The many ways of being entitled (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
The many ways of being entitled
10:57am Thursday 28th June 2012 in Columnists By Julian Cole
Julian Cole
SO DAVID Cameron is declaring war on the “culture of entitlement”. By this he refers to people who feel they are entitled to benefits from the state, although his words set off a different cloud of angry bees in my head.
Entitlement comes in many shapes and sizes. Our Prime Minister is from the moneyed upper echelons.
He went to Eton and Oxford and smoothly progressed via one television job in public relations to politics and thence to Number Ten. His oiled advancement suggests one who is entitled to such preference because of who he is, with the top jobs going to the top people, you might say.
If you thought that being presided over by Eton old boys went out in the 1950s under Harold Macmillan, well now it is back in fashion. And should you wonder how the seven per cent of children who go to fee-paying schools still end up having such a massively disproportionate say in our lives, then you would not be alone.
I will admit to a touch of caricature about my summary, yet there is truth in there too. When someone so clearly advantaged turns his attention to those less well appointed, it is bound to leave a sour taste in some mouths, mine included.
Does this mean that Mr Cameron should not address how to cut welfare, as he did on Monday?
Well, not exactly. No politician of whatever persuasion can avoid asking at what point the welfare state should stop. Those on the left tend either to be nervous of joining the argument or suddenly jump alarmingly in an unaccustomed direction and start playing right-wing hopscotch in an attempt to show their ‘toughness’.
This is more naturally the territory of the right who traditionally like nothing better than a spot of scrounger-bashing, preferably from atop a gin-soaked bar-stool somewhere (okay, loaded cliché alert warning again: some habits are just too sweetly satisfying to abandon).
Mr Cameron did not deliver his populist pop against state welfare while sitting on a bar-stool. Instead he chose the Bluewater shopping centre in Kent, a man-of-the-shopping-people sort of location: he does like to put himself in workaday settings while wearing his bluest tie and “I understand your pain” frown. One glance at him in this mode and I feel a headache coming on.
As to what he had to say: is it even remotely possible to knock another £10 billion off the already battered welfare bill? Well, I haven’t a clue but then I struggle to trim a tenner from the weekly shop, so don’t ask me.
But I do know two things about such exercises. One is that they are done for unspoken reasons, in Mr Cameron’s case to assuage those on his right flank who fear he has lost it in his arranged marriage with the softy Lib-Dems. And the other is that loaded caricature is too hard to resist in such situations.
So when Mr Cameron suggested removing housing benefit for the under-25s he did so by summoning up “those who work hard and do the right thing” – as opposed, by pointed implication, to those who lounge about living the life of riley on benefits.
Yet according to the Smith Institute, 95 per cent of the £1 billion rise in housing benefit this year will go to people in low-paid work.
So this is not about loiterers in the land of the feckless, but the culmination of a housing crisis that has deep roots – and can in part be traced back to the sale of council houses (started by the Tories, continued under Labour).
According to the York-based Joseph Rowntree Foundation, in a report released earlier this month, the number of young people living in private rented accommodation is expected to rise from 1.3 million now to 3.7 million by 2020.
This suggests that Mr Cameron’s desire to remove housing benefit for the under-25s will not keep up with the tough times.
Unless he thinks they can all go home and live with their mummy and daddy on the family estate (loaded cliché alert again: but if you’ve been here before, you know what to expect).
Twitter: @JulianCole5
Comments(5)
telos
says...
4:06pm Thu 28 Jun 12
jackhigh
says...
5:32pm Thu 28 Jun 12
Fat Harry
says...
9:45am Fri 29 Jun 12
jackhigh wrote:"probably"?
Dave's family are probably on the same level of wealth as that of the MP for York Inner, & is probably not as rich as Tony Benn. The latter two believe in giving away other people's money but they hang on ot their own
Any evidence?
Thought not.
buffsteve24
says...
4:12pm Fri 29 Jun 12
ColdAsChristmas says...
3:43pm Thu 28 Jun 12
The important issues are cheap energy as the vehicle to economic growth and reducing the population to a sustainable level. Nasty Nick on the other hand was more interested in the gender of Prince William's first born and rearranging the House of Lords. Is it any wonder we are in the mess we are in. Housing and other benefits do need adjustments so that work pays but it's not the top priority. In any case, like anything else, the easy and probably most deserving cases always seem to lose their benefit first!