Small State for a Small Future

Political parties are defined by their view of the role of the State. States' expenditure principally concerns the security and well-being of its citizens. How there are supported depends on the flavour of those in the ascendency at any time. Those governing parties accepting responsibility for the greater burden of the people's needs perforce raise the largest funds with which to pay for these, usually via taxes as the principal repeatable source. Governments deeming taxation to be theft of citizens' hard-earned income; and believing that individuals should shoulder the burden of their own well-being, regardless of circumstance, typically tax less - though frequently with little similar compunction when it comes to paying for those outgoings they favour. It seems that Small State believers will pare back ruthlessly services for well-being whilst lavishing tax receipts on arms used to assault citizens of other States.

Small Staters take a harsh view of needy citizens, so intent are they on allowing the economically successful to keep hold of their wealth. Healthcare, education, housing, and retirement are matters for personal decision, even for those who for any reason are unable to afford to pay. Impecuniousness is a sin in a market economy - or a disaster. It is clear that in a Big State citizens want for less, insofar as services are provided for them, paid for by tax receipts; but those earning most must share more of their income accordingly. In some States the payment of taxes for such common benefit is accepted as a right and proper part of citizenship.

How politicians explain their preferences for the type of State they would create is instrumental in how the public takes sides. Small Staters tend to demonise terms regarded as anodyne by others, like "tax", "borrowing", "poverty" and "entitlement", in attempts to persuade the general public that any party suggesting increases in tax or welfare is unpatriotic. Citizens undergoing temporary shortage of income, long-term disability or simply old age are contemptuously treated in media as second-class, while those riding high on commercial success are placed on a pedestal. But in such a climate, what do we, the people, lose? Once the State has shrunk such that only the rich can afford hospital care or education, how can Big State ever be restored, no matter how desirable to the majority; and how are the ordinary people to achieve well-being?

First, the country loses the capacity to provide universal education and care of a reasonable quality. Society then polarises into haves and have-nots, with a growing risk to cohesion. Second, the failure of the State to invest for the long-term in basis science, technology and infrastructure on which depend jobs, decent pay and commerce may deprive enterprise of the platform for their future success. Third, lack of capability in meeting the needs of ordinary people within the public sector may place the country at grave risk as under-paid private sector providers fall away, leaving the State in crisis with responsibility but no means to fulfil it. The Small State will lead to a small future.

Instead of shying away from those things demonised by the Right, believers in public services and State investment must reclaim or rewrite the lexicon and ruthlessly describe the benefits of the Big State, and publicise just how they spend money for the citizens.

One Nation includes disabled and mentally ill citizens

To plagiarise Oscar Wilde, this Government seems to know the cost of everything and the value of no-one. Its treatment of disabled people shows just how fixated it has become on reducing the role of the State and on cutting expenditure, at the expense of people’s well-being. If profit is not attached, expenditure has no point to them.

Attacks on Disability Support Allowance; arbitrary assessment of disabled people as Work Ready; the threatened closure of the Independent Living Fund; withdrawal of support for moderate disabilities; the Bedroom Tax; slashing of adult social care budgets. These are just some of the ways in which the Coalition has focussed its ideologies against citizens. Yet as citizens, all have rights and needs. Just as people’s needs for education, healthcare or transport differ – yet are accepted as entitlements to a degree – disabled people’s needs should not be the focus of this clearly deliberate attack, which smacks of “untermensch”-ism. It seems that Tories regard all claimants as scroungers to be deprived of social security entitlements.

Whatever the ideological basis for these cuts, whether reduction in the size of the State or, worse, a deliberate demonisation of people unfortunate enough already, this has little to do with economics and rides roughshod over rights. There is a failure of joined-up thinking to be overcome, as those cast aside from, for example, educational support, are left less likely to find jobs, which the Tories seem to regard as a panacea. Labour must ride to the rescue of disabled people and restore their right as citizens to public services, both as a moral issue and a pragmatic one. These are voters, after all and a significant minority in need of championing [11.6 million people have a limiting long-term illness, impairment or disability in Great Britain (Office for Disability Issues, 2014)]. The mantra of “independent living” sounds great but lack of support at home for disabled people can leave them having recourse to GPs or A&E at far greater cost to the exchequer. Personal Assistant support, essential for prolonged independence, is under-funded and lacks mandatory standards.

Where parties do agree is on the desirability of integrated, personalised health and care, to maximise independent living. This is a genuine win-win model, being better for the user and more cost effective. But even here, Labour must not follow the Coalition path, which has led already to thousands being outside social security, either by virtue of changes in eligibility criteria, harsh sanctioning or by falling outside the radar, perhaps through loss or a carer. Anyone can become disabled; but their ability to deal with the consequences depends on availability of resources. So far, disabled citizens have been hit disproportionately harder by cuts than most. Labour must listen to them; ensure their individual needs are assessed; then be their advocate and rescuer. Labour must ensure that it reinvests in effective public services, provided to acceptable standards. What higher duty does a State have than the well-being of its citizens?

Tom Serpell