I’m sitting in the Charles Dickens on Union St, enjoying a high quality glass of cider, while the first game of the new Premiership season is playing on the TV. And I realise my heart is sinking.
After all these years of avid interest, after all that hope and disappointment, I find myself thinking ‘oh, that circus again’. I think it was the great Bale transfer controversy which finally pushed me too far. The idea that anyone could even think about a value for one person of 100 million euros – it’s not a world I want to be part of any more. Success in football has for a long time depended on the depth of pockets rather than anything else. I’m not a fan of the way money buys power in the rest if life – so why in football?
So though I still love sport, I can’t connect any more with this financial arm-wrestling which is the sub-text of every Premiership match. So Spurs will have to manage without me from now on (I’m sure it’ll break AVB’s heart). Enjoy, those of you who do. It’s a more interesting form of capitalism than share prices, after all. But count me out.
As the next tranche of benefit cuts come into force, it seems to be more and more difficult for people to see the human stories which lie behind the headlines and instant opinions. I’m very glad to be able to share (with her permission) Valerie Lang’s reflections on the changing culture in which we live – and the way in which it is becoming more difficult for disabled people to enter the workplace, even as they are being hectored more and more to do so.
As a disabled person I found it very difficult to find work in the 1960s and ’70s, even though I had a lot going for me. Certainly in the ’60s rates of unemployment were much lower, I had a degree from the London School of Economics, and a Post Graduate Diploma in Librarianship. I also had employers and friends willing to recommend me to one another. Because of this help I was in fact never out of work until I retired in 1997.
Today the Government says that it wants more disabled people to go and find work. But does it?
It has reduced the availability of the Access to Work scheme, which paid for adaptations in the work place. Its “Bedroom tax” will force many disabled people out of their homes and localities. (Yes, Local Government can help them to stay where they are, but only for a short time.) Its press allies run numerous stories about benefits cheats and disabled people who don’t get out of bed, leading to a public perception that 7 out of 10 disabled people are cheating. This is a far cry from the DWP’s own statistics which show that fraudulent claims of Disability Living Allowance have been only 0.5%, a fact that the Government chooses to ignore.
Further, the private company Atos, contracted to assess who is fit for work apparently tells blind people who can find their way around their own homes, that this means that they are fit for work. This is in spite of a DWP survey finding that over 90% of employers saying that they would not employ a blind person. About 40% of disabled people who have contested Atos findings that they are fit for work have had their appeals upheld. Instead of radically changing the fit for work test, the Government has simply stopped Legal Aid from being available for such appeals.
The Government seems to think that jobs grow on trees – to be picked at any time someone cares to go and look. In fact one can only get a job if an employer takes one on. Does the Government not realise, or does it just not care, that potential employers read the same stories about so called cheats and scroungers? What employer is going to pick the disabled so-called skiver when there is a whole queue of non-disabled applicants waiting?
I certainly would not have found work if I had faced the same barrage of anti-disability rhetoric in the media. It was difficult enough to persuade employers to look beyond my disability – which affected my speech as well as all my limbs. It is indeed possible for disabled people to hold down good jobs, but only if they are taken on, and given a proper chance. Before I retired I had become a Senior Research Officer, at the Civil Aviation Authority, but I very much fear that today’s disabled people will not get the chance to work that I had.
In fact it is my opinion that the Coalition Government, too afraid to deal with the Bankers’ part in the current economic debacle, would prefer to blame disabled people for almost all of the country’s economic woes – scapegoats in the traditional Biblical sense.
Just watching Evan Davis’s Made in Britain. Davis visits some of Britain’s industrial and manufacturing successes; he tries to correct the self-flagellation we tend to adopt when talking about our economy. And, yes, I can see his point about the way industry moves on, and the way in which the British economy has kept on moving into the high value areas: design and selling both make loads more money than running the factories. And it is nice to see a programme which isn’t completely downbeat about Britain – but … living in Hackney, it’s all too obvious that the successes he pulls out share one key factor – they don’t need so many people. Again and again, manufacturers wander around their factories pointing out that a process which used to need a small army can now be handled by one person.
Here in Hackney, lots of people are making a good living out of the new economy. Lots more are making no living at all. Britain is making more money, but as today’s numbers tell us, right now average take-home pay is on its way down, not up. My last post suggested that a Christian view of economic life, whatever else it might contain, had to start from looking at how well or how badly the poorest in society are treated. Reading today the Richard Bauckham’s The Bible in Politics, I was glad to find I was in reputable company. In the introduction to the second edition he says: ‘If the Bible has an economic preoccupation, it is with the plight of the poorest people’. The globalised economy that Evan Davis describes might not have been a disaster for GB plc, but it has been bad news for many of its now-unnecessary inhabitants.
And I wondered – what next? Right now, service industries do what the factories used to: provide unsatisfying low-paid jobs for a vast number of people. But that won’t last for ever. It was once agriculture, then it was manufacturing, now it’s Starbucks and call centres. If the pattern continues, those jobs too will be replaced – probably not by factories in Shanghai, but through increasing automation. I’m an example myself. I scarcely ever talk to anyone at my bank: I can do it all more easily online.
The what does everyone do? The money will continue to be made, even more of it, but it will flow into even fewer hands. And given the globalised nature of finance and power, it’s unlikely to become easier for governments, even if they want to, to reclaim that income for the poor by taxation. So what next? The other book I’m reading is Terry Eagleton’s Why Marx was Right. Many things I still don’t buy into, but Marx’s vision of human flourishing beyond capitalism is right on the button:
“production” in Marx’s work covers any self-fulfilling activity: playing the flute, savouring a peach, wrangling over Plato, dancing a reel, making a speech, engaging in politics, organising a birthday party for one’s children. It has no muscular, macho implications. When Marx speaks of production as the essence of humanity, he does not mean that the essence of humanity is packing sausages. Labour as we know it is an alienated form of what he calls “praxis”—an ancient Greek word meaning the kind of free, self-realising activity by which we transform the world.
Maybe we will be finally forced to look for something else, which isn’t about the continued increase of wealth – and start to think about what is the point of having it. Maybe we won’t have any choice but to question the ‘latest phase of the Enlightenment meta-narrative of progress’ (Bauckham’s description of globalisation as an ideology). But there are always choices. Dystopia or utopia? I think it’ll be one or the other – the middle way is disappearing ahead of us.