Anthony Painter

This Budget was far more brutal than most feared. It was worse that anything Margaret Thatcher came up with in that it framed a long-term attack on not just the state but the most vulnerable in society- I argued so on LabourList earlier.

Of course, Margaret Thatcher did sever the link between earnings and benefits. And the Coalition repeated a similar trick by index linking benefits to CPI instead of RPI. The result will be long term suffering for many. But not even Thatcher launched a such a deep and sustained attack on both state services and welfare simultaneously as George Osborne has done. She never pretended that what she was doing was ‘fair’ or ‘progressive.’ I miss her honesty. At least people knew what we were dealing with and could respond accordingly.

And remember. There are real people behind these attacks. Particular groups will be hardest hit. I outlined the impact on single moms yesterday. And if you are in any doubt about how tough being a single mom is then just read Lisa Ansell’s blog today:

“I accepted that poverty was part of parenting a pre-school age child on my own. When I was exhausted, had 4 stomach ulcers, and was barely sleeping, my doctor advised me to give up work.

I did.

I came home. I claimed Income Support. I lived on £127 per week. For the first time since my daughter was born, while I had no money, I had time to get to know her. I had time to parent her. This year has been wonderful. I was better off on income support, because I didn’t pay council tax, or have the cost of working-but mainly because I got to spend real time with my daughter, for the first time since she was born.”

As one of the many excellent comments, Anna Hedge, put it in response to my blog last night:

“Parenting (particularly lone parenting) *is* a job.When done with care it brings tremendous rewards for parent,child AND the rest of society.Stable care up until the age of 7 has been shown to have significant long-term positive impacts on a child’s academic achievement and future contribution to society, both financially and socially.”

But any group that disproportionately relies on benefits will be marginalised, plunged into poverty, and facing despair. This is not the way it’s meant to be. Not in a decent, relatively wealthy society. The basic post-war compact on support and advancement for all in exchange for doing the responsible thing was broken yesterday. Not only lone parents, but also those who are poor, mentally impaired or incapacitated, the disabled, certain minority groups, and anyone relying on benefits to get by. In London, there will be an acceleration of gentrification of inner London and a ghettoisation elsewhere as a result of the horrendous changes in Housing Benefits. People will have to leave the communities where they live, grew up, and belong. Fairness?

And Labour missed the ball yesterday. It was playing the wrong game. It’s eye was too firmly set on what the economic impact of these measures would be- and they will, to certain extent lower growth and employment in the short term- but it’s lost the moral language of ‘we’re all in this together.’ As a consequence it failed to present a coherent and cogent argument for retaining social support structures in some degree of resemblance to where they are.

Welfare reform is necessary- it always is. But it should be focused on giving people support into work that they can adapt to their important commitments at home. The ‘welfare reform’ proposed yesterday- which is actually about recasting the state and dividing the ‘deserving’ from the ‘undeserving’ welfare recipient based on nothing at all- actually seeks to humiliate and kick those who are already down. The sugared pill at the end of the budget of relinking pensions to earnings a year earlier than Labour had planned and increasing child tax credit was scant consolation though it provided a less flimsy shield than the yellow tied yes men sat behind the Chancellor could achieve alone.

It was a constant discussion during his time as Leader of the Opposition whether David Cameron was progressive or a Thatcherite in disguise. We now know the answer. He’s Thatcher on heat. Not so much neo-Thatcherite as uber-Thatcherite. And it will get worse. George Osborne is deliberately offering a welfare v services choice; turning the many against the unfortunate few. This Government is intent on ripping apart the social solidarity that this country still has. Labour will need to say why that soldiarity- a potentially flourishing togetherness- is so important. This is a battle between a vision of a united Britain and a cruel and divided country. Up for the fight?