Welfare crime committed by Osborne

It is significant that Osborne's latest crime against the poorest in society is being promoted by him not as a sad necessity but as a Conservative Party Conference cherry, designed to keep Tory votes and possibly win Labour votes. Why is this possible? Because just as with reducing immigrants, official Labour joined the race with the other mainstream parties to attack welfare 'scroungers.' There was no immediate response from Labour in defence of the poor, or indication that they would reverse this latest Tory drive to increase poverty and immiseration. Osborne's measures are therefore more accurately called a completely mainstream, cross-Westminster party drive to squeeze the poorest, 'until the pips squeak.' The Westminster coalition is much wider than just the government. 

But the dynamics in wider society are shifting and Osborne et al have made a mistake. In Scotland the referendum drew out thousands of those at the poorest margins of society. New social actions, in housing, in defence of hospitals etc., are breaking through, led by groups that traditionally had been excluded from participation in the national debates that have swirled around single mothers, the unemployed, criminalised youth and the millions on the minumum wage or less. The general public now know that the majority in receipt of benefits are the working poor. They are aware of food banks. They know child poverty is increasing dramatically. They watched the TV debates about Benefit Street. They heard the teachers who tell us their pupils need food when they come to school. Bashing welfare is no longer the star turn it once was. 

So the debate is turning again, albeit belatedly, in Westminster. Not against austerity as such in any of the three mainstream parties, (although it is virtually the main feature of all extra parliamentary activity.)  But rather the establishment's discussion centres on austerity's 'distribution.' Even Osborne has to bash the US multinationals over tax in his speech. And some 'experts' are publicly wondering if pensions can continue to be let off 'so lightly'. (But pension changes - in terms of the delays in the access to them, and their low levels compared with most of the rest of Europe - have already provided an additional £500 billion saving to the state over the next 20 years according to the Institute of Fiscal Affairs. Additionally pensioners remain active politically, and those beneath pension age know it was not pensioners that pulled up the ladder.)

With roughly £25 billion already cut and £25 billion to go - none of the pro-austerity options for part two of Osborne's plan or Ball's repeated commitment to no new spending and no reversing the cuts already made, are looking feasible, let alone bearable. The sense of the need for a deep alternative direction is growing. Those who require welfare are increasingly forcing themselves into the argument. We need some new politicians to give the real political life of the country some expression.