
the lives of those who created this wealth. Engels documents the medical and
scientific reports that show how human life was stunted and deformed by the
repetitive, back breaking work in The Condition Of The Working Class In
England. Constantly in his
text, we find Engels raging at those responsible for the wretched lives of the
workers. He observed the horror of death by starvation, mass alienation, gross
exploitation and unbearable, unremitting poverty.
The great Victorian empire was built whilst the completely unconscientious,
harsh and punitive attitude of the Government further impoverished and caused so
much distress to a great many. It was a Government that created poverty and also
made it dishonourable to be poor. Whilst Britain became great, much of the
population lived in squalid, disease-ridden and overcrowded slums, and endured
the most appalling living conditions. Many poor families lived crammed in
single-room accommodations without sanitation and proper ventilation.That’s
unless they were unlucky enough to become absolutely destitute and face the
horrors of the workhouse. It was a country of startling contrasts. New building
and affluent development went hand in hand with so many people living in the
worst conditions imaginable.
Michael Gove has written: “For some
of us Victorian costume dramas are not merely agreeable ways to while away
Sunday evening but enactments of our inner fantasies … I don’t think there has
been a better time in our history” in “Alas, I was born far too late
for my inner era”.
A better time for what, precisely? Child labour, desperation?
Prostitution? Low life expectancy, disease, illiteracy, workhouses? Or was it
the deferential protestant work ethic reserved only for the poor, the
pre-destiny of the aristocracy, and “the rich man in his castle, the poor man at
his gate”?
In a speech to the Confederarion of British
Industry, (CBI) George Osborne argued that both parties in the
coalition had revitalised themselves by revisiting their 19th-century
roots.
When Liberal Democrat David Laws gave his first speech to the Commons as the secretary to the
Treasury, Tory MP Edward Leigh said: “I welcome the return to the Treasury
of stern, unbending Gladstonian Liberalism”, and Laws recognised the
comparison to the Liberal prime minister,and said: “I hope that this is not
only Gladstonian Liberalism, but liberalism tinged with the social liberalism
about which my party is so passionate”.
The Coalition may certainly be described as “stern and unbending”, if one is
feeling mild and generous. I usually prefer to describe them as
“retro-authoritarian”.
We know that the 19th-century Conservative party would have lost the
election had it not been rescued by Benjamin Disraeli, a “one nation” Tory
who won working-class votes only because he recognised the need and demand for
essential social reform. Laissez-faire, competitive individualism and social
Darwinism gave way to an interventionist, collectivist and more egalitarian
paradigm. And there’s something that this Government have completely missed: the
welfare state arose precisely because of the social problems and dire living
conditions created in the 19th century. The 19th century also saw the beginnings
of the Labour Party. By pushing against the oppression of the conservative
Victorian period, and by demanding reform, they built the welfare state and the
public services that the current Government is now so intent on
dismantling.
The UK Government’s welfare “reform” programme represents the greatest
change to benefits biggest changes to welfare since its inception. These changes
will impact the most vulnerable in our society. In particular, women rely on
state support to a greater extent than men and will be disproportionately
affected by benefit cuts.
Former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith (who didn’t manage to lead his
party to an election due to losing a motion of no confidence) is largely
responsible for this blitzkreig of apparent moral rigour, a right wing
permutation of “social justice” rhetoric and harsh Victorian orthodoxy.
The Government asserts that its welfare “reform” strategy is aimed at
breaking the cycle of “worklessness” and dependency on the welfare system in the
UK’s poorest families. Poor Law rhetoric. There’s no such thing as
“worklessness”, it’s simply a blame apportioning word, made up by the Tories to
hide the fact that they have destroyed the employment market, as they always
do.
The “reforms” (cuts) consist of 39 individual changes to welfare payments,
eligibility, sanctions and timescales for payment and are intended to save the
exchequer around £18 billion. How remarkable that the Department of Work and
Pensions claim that such cuts to welfare spending will
“reduce poverty“.
There’s nothing quite so diabolical as the shock of the
abysmally expected: the brisk and brazen Tory lie, so grotesquely
untrue. Such reckless rhetoric permeates Government placations for the
“reforms”.
The “reforms” were hammered through despite widespread protest, and when the
House of Lords said “no”, the Tories deployed a rarely used and ancient
parliamentary device, claimed “financial privilege” asserting that only the
Commons had the right to make decisions on bills that have large financial
implications. Determined to get their own way, despite the fact no-one welcomed
their policy, the Tories took the rare jackbooted, authoritarian step to direct
peers they have no constitutional right to challenge the Commons’ decisions
further. Under these circumstances, what could possibly go right?
The punitive approach to poverty didn’t work during the last century, it
simply stripped the unfortunate of their dignity, and diverted people, for a
while, from recognising the real cause of poverty. It isn’t about individual
inadequacies: the poor do not cause poverty, but rather, conservative
Governments do via their policy and economic decision-making.
Conservative by name and retrogressive by nature.
Many
thanks to Robert Livingstone for allowing my continued theft of his brilliant
pictures
