So, farewell, then, to the Lib Dems. The only
party to appeal exclusively to well-off older people now proposes to abolish
the entitlements of well-off older people.
In the present state of affairs, extremely few
are those who could do without their Child Benefit, or their tax credits, or
their state pensions, or their winter fuel payments, or their free bus travel,
or their free prescriptions, or their free eye and dental treatment, or their
free television licenses. Taking away consumer spending power is hardly the way
to aid economic recovery. On the bus travel, on the prescriptions, and on the
eye and dental treatment, the question is of why anyone should have to pay for
them upfront. As it is of why anyone should have to pay upfront for hospital
parking, or for undergraduate tuition, or for long term care in old age, when
this does not apply in certain parts of the United Kingdom.
Paid for by what? Not by any private sector, as
that term is ordinarily used. Thus defined, there is no private sector. Not in
any advanced country, and not since the War at the latest. Take out bailouts or
the permanent promise of them, take out central and local government contracts,
take out planning deals and other sweeteners, and take out the guarantee of
customer bases by means of public sector pay and the benefits system, and what
is there left? They are all as dependent on public money as any teacher, nurse
or road sweeper. Everyone is. With public money come public responsibilities,
including public accountability for how those responsibilities are or are not
being met.
If you believe that there ought to be a middle
class for social and cultural reasons, then you have to believe in the
political action necessary in order to secure that class's economic basis. Look
at Britain today, and you will see the "free" market's overclass and
underclass, with less and less of a middle except in the public sector. Public
sector haters and the enemies of middle-class benefits are no more in favour of
a thriving middle class than they are in favour of family life, or British
agriculture, or a British manufacturing base, or small business, all of which
are likewise dependent on government action in order to protect them from the
ravages of capitalism.
Middle-class French people refuse to believe the
stories of the underclass (or the overclass) in the "Anglo-Saxon"
countries. But they are still horrified at the activities of their own, which
would be too minor to attract comment here or in the United States. And they
are still in a position to take a stand against those activities, because
France continues to will, not only the end that is the existence of a large and
thriving middle class, but also the means to that end in terms of government
action. If you do not will those means, then you cannot will that end. The
failure to will both that end and those means is just another point to add to
the long, long list of reasons why Tory Britain now does and will vote instead
for the party that does will them.
Ed Miliband, over to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment