What does Right & Left mean?”, I was asked at the weekend. My bumbling explanation journeyed from the French Revolution towards ownership, state intervention, communism, Hayek, and finally ended up on law & order policies. After all of this my friend still had a quizzical expression so I gave up and went for the simple: “Right is Conservative and Left is Labour. Oh, and don’t forget that Right is right so vote Conservative at every opportunity you get*…”
Life is of course not as simple as the above. On Tuesday the former Labour Home Secretary, David Blunkett, gave a speech to the right-wing think-tank Centre for Social Justice (CSJ). The CSJ is famous for being the place where Iain Duncan Smith (IDS) gained political gravitas after he had failed to find any status when leader of the Conservative Party. The CSJ is also highly regarded for the research it conducts on the causes of poverty. The title of Blunkett’s speech was: ‘The politics of fear versus the politics of hope in a rapidly changing world.’
According to the former Home Secretary we live in a world that has never had so much rapid change in it as we do now. This leads to greater uncertainty in life. Blunkett acknowledged that the past contained insecurities and uncertainties but the impacts of this were less negative as people were more likely to live in a stable family and community environment.
Rapid social change means that people find it hard to get to grips with what is happen to their local shops, schools and community environment. People fear change when they don’t understand it. Blunkett admitted that Labour made a mistake when they allowed unlimited immigration from Eastern Europe. The statisticians had only predicted a fraction of the eventual number who would come to Britain.
In David’s experience a lot of people on benefits write themselves off too easily. He wished IDS good luck with his current legislative programme but warned that welfare reform is very difficult. Every step you take will be challenged by those who are directly effected, plus well meaning people who don’t understand the bigger structural issues the country faces.
Blunkett believes that there needs to be a two sided message to welfare. The first is that it is right to help people in need. The second is that the purpose of welfare should be to get people away from being reliant on benefits. In the post-war era welfare provisions were nationalised. This was needed because the country faced huge problems post-World War II. It was refreshing to hear a Labour politician talk about the downside of this approach. If people don’t feel close to the people they are helping then reciprocity** brakes down.
David Blunkett’s conclusion was that it is now time to decentralise the welfare state. The current model is not relevant to the world we live in. Blunkett would like to see both the Labour and Conservatives, and maybe even the Lib Dems, work together to find the best way to achieve this goal.
I certainly do not agree with everything that David Blunkett believes in but it was good to hear a Labour politician acknowledge that the status quo is unsustainable and offer a decentralising Labour alternative. As Ed Miliband launches Labour’s policy review he would do well to follow Blunkett’s approach of tackling the substance of the problems we face, rather than opportunistic point scoring
*You can’t blame a political partisan for trying…
** Reciprocity: A mutual or cooperative interchange of favours or privileges
New blogpost: David Blunkett’s favourite word is ‘reciprocity’ http://bit.ly/mgEthr #fb
Some thoughts after hearing Blunkett speak at the CSJ on decentralising welfare and rediscovering ‘reciprocity’ http://t.co/9Ys8GqR
“@PlatformTen: New blogpost: David Blunkett’s favourite word is ‘reciprocity’ http://t.co/k5YwhhK">> mine too!
I think Blunkett makes a very good point about reciprocity and polarised communities.
But I worry that a too decentralised model would leave us in a situation not too far from social housing provision. Where poorer areas are unable to fund, maintain and provide enough quality housing, while richer ones begrudge giving anything back into the pot to help them.
As a historian, I am also wary of the ‘board of guardians’ era of welfare provision which caused so much pain and hardship for those in need. And was instrumental in calls for the nationalisation of such care. As we saw on that tv programme ‘the street that cut everything’. People are not afraid to be callous to their neighbours over trivial costs, and the silent majority will not support those without a voice.
Nick Denys on David Blunkett’s speech to the Centre for Social Justice. http://t.co/YkvErvQ