David Cameron promises opportunity for the few and hopelessness for the rest

Under the Conservatives' new plans to remedy the “something for nothing culture” in the UK, you will now be getting nothing for something.

There is now a well established pattern of the Conservative Party kicking the poorest, in reaction to a crisis. It is like a nervous tic. If an asteroid threatened the earth with imminent Armageddon, their reaction - I am quite sure - would be to privatise all observatories, give a tax break to a restrictively defined class of married astronaut and cut all benefits.

After a very successful Labour Party conference, George Osborne announced wide ranging schemes which would once and for all tackle the “something for nothing culture” in the UK. I was very willing to listen. If anyone knows about the “something for nothing culture”, after all, it is a man who inherited his considerable wealth and flipped his taxpayer-funded constituency home for a profit of £400k; the only man in history whose CV reads “Data Entry Clerk, Towel Folder, Member of Parliament, Chancellor of the Exchequer”. This comes less than a week after revealing he is launching a legal challenge against the EU, at taxpayers’ expense, to protect grotesque Bankers’ bonuses. Protecting the people whose selfish and malicious decisions caused this crisis, while punishing the many innocents who lost their living as a result of it.

Never mind the fact that workfare schemes of the kind proposed do absolutely nothing to create jobs and their success in getting people to work is questionable, at best. Never mind that no work has been done to model whether such schemes actually cannibalise real jobs and have a deflationary effect on wages. The report the government itself commissioned to look at such schemes abroad concluded that “Workfare is least effective in getting people into jobs in weak labour markets where unemployment is high.” Never mind that, rather than eliminating the “something for nothing culture”, these schemes actually elevate it to the corporate level.  

The popularity of such initiatives is predicated on a bizarre form of reverse social envy against those less fortunate; built on stories of rhetorical drawn curtains and fictional families no member of which has worked in three generations. “Getting up early in the morning and doing something I hate for money is what I have to do. You should have to, too. Even if it is entirely counterproductive.” That seems to be the cri-de-coeur rising from the people whom the Tories claim to represent. Those “hardworking taxpayers” so self-sufficient they do not even need hyphens.

“Is this the start of a process where people will work for no salary?” asked a BBC News anchor. “Not quite. They will still get benefits,” countered their chief political correspondent, Norman Smith. But here is a question which has not been answered: if National Insurance no longer insures me against unemployment - one of the key elements for which both I and my employer pay it – why should we still be paying it at precisely the same rate? To cross-subsidise a cut of the top rate of tax? To pay for the pensions’ liability of Royal Mail employees, long after we have sold the assets? To fund legal action which seeks to protect City bonuses?

The whole concept of insurance is that you pay into it, knowing you may never need it, in order to purchase peace of mind. Nobody would stand for a car insurer suddenly turning around and asking its customers to do a bit of free work in its offices in order for their claim to be honoured. It may be emotionally easy to support such schemes if you connect them to rare but overly publicised cases of people defrauding the state. It is less easy to support them if you connect them to, for instance, military personnel which were dumped en mass by the 2010 review, have had great trouble getting back into the civilian workforce and many of whom will be coming up to two years unemployed soon. Lloyd George, introducing the National Insurance bill to Parliament in 1911, called it “a measure that will relieve untold misery in myriads of homes — misery that is undeserved; that will help to prevent a good deal of wretchedness.” The only thing that has changed, subtly but insidiously, appears to be public perception of “undeserved”.

What do these measures, which you may support emotionally, mean for you logically? Do they not vitiate one of the most important principles of our society? How certain are you that you or your children will not find yourselves cleaning graffiti or sweeping streets in two year’s time, for no remuneration other than the luxury of claiming back from a system into which you have paid? Will our lives be better or worse for the lack of that safety net? Now, you may answer all those questions in a way which confirms your support of such punitive measures. But at least make sure you ask them.

Cameron went further on Wednesday. He announced proposals to withdraw housing benefit, possibly all benefits, from under 25s. Again, very little thought has gone on the economic effect on parents, who will have to subsidise their children for seven years more than they might have budgeted. Not to mention the human cost for families who cannot afford to. That, in a nutshell, is what one gets with the Conservatives. A transfer of liability, en mass, from the state to the citizen, while personal and indirect taxation add up to more and more and, crucially, unbeknown to most the national debt continues to increase from under £800bn in 2010 to an eye-watering £1.4trn in 2015. Sorry to inform you, some “tough decisions” have had to be made. You are now getting nothing for something. Paying National Insurance, then having to work below minimum wage for your payout. Paying to buy shares in a mail service you already own and end up not owning it.

Certainty for corporations. Uncertainty for individuals. Land of opportunity for the few. Wasteland of hopelessness for the rest. The relentless focus is on creating an environment of advantage and security for business – and only large multinational business, at that – so that they may budget, invest and thrive. The implication is that individuals do not budget, do not invest and do not deserve to thrive. Were you planning to retire around 60? Did you think you had discharged your financial responsibility to your offspring when they reached majority? Were you under the impression that paying into a social security kitty granted you to some level of social security?

Not to worry, though; at least both you and your neighbour have to open your curtains at the same time in the morning. Which is what really matters, right?

When the going gets tough, the Conservatives kick the poorest. Photo: Getty

Greek-born, Alex Andreou has a background in law and economics. He runs the Sturdy Beggars Theatre Company and blogs here You can find him on twitter @sturdyalex

Getty
Show Hide image

Should the UK get militarily involved in Syria?

There is a ceasefire, in name only, agreed by all parties, including Russia.  But it is not enforced 

The foreign secretary Boris Johnson remarked on Thursday that the "UK would find it very difficult to refuse a US request to strike Syrian regime targets in response to another use of WMD". Hopefully, is an indication, at last, in a change in British policy towards Syria. 

After six years of fighting, over 500,000 dead, four million refugees, 11 million internally displaced people, and most of the country raised to the ground, it is clear to most that our policy of acquiescence, along with many others, is not working. Had we intervened at the beginning the crisis, the situation could not possibly have been worse. 

Johnson's comments caused controversy. But in fact, too many MPs in Westminster seem inward-looking, inexperienced and unworldly. Their fear of repeating the mistakes of Iraq has paralysed their thoughts and actions. This I find most frustrating. There are WMD in Syria and Assad is prepared to use them and against his own people. Our inactivity has in no small measure fuelled the rise of Isis, which as we now know is a direct threat to those MPs in Westminster and the country as a whole. Turn the other cheek to both Isis and Assad, and we should expect it well and truly slapped, again and again.

It is right and proper, as the closest ally of the US and a member of the UN Security Council that we take our responsibilities to protect the innocent seriously, wherever they are in the world. The UK must reinforce the red line, and taboo of using WMD to the absolute degree. Some in Westminster would have our nuclear deterrent and military confined to the barracks, and would avoid confrontation at every opportunity, in the hope that the worlds’ despots, dictators and terrorist will ignore us. This naivety could lead to the terminal decline of the UK as a global honest broker, our marginalisation on the world stage and an easy target for those who would do us harm.

But it is not direct military action by the UK against Assad that will resolve the crisis in Syria. The Geneva Process, which even the Russians are a part of, provides the framework for a political and democratic solution. However, without UN military support it has virtually no hope of success.

The first and overriding requirement in Syria is a ceasefire. There is one, in name only, agreed by all parties, including Russia, in Astana earlier this year.  But it is not enforced and never will be without the UN monitoring it. Just this month alone, the regime and Russian jets have attacked and destroyed seven hospitals run by the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organisations (UOSSM) in Idlib Province.

The UN must police this ceasefire with monitors and peacekeepers. I hope Mr Johnson, who also previously offered British troops to this task, will now, after his comments on Thursday be good to his word. The second requirement for peace is Safe Zones. Millions of civilians are without the bare essentials in life and are besieged by the warring factions. UN military personnel are required to protect these people, and to enable the millions of tonnes of aid, which sits gathering dust in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan to get to where it should be, and to support reconstruction of the shattered infrastructure.

With the bare essentials of a ceasefire and safe zones in place, monitored and protected by the UN, there is just a fighting chance that the Geneva Process can progress.  It is Russian President Vladimir Putin who holds all the cards, and I cannot believe that the combined influence of the other members of the UN Security Council, or at least the US, UK and France, that together vastly outcompete his deterrent, cannot persuade him to come to the negotiating table. This could mean relaxing sanctions against Russia and allowing its forces a naval and air base in the Mediterranean. If this is viewed as "humble pie", it might be worth eating.

So I for one welcome the foreign secretary’s comments. Israel has shown this week that it will strike targets at will in Assad’s heartland and against his Allies with impunity, to protect its people. Russia, Syria and Iran do not lift a finger or comment in the face of these attacks, knowing that Israel has no qualms at using all its military capabilities to protect itself. 

Sometimes you just have to use force when all other options are exhausted. It is now time for the UN to use its collective military capability to force the peace in Syria. I hope the UK is in the vanguard of this battle.

Hamish de Bretton-Gordon OBE is a chemical weapons expert who has visited Syria many times during the war. He is the director of Doctors Under Fire and an adviser to UOSSM.

0800 7318496