The monthly Democracy Café meeting was held at the Playhouse, with a big turnout of regulars and new faces. The two topics voted for discussion were “Is the role of your MP to represent the country, the party, the constituency or his/her conscience?” and “Universal Credit: is it a good policy?”
On the first topic, it was agreed that as “our representative” MPs will be torn between different demands; plus, in the case of Salisbury’s MP, the demands of being in the government, which disqualifies the member from independent thinking. Much of their time is taken up on local constituency work – should this be the case? The Scottish system of two tiers of government was mentioned as a possible solution. The idea of a random selection of MPs was mooted, as well as smaller constituencies and more members (with salary reduced as they advance up the hierarchy!)
There was debate about whether behaviour in parliament was getting worse – compared to the 19th century perhaps not – and it was admitted that the elected representatives are vulnerable and under pressure. But improvements could be made, either through relocation, updating procedure (with modern technology) or making the chamber less adversarial (more like the continental horseshoe model).
The relation of parties to democracy was discussed. Do we need leaders unbeholden to their parties? Or do parties keep politicians in line, preventing volatility? MPs or party members may elect their leaders – which is the better system? It was noted that local councils are getting rid of their chief executives and relying on the cabinet method. Generally, the feeling was that we are not best served by the way things are run at present.
The second topic, Universal Credit, brought about much debate as to the theoretical ideas against the reality in practice. As an attempt to bring together all the different benefits currently applicable, with the explicit intention of making work pay, the idea has merit. But this is a middle-class model that brings problems in practice (e.g. delays in payment may be manageable for the better-off but not for the hard-pressed, not everyone has online access, it’s unfair for the disabled, high housing costs affect people’s budgets).
The debate went on to ask some basic questions. Is rewarding work necessarily a good idea anyway? And what sort of work are we trying to get people into? The philosophy behind UC has never been clear, other than to make the system simpler (but see above re practical difficulties).
Going on from this, the meeting wondered whether we are trying to punish people? Is this the traditional “punishing the poor” idea? The Universal Credit system did not initiate a punitive structure but it does not need to continue it. There is little discretion in the process, and no way to opt out from it; it was also felt that it is being used as a means of getting people off the system.
It was noted that the largest part of the benefit system goes on pensions, not the workforce, but this is never brought into the discussion of welfare. It was suggested that the long-term answer might be Universal Basic Income, as a way of obviating poverty.
The debate concluded with the question : “What would you say to your MP about UC?“ The implication is that they do not know what is going on. The welfare system should start from the working people, who are the ones affected. Politicians are not always aware of the experience of the real world (only 7 MPs turned up to the last debate on poverty).
In conclusion, while it was agreed that there were some good aspects to Universal Credit, it was not felt to have been thought through, and the effects on those going through the system outweigh its advantages.
Yes, the second debate on Universal Credit was interesting. This is yet another example of a government blunder and why it should have happened is equally interesting. In ‘The Blunders of our Governments’ Anthony King and Ivor Crewe examine a large number of massive and expensive government mistakes including the Poll Tax, Tax Credits, Metronet and many more.
They explore the various reasons why these things happen. Infighting in government – usually involving the Treasury is a common theme – undue haste, lack of consultation and a failure to think things through are all identified as factors. Rapid rotation of ministers is also relevant.
But one relevant to this debate on UC is in Ch 16 in what they call ‘Cultural Disconnect’ and it discusses Tony Blair’s famous idea of marching hooligans to a cash point and fining them GDP100 on the spot. The flaw was that he did not realise that a great many of the likely miscreants don’t have bank accounts. ”The prime minister was clearly assuming that other people lived lives much like his own. His assumption was unfounded” (p243)
Thus it is with UC. The great majority of ministers, MPs, senior civil servants et al, have never experienced poverty or a hand to mouth existence. As so many come from a privileged background or have achieved wealth in the City, the law or accountancy, they have little conception of worrying on a Wednesday how they are going to afford food on a Thursday. They enjoy sizeable salaries, copious expenses and a variety of additional rewards from speaking, journalism or writing. For them, a cheque arriving monthly in arrears is how they live their lives and is quite normal. That those at the bottom of the heap live a weekly existence is largely an alien concept.
Add in a massive cut by the Treasury, a failure to listen to advice from those who know , a basic belief in punishment because claimants are ‘skivers and scroungers’ and you have the ingredients for a huge cock-up. If it wasn’t for the other massive cock-up of Brexit which consumes everyone’s time and energy, they would be in more trouble than they are.
LikeLiked by 1 person