As of today, none of
us know what will be in the UK Budget later this month; it’s doubtful if even
the Chancellor knows yet, given that work on the detail is continuing. There
have been plenty of hints and rumours, though: enough to fuel endless
speculation and debate about whether a particular rumoured change does or does
not breach a manifesto commitment. One fairly consistent rumour, backed up in a
way by today’s suggestion that weight-loss drugs will be prescribed for overweight
people who are economically inactive, is that the benefits budget will be one
of the targets. It’s not the most lucrative of possible clampdowns – all the
evidence suggests that more government expenditure is lost to tax evasion and
fraudulent accounting than on paying benefits to those not entitled to them.
Choosing to go after benefits is just following an agenda set by the Tories and
their media friends. Having said that, it is true to say that there is a saving
to be had if benefits can be restricted to those who meet the criteria; the
political question is about whether that’s the most productive target.
It raises a question
about chickens and eggs. Is the saving being sought a result of a programme to
assist people to find suitable employment, or is it intended to use benefit
cuts to force people into work, however suitable that work might be for the
circumstances of the individual? It was pretty clear under the Tories that it
was the latter of the two: cutting benefits would allegedly create an economic
incentive which would effectively starve people into taking low-paid (and sometimes
multiple) jobs. In relation to those who see living off benefits as a lifestyle
choice, there might even be an argument for such an approach, but that group is
much smaller in number than anyone reading the tabloids might think, and one of
the problems with it is that it can end up causing a lot of collateral damage,
especially to children whose life chances are already poor. Those hit aren’t
only the tiny number of workshy. There is a huge difference between that
approach and an approach which looks at individual circumstances and provides
appropriate help and support.
The provision of
drugs to help weight loss is potentially a positive step in general terms,
although there are some serious questions about potential side-effects, and
whether it is merely treating symptoms rather than causes. But even leaving
those reservations to one side, directing support to people who are
economically inactive is a major corruption of the ethos of the NHS, which is
supposed to be about the provision of health care based on assessed medical
need. That’s rather a different proposition. It underlines the way in which
what used to be the ‘party of the working classes’ increasingly sees people
purely in terms of their economic value. There is a political philosophy based
on such a belief, but it isn’t the one Labour traditionally promoted. It’s
unclear whether the party intends this medication to be mandatory or voluntary,
but even voluntary medication of a specific group of people based on criteria
other than health needs would be something that ought to worry us. It also
plays to, and reinforces, a stereotype of benefit claimants as fat layabouts,
encouraging further stigmatisation of a large group whose needs are complex and
varied on the basis of a prejudice about a small subset of that group.
It’s not entirely
clear which approach Labour favours on
either of these issues, although the signs to date are not good. A party which
claims it wants to eliminate child poverty hasn’t hesitated to add to that
poverty to date, and has been singularly unapologetic about doing so. There is
no reason to assume that they won’t continue in the same vein.
Posts
