Poverty is more damaging to health than obesity and smoking. These cuts will kill

Welfare cuts will render people less able to work.

In the wake of the welfare cuts there has been some excellent writing on poverty and how it feels. One of my favourites comes from Alex Andreou:

I find nothing more disingenuous than rich MPs or celebrities experimenting on television to see whether they can live on a weekly amount of X or Y and conclude “gosh it’s very hard, but doable”. Such meaningless exercises ignore the cumulative effect of poverty; they never start from a position of empty food cupboards, looming debt, threadbare clothes and shoes with holes in them. They ignore the devastating financial effect that a visit to the dentist or a child’s birthday or one late charge can have. They also ignore the fundamental psychological difference of “I know this will be over in a week” as opposed to “this may never end; this may just get worse”.

It's a vital point, because the way poverty feels not only traps you there "and pulls you under", but actually makes you ill (which in turn traps you there). People living in poverty are twice as likely to suffer from depression - which makes it that much more difficult to do all those things that make you a "hard-working striver", worthy of help. And, of course, the changes to welfare policy have also done harm just because they are changes. It's difficult to plan for the future, to be a striver and a saver, if the goalposts keep changing.

But these cuts will also kill. Those in poverty die, on average, seven years earlier.  Infants of poor women are more likely to be stillborn or born too early or too small. They are more likely to die within the first week of life or in infancy.

The government has made much of the need for tough policies on obesity, smoking, and alcohol. But the changes in welfare policy will do far more damage. 875,000 deaths in the US in 2000 were attributed to poverty and income inequality. Note how this compares to US deaths in the same year from obesity (400,000), and from smoking (435,000).

Pushing someone further into poverty is not a spur to action, but a way of rendering them slowly less capable of work. In fact arguments about welfare laziness miss the point entirely. Take a quick look on twitter, and it's full of employees pissing about Everyone is lazy. Some of us are just lucky enough to be paid for it.

 
 
 
 
Photograph: Getty Images

Martha Gill writes the weekly Irrational Animals column. You can follow her on Twitter here: @Martha_Gill.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism

Forcing tech firms to create a "backdoor" to access messages would be a gift to cyber-hackers.

The UK has endured its worst terrorist atrocity since 7 July 2005 and the threat level has been raised to "critical" for the first time in a decade. Though election campaigning has been suspended, the debate over potential new powers has already begun.

Today's Sun reports that the Conservatives will seek to force technology companies to hand over encrypted messages to the police and security services. The new Technical Capability Notices were proposed by Amber Rudd following the Westminster terrorist attack and a month-long consultation closed last week. A Tory minister told the Sun: "We will do this as soon as we can after the election, as long as we get back in. The level of threat clearly proves there is no more time to waste now. The social media companies have been laughing in our faces for too long."

Put that way, the plan sounds reasonable (orders would be approved by the home secretary and a senior judge). But there are irrefutable problems. Encryption means tech firms such as WhatsApp and Apple can't simply "hand over" suspect messages - they can't access them at all. The technology is designed precisely so that conversations are genuinely private (unless a suspect's device is obtained or hacked into). Were companies to create an encryption "backdoor", as the government proposes, they would also create new opportunities for criminals and cyberhackers (as in the case of the recent NHS attack).

Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesman's Will Dunn earlier this year: "Nobody in this organisation or our parent organisation will ever ask for a 'back door' in a large-scale encryption system, because it's dumb."

But there is a more profound problem: once created, a technology cannot be uninvented. Should large tech firms end encryption, terrorists will merely turn to other, lesser-known platforms. The only means of barring UK citizens from using the service would be a Chinese-style "great firewall", cutting Britain off from the rest of the internet. In 2015, before entering the cabinet, Brexit Secretary David Davis warned of ending encryption: "Such a move would have had devastating consequences for all financial transactions and online commerce, not to mention the security of all personal data. Its consequences for the City do not bear thinking about."

Labour's manifesto pledged to "provide our security agencies with the resources and the powers they need to protect our country and keep us all safe." But added: "We will also ensure that such powers do not weaken our individual rights or civil liberties". The Liberal Democrats have vowed to "oppose Conservative attempts to undermine encryption."

But with a large Conservative majority inevitable, according to polls, ministers will be confident of winning parliamentary support for the plan. Only a rebellion led by Davis-esque liberals is likely to stop them.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496