No laptop for me, IDS
Funny what I think about in the middle of the night. I can’t use a laptop. Strange, the realisation that it’s not worth the heartache of buying one of these svelte beauties only to see it crushed or dented when, as will come the day, I trip and fall while carrying it. Not to mention what that’ll do to my wrists, elbows, etc.
Which led me inexorably on – as these things do – to the injustices of Universal Credit, a scheme dreamed up, in all its complacent cruelty by the great Ian Duncan Smith, who, having planted this pseudo democratic notion in the minds of enforcers, has conveniently abandoned any position of authority from which he might mitigate its worst effects. His subsequent apparent change of heart and resignation from the cabinet is gesture politics at its most pointless.
But my point is, Universal Credit, introduced by Westminster conservatives to mimic the universalist character of Universal Basic Income and to offer the comforting illusion that the welfare state is non-judgemental and fair, is an impossible scheme, intended to be accessed and assessed on-line (in a constituency for which basic literacy is still a major issue. Texting is ill preparation for the simplistic brutality of on-line questionnaires). Those who depend on welfare benefits to top up in-work pay or to shell out bus fares to attend interviews (non-attendance at which can lead to sanctions) are not going to be worrying about laptops. They might be worrying about their phone credit, but how many people will access benefits from their phones?
Doing it on-line sounds sexy, fun, quick and easy, but only for those who can take the basics – a plug, an electrical supply, a computer, patience, distraction-free time, warmth and comprehension – for granted. And anyone with these advantages is not likely to be the person most in need of welfare support.
A quick glance at IDS on Wikipedia suggests that he is not short of a penny. So it’s rather sad that from the comfort of his family’s wealth he has been central in forcing those who are already down on their luck into a system which is arbitrary, slow and painful to navigate. It may not matter to IDS if he doesn’t get paid for six weeks. He might not miss the occasional sanction for turning up late; but a sanction under UC affects the entire payment, including housing benefit.
Those who apply sanctions are so rarely called to account – and by the time they are, the damage has been done, so that’s all right, then. Frankly, I’m embarrassed to be part of a society which has the unbridled power to impose pie in the sky schemes against those who have so few resources with which to fight back. Since ancient times, those in power have sought to clean up and educate the masses. I wish they would just offer us all dignity.
Please share:
October 25, 2017 @ 5:09 pm
A very interesting post. I am very confused about all of this. Unfortunately it is difficult to find totally unbiased opinion. On the one hand I do agree with all that you say about people who are quite literally without any funds at all and their access to all the lovely computery stuff many of take for granted. I have read terrible, terrible tales about people literally weeks from death being found fit for work – ghastly and yes, I do not see how people who have never had to really consider their bank balance can honestly understand what it is like to have to choose between for example soap or plastic pants for the baby (yes – you can tell I’ve been there can’t you). We need a better system, less open to abuse, less top heavy with paperwork and inflexible rules and yes most importantly one that does not steal the last bit of dignity and self worth from those who are struggling in a society which flaunts wealth and greed to a disgusting degree. I don’t know what the answer is – I just don’t.
October 25, 2017 @ 5:43 pm
Hello Diane
Thanks for your lovely comments; I’m glad you find this post interesting – it’s amazing, as I say, what comes to me in the middle of the night.
There are trials mooted for citizens’ basic income, which, if they prove workable, would pave the way for a system of universal provision and entitlement that would do away with much of the stigma around unemployment and much of the dubious enforcement that is currently expensive to run and incredibly punitive. The subject of many reports from the UN on human rights abuses etc.
Typically, the cons govt see CBI as a cop out and argue against citizens’ income, because they like the idea of merit, crime and punishment, even when it it shown to be more expensive than a genuine system of non-judgemental universal provision. Which would improve our health, reduce prison populations, improve mental health….etc etc. So there is hope, and lots of people doing good work campaigning for a better fairer system.
October 30, 2017 @ 7:03 pm
This sounds like a nightmare–especially the part about assuming everyone has/has access to a computer and knows how to use it, etc., coupled with penalties for not making deadlines (?), I think. Pie in the sky indeed. Cooked up by someone who, as you indicate, has never lived ‘the life.’ And, most likely, never will.
Elouise
October 30, 2017 @ 7:58 pm
Indeed, there is a marked distinction between the conditions of those who make the laws and those who are expected to abide by them, and the gulf between rich and poor is yawning. The thing is, the system is so arbitrary, and there is no effective redress. Thanks for your comment. xxx 🙂