Wednesday 27 June 2007

New Poverty

When Mother needs a few objects for the church Bazaar she goes to Liberty's, leaving Cyril, Anthea, Robert, and Jane (with the Lamb to be kept happy and entertained) on their good behaviour; but with adults in the house as well. The burned nursery carpet is replaced with a persian rug from the secondhand shop in nearby Camden High Street. The children display an education that covers literature, grammar, geometry, history, geography, and considerable social skills.

So how much a year is there here, in this English middle class family living respectably but prudently on Father's work? £100,000 would not be enough, £150,000 would be on the low side.

Today the reckoning so often predicted by economic doomsayers has arrived, not with the cataclysmic instancy predicted but with a slow, irreversible loss of lifestyle for millions.

While the middle class was never millions' strong, it punched above its weight spectacularly, proffering a civilized, interesting, enjoyable way of life without offending sensibility on exclusion - social or economic. Aspiration and determination led to inclusion, and the compexity of its cultural endowment (whatever culture it might be, for middle classness is found in all our cultures) could be passed through the generations even when misfortune or incompetence led to economic poverty.

Centuries of writing centre on the social consensus to support this ideal; Fanny Price may live in a Portsmouth slum with a pig of a father but she, and her siblings, are gathered back ( motivated naturally, at first, by family self interest). Leonard Bast may end up dead, (and today Charles Wilcox is released), but he got far enough to be killed. Pick your own novel, but no-one is denied the chance to try or denied the support to stay.

Until now. In the last ten years there has been the most vicious attack upon the most characteristic, the defining, notion of our open society. And, in the name of 'equality', 'the ending of poverty', 'social integration' we are to be confined to our own sphere, controlled by the withdrawal of economic independence, education, intergenerational ties, family connexion, personal privacy, and freedom of movement.

Punitive taxation, gift prohibition, inheritance denial, means testing, social imprinting rather than the acquisition of culture and learning, the atomisation of kinship groups, and grotesque invasions of personal privacy by 'health' and 'social' services compulsorily funded by us all, reign; and as all faces are forced to turn towards the State and away from one another, isolation is consoled by pornography and licence.


We cannot think of the damage only to ourselves. Think of what we can give our children, and how little it is when we think of what our parents and theirs, gave to us.

8 comments:

Sen. C.R.O'Blene said...

HG,

That is well worth re-reading several times. Your statement is so true.

Just wait until Equity Release in property becomes a national necessity, then almost certainly compulsory. There will be government interference throughout, and Blair's legacy will be compounded with Brown's as provider of the worst economic table for the next two generations.

hatfield girl said...

The powers that have been taken by our state in the last decade are unmatched in any other state regime.

They have been taken as well in the form of enabling acts, so that their specific applications require no discussion, and certainly no democratic debate.

You have just pointed out a real horror and, as you say, where it leads is obvious.

People are being made to do as they are told; and denied all means of disengaging. Such a state as the New Order does not permit individual slipping away, refusal, or private arrangements.

Not for the New Poor; they are almost wholly enclosed in a single system of redistribution among themselves, administered for their own good, from outside.

hatfield girl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
lilith said...

I found an enthusiastic review of E Nesbit amongst my daughter's mess when she was about 8. I'm sure Ms Nesbit helped form the blueprint for the education my girl wanted for herself...not long after she begged to be sent to an old fashioned prep school in Kent...boarding, 70 pupils, 250 acres of woodland with streams and ponds and mandatory daily muddiness...she LOVED it...found Dumas unabridged in the library, was able to progess at her own rate (fast!). I wanted to go there myself...

Secondary school was a waste of time for her. Inspite of the enormous price tag, unless you go to Eton or Harrow or some such, a classical education is a thing of the past. She spent 3 years treading water, wondering why she was there, until it was time to sit GCSEs, which she walked.

You can spend £22k a year on educating your child, but unless they are really curious they still won't be as savvy at the end of it as the kids are in E. Nesbit.

Ps...I am not really here...still on holiday, but we packed up on account of the rain and wind!

Anonymous said...

HG, you do have a good point, no doubt, but you are weakening it by overdoing it.

Punitive taxation - yes. Gift prohibition? Nobody prohibits gifts, thejust attract punitive taxation. Inheritance denial? No, here as well we are talking about one and the same thing, a taxation rate which is not justified by what the government does with the revenue.

Means testing? the price of not having it is the dilution of benefits over the whole population. Of course means testing has other costs (see below).

Social imprinting rather than the acquisition of culture and learning? Yes, that's bad enough.

Atomisation of kinship groups? Sure, but why blame the government???

Grotesque invasions of personal privacy by 'health' and 'social' services compulsorily funded by us all, reign? That is the cost of means testing, see above. Choose whether you would rather have the higher cost of welfare without means testing, or the loss of privacy; you can't have both.

"And as all faces are forced to turn towards the State and away from one another, isolation is consoled by pornography and licence". But nobody is forced to turn towards the State - other than by their own need and destitution. Nobody - certainly not the state - is forcing people to turn away from one another. And whatever is the matter with pornography and licence as long as it involves exclusively consenting adults?

hatfield girl said...

Lilith you are back!, such a wailing and gnashing going on at yours it has to be read to be believed. Not even comments towards the end , just waaahhh sounds.

hatfield girl said...

No point whispering on a blog, Caronte, it's a different rhetoric to academic assertion and exchange.

Economics has the capacity, and the tendency, to employ reductionism. Yes gifts, inheritance, any source of wealth transfer, as well as earnings, all economic transactions - you name it the state has it covered and takes its giant bite - are reducible to being considered as taxation. Perhaps that helps economists to think about it. (After all, faced with a sardine tin and no opener they can just assume it's open.)

The effect of all this taxation is to impoverish us to the point of forcing the consumption of inferior and even harmful goods. And it needs talking about, loudly, in real, individuated terms about its purposes and its effects.

The use of means testing to compensate for taxation-induced poverty atomises kinship groups; that's what it's got to do with the state and why the Labour government is to blame.

Means testing is not the unique mode of dealing with the dilution of assistance across the entire population, as taxation, properly rather than being punitively and coercively used, can be used properly instead to claw back inapproriate payment to people who are not in need of assistance.

The cost of means testing in terms of its intrusive and controlling aspects in people's lives is a major aspect of its unacceptability.

People are forced to turn towards the state because the state is confiscating their earnings and interfering the people's choices on how to spend and distribute their money.

Pornography and licence can and do pollute everyone's world; it is not possible to cop out with'in private...consenting' because it is in the street and it is frightening the horses.

Newmania said...

I enjoyed that HG which makes a nice gestalt of some concerns I have variously come across and you do not over egg the pudding it at all. "social imprinting rather than the acquisition of culture and learning" This is very important and I have come across the same idea both in Nick Cohen and Walden’s stuff. You express it quite beautifully and it is around this nexus of ideas that the grammar school problem arose. It sickens me to see the left scoff while well meaning people sincerely discuss what is best for children and society. Patently it is not what we have now and the Grammar school brigade have some very good points . Politically it is dead but its hard to dislike someone for lacking cynicism.

One of your best and a delight to come home to …fawn fawn


Caronte it was well worth you making your ill proportioned remarks in order that HG should elegantly skewer you with a disdainful flick of her intellectual foil . I trust you are dining well on humble Pie and contrition. Its good for you.