The appointment of Esther McVey as Secretary of State at the Department of Works and pensions has provoked a furious public backlash. At the time of writing a petition to reverse her appointment was inching towards 25,000 signatures. 

McVey is an ambitious and (some would say) over-confident supporter of austerity and of swingeing cuts to benefits as a way of balancing the books. The former TV presenter once claimed that benefit sanctions “teach” job seekers to look for work seriously. She thinks food banks are a good thing and she wants to be Prime Minister.

Political discourse, which ultimately determines policy that affects millions of vulnerable citizens – people with disabilities, the elderly and the poor – is becoming dangerously polarised.

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, has called her appointment ‘alarming’. But Corbyn has also condemned the vicious personal attacks on McVey on social media. Which brings me to the point of this blog.

Political discourse, which ultimately determines policy that affects millions of vulnerable citizens – people with disabilities, the elderly and the poor – is becoming dangerously polarised. The Brexit debate is the most obvious example. It has brought long-simmering tensions to the surface and will lead to some kind of political shake-up. Social justice runs a close second. 

The post-war consensus gave birth to the welfare state, a steady rise in living standards and long period of stability. This held that at the heart of a stable community, even one as diverse as the United Kingdom, is a contract: as individuals, we receive but we also contribute; and as a collective we are interdependent. Mutual respect is the glue that holds us together. No longer. 


When I first came to Britain with my mum in 1959 from Greece (as an immigrant) I ran into that refined, noxious English nonsense – class. And a good deal of prejudice. 

But I also found a country in post-war recovery, building a social order based on fair play, compassion and respect. You gave up your seat on the bus to the elderly. Life was rather dull and class was still endemic. Not everything was hunky dory. Dixon of Dock Green was a fictional character. But he was recognisable. By and large there was a sense of the common good.

Over the past 40 years we have steadily drifted towards what the left calls neo-liberalism: a quasi-religious belief that the market is the only, viable, efficient and successful mechanism with which to organise our lives incentivising us to do better and be better. 

This impulse, kick-started by Margaret Thatcher and given a social democratic patina by Tony Blair, received a huge boost with the collapse of a trundling, bankrupt and repressive Soviet bloc. Theresa May’s cabinet increasingly embodies the neo-liberal ethos as moderate, one-nation-Tories are steadily culled. 

We are no longer feel like big-hearted country I remember. We are less homogenous and more diverse but we are also more divided, less equal and less tolerant. Our organising principle is no longer fair play but survival of the fittest, strivers or scroungers

Esther McVey: in denial over the effect of Universal Credit on the vulnerable

The welfare state is slowly being outsourced to private companies whose ethos is profit. As it must be. A company is not a philanthropic entity. And if the hand that feeds it gives it free rein then the ‘end user’ – the individual with a disability – gets a raw deal as the disastrous roll-out of the PIP and Universal Credit policies painfully shows. 

The NHS is in deep crisis; the care system is dysfunctional; the benefit system an affront to decency. People are suffering. Some are dying – needlessly. A market that should be managing the distribution of services efficiently is failing. Freedom for wolves, as Isaiah Berlin said, means death for lambs.


And yet the state cannot provide the whole answer. The numbers are just too big: too many people in need of support, too little money.  There is also no reason why the talent in the private sector should not be harnessed for the common good provided it is properly managed.

Imagining that the state alone can provide the answer to the crisis in our care system, any more than the market can, is to fall into the binary trap that increasingly characterises political debate.

The key lies not in a return to class warfare, but to the idea of the nation as an interdependent community. To borrow Jeremy Corbyn’s mantra, policies for the many not the few cannot exclude the few.  

” We have to accept the reality that markets are not motivated by the priority of care. And they are certainly not magical.” 

Naomi Oreskes

In a piece of great wisdom in the current issue of Scientific American Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes made some compelling points for a best-of-both-worlds approach to solving big problems like climate change and poverty in the face of the neo-liberal juggernaut. 

“To build a better world” writes Oreskes” we first have to seek it. This requires a different vision, one that embraces priorities other than profit, and places care—for creation and for one another—at its center (sic). We have to accept the reality that markets are not motivated by the priority of care. And they are certainly not magical.” 

When Pope Francis, she goes on, released his encyclical on climate change and inequality, in which he urged the world to take on the interdependent challenges of caring for the planet and caring for the poor, he was accused of being “out of touch.”

Oreskes argues that the Pope is very much in touch with one essential fact: markets may be effective in distributing goods and services efficiently to those who have the money to pay for them, but the needs of the poor go largely unaddressed, and the external costs remain almost entirely unpaid. 

So what is to be done? 

Government is not the solution, but it has to drive the solution. It must own it and it must hold providers heavily to account.

Care has become a commodity traded in a market where ‘consumers’ are vulnerable sometimes defenceless. This ethos must be reversed. 

Finally, power must be vested in the individual. Personalisation as a policy is at best a partial success. Personal budgets must become the iron rule. Competitive tendering for people with disabilities must end. 


People with disabilities especially intellectual ones, must be given the support to make the choices they want: supported living, community, shared living, whatever it takes to help people live the life they want.


The common good, far from being a woolly concept, is an idea with which to anchor social justice and avoid ideological extremes. 

Alain Catzeflis

Steering Group Alliance for Camphill


blogallianceforcamphill
catzeflis@gmail.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *