Poverty

I have this theory that the reason why the British public is so hugely in favour of cutting welfare to the bone, and the British media so hostile, is that many (maybe most) journalists still depend on financial support from their parents well into their 30s. Since most media folk come from the sort of backgrounds where home ownership is expected, and yet work in an industry where the typical salary makes living anywhere near London extremely difficult, they feel too ashamed to opine on ‘scroungers’ because, well, they are scroungers. Anyway, maybe that’s what’s called projection. Most people in politics, like those in the media, tend to come from fairly privileged backgrounds, and this seems to be the crux of Labour’s counter-attack on welfare.

David Cameron, it has been argued this week, has become detached from the views of Conservative voters on Europe. Amid the noise on the EU referendum, however, comes more evidence that it is Ed Miliband who has the greater problem of detachment from the views of his party’s supporters. While the Labour leader continues to battle on against welfare reform, a report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reveals just how far his voters have moved away from the idea of a redistributive welfare system as a force for good. Miliband’s problem is that he seems to believe he will be facing Mrs Thatcher at the next election. His strategy is built around fighting a Conservative party that is perceived to be harsh on the poor.

I don’t like to think that I am rich. In theory, I know that in comparison to the vast majority of the world’s population, I am. But perhaps because of my politics, or perhaps because of journalists’ perennial pretence that we are tribunes of the people, I cannot see myself as wealthy, and would protest if others said that was just what I was. And in everyday dealings with others, I don’t feel as if I’m rich. I don’t have a car. My wife and I watch what we spend at the shops. I wish I could wine and dine every night, but, alas, I cannot. So I go on thinking that I am an ordinary member of the British middle class, until I start talking to people who are 25 years younger than me. I have learned to be careful about what I say.

They always manage to pull something special out of the hat at Christmas, over at the Guardian. Last year it was that fantastic woman, an editor at The Ecologist, who agonised over what to buy her son for Christmas that was green, ethical, sustainable and non-materialistic, if you remember, when her son Dimitri just wanted a Nintendo DS and a mini car to drive to school in. This time it is George Monbiot’s special Boxing Day tale of how he came to be terrified by some poor people who were a bit rough looking and had tattoos and dirty fingernails. Utterly hilarious stuff from this supposed leftie; Moonbat (Stowe, Brasenose, scion of a Tory dynasty) was quite appalled and a little frightened.

Interesting comments from Ruth Davidson, the chairthing of the Scottish Conservative Party, about her fellow countrymen. Only twelve per cent of Scots, she says, contribute more to the exchequer than they take out in the form of benefits. “The rest lie around on filthy sofas in subsidised homes, watching daytime television while farting, mainlining heroin and stuffing their sad grey faces with pies full of regurgitated sheep gizzards and Windolene.” Actually, I paraphrase a bit there. She didn’t say all that stuff. She just said almost nine out of ten Scots take more in benefits than they generate in wealth. This is, she says, shocking, and the Scots have too great a sense of entitlement.

The report published this week by Louise Casey, the Government’s 'Troubled Families' Tsar, has attracted a fair amount of criticism, but what it does illustrate is the chaotic lives these families lead – and the implausibility of thinking that their problems can be solved by the kind of flagship social policies traditionally favoured by either Conservatives or Labour. As Isabel put it, Conservative 'reform of the welfare system will pass many of the families by. In these stories there is no calculated decision to opt out of the labour market because of generous benefits, more an endless failure to cope with life and the way it has worked out'.

In my Observer column on Sunday I mentioned in passing that in a crisis, elites have to be able to show that they are sharing the plight of the masses. Asking for 'equality of suffering' is too much, you will never have that, but there has to be a sense that — to coin a phrase — we are all in this together. Christine Lagarde had just lectured the Greeks on why they must pay their taxes. She was in no way inhibited by the knowledge that as an official of the IMF she was a 'diplomatic agent' and hence exempt from taxes under the terms of the 1961 Berne Convention. The inevitable accusation from the Greeks that she was a hypocrite so lost in a world of privilege she could no longer know a double-standard when she saw it, took her and her colleagues aback. But not all of them.

There is plenty of nostalgia around in this Jubilee Weekend. Any look back on 60 years brings temptation to think that the past was better than the present. This is what Woody Allen calls ‘golden age’ fallacy, which is defined (in his Midnight in Paris) as an age-old and ‘erroneous notion that a previous time period is better than the one one’s living in.’ This disorder was on show during BBC 2’s Review Show last night, where guests were bemoaning the death of protest music.   The panel (dominated by Kirsty Wark and music critic Paul Morley) were discussing BBC 4’s 3 part documentary, Punk Britannia. The first part of this series is available on i-Player and it is worth watching as a piece of cultural – and political – history.

So, does India want the UK’s aid or not? If you believe the Indian finance minister, Pranab Mukherjee, the funds are unnecessary, ‘peanuts’ even. The Daily Telegraph reports that British ministers ‘begged’ the Indian government to take the money. The story is likely to garner attention, especially as aid to a growing power like India is a contentious proposition. But before taking the Indian Finance Minister's word — and the Telegraph's reporting — as truth, it is worth looking at a few facts. First, Mukherjee made the statement in 2010, as reported in the Financial Times at the time.