The politics of trivia

There’s one point that’s been missed in the argument following David Cameron’s remarks about there being over 80,000 addicts and the obese on incapacity benefit. It’s that this is a trivial issue.
Let’s - heroically - take at face value the Daily Mail’s claim that “there are 81,670 drug addicts, alcoholics and obese people claiming incapacity benefit instead of working.” 81,670 people getting £94.25 a week adds up to a cost of £400m a year*. This is one-twelfth of the error in the OBR’s forecast for public sector borrowing. It’s an inconsequential sum - or at least not one worth making a fool of oneself for.
But this is by no means the only example of the government making summat of nowt. Its plan last year to privatize forests squandered goodwill on what was, at best, a low-priority problem. The referendum on AV is making an issue of what even its supporters regard as a “baby step.“ Immigration controls also fall into this category, as even on the kindest reading of the data, the benefits of them are teeny.
In this sense, Cameron is truly the heir to Blair, as he’s continuing New Labour’s tendency - evident in its introduction of thousands of piddling little laws - to conduct the politics of trivia.
But why do this? Here are three possibilities:
1. Statistical illiteracy. Most people aren’t interested in politics, and so just don’t realize how small the numbers are for the costs of incapacity benefit or immigration. Politicians and the media, of course, do not enlighten them.
2. Managerialism. The belief that society is perfectible and fully controllable causes our rulers to fail to accept that there will always be plenty of ruin in a nation, and causes them to think they can eliminate even small costs.
3. Politics has become about the revelation of character, and trivial issues serve as dividing lines here. In attacking addicts, Cameron is trying to revive the distinction between the deserving (us) and the undeserving (them)** - just as immigration is about creating a divide between us and them.
The same thing is at work with the AV referendum. You could replace this with the question “are you in favour of change?” and pretty much the same people would be on the same sides.
In this sense, though, the politics of trivia serves a conservative function. I don’t mean merely, or even mainly, that it helps to “divide and rule” the workers. Instead, as Richard Sennett said:

The obsession with persons at the expense of more impersonal social relations is like a filter which discolours our rational understanding of society; it obscures the continuing importance of class in industrial society; it leads us to believe community is an act of mutual self-disclosure and to undervalue the community relations of strangers (The Fall of Public Man, p4)

* You might object that this under-estimates the cost, because if these people were working, they’d be paying tax. More likely, though, they’d be getting in-work benefits and tax credits.
** If we’re concerned about people claiming incapacity benefit because of their “own fault”, wouldn’t we put people suffering from smoking-related illnesses or sports injuries into this category? And yet Cameron omitted to mention these - perhaps because such people are “one of us” - to use Thatcher’s illuminating phrase - whereas drug addicts are “them”.

Comments

[CS Clark]

'If we’re concerned about people claiming incapacity benefit because of their “own fault”, wouldn’t we put people suffering from smoking-related illnesses or sports injuries into this category? '

People probably perceive that there's simple bad luck at play there. You're not certain to get an injury that stops you working if you play lots of sports, and while you are more likely to get a smoking-related illness if you smoke more, it's also not certain - and you can get one and be a relatively light smoker.

One the surface, at least, being obese isn't something that is the unlucky result of eating twelve cheeseburgers every hour, and being unable to hold a job because you are constantly drunk isn't a random occurrence (although I suppose it would be unlucky for certain professions). Of course, being a person who through metabolism, background, circumstances etc. finds it incredibly difficult to not eat or drink to excess without lots of support is also bad luck, but at best that's seen as one step removed, at worst completely irrelevant as long as you exercise your willpower.

It pleases me to think that Thatcher's full quote would be 'One of us, gooble gobble.'

[Jim]

It may 'only' be £400m to you, perhaps you'd like to take on the liability yourself? And remove it from the rest of us taxpayers who'd rather not labour 40 hours a week to pay taxes so druggies and alcoholics can get their fix?

The average earner (£25K pa) pays c. £6K a year in tax and NI. So to raise £400m, 66000 people had to work and pay their taxes for an entire year. I personally would stop paying the money and give 66000 tax payers their own money back.

[Duncan]

"I personally would stop paying the money and give 66000 tax payers their own money back."

How much do you think it would cost to set up a system whereby taxpayers are reimbursed for government expenditure items they don't want to pay for?

[Jim]

@Duncan: I wasn't saying taxpayers could pick and mix, I was suggesting the the government abolish the payments and give the savings back to 66000 taxpayers. Perhaps anyone who thought they didn't want their money being spent in that way could register with the Government and 66000 of them would be picked at random each year and get £6K back.

And do the same with lots of other wasted govt expenditure.

I'll tell you what - for 1% of the £400m annually, I'll devise and run the scheme myself.

[chris]

@ Jim - there's also a cost to identifying whether addicts really are fit for work. I suspect this cost would eat up a large chunk of the difference between IB and JSA, which is what addicts would get if they were fit for work.
As for genuine help for addicts, this would also be expensive.
It's quite possible that, give or take a few quid, parking addicts on IB is the cheapeast thing the taxpayer can do.

[Cecily]

Thanks a lot for such an interesting view. Addicts that are fit to work should pay for their addiction and obese people should receive economic support if they really cannot work, but as soon as they can they should see that benefit reduced.

[Keith]

Jim you are a sad man. Hard faced tory poodle for the blues. You make no useful contribution to this "society". In a good tory club we would give you the black ball and send you packing applying your own logic.

I think two points are important to make.
One is that it reflects badly on society if people allow politics to be trivialised by politicians. This sort of issue like say immigration is being used to distract from the important matter of real politics, the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few that the conservative interest represents. People in a liberal democracy can vote and exercise civil Liberties, they should be educated enough not to fall for this ploy. Every one has a responsability to know enough to exercise their rights well for the common good.

Secondly it is obvious to anyone with a little reflection that drug addiction or drink problems have complex causes both social and or genetic. When the USSR collapsed so did a lot of industry in russia and lots of men hit the bottle producing a rising death rate and falling population. The rich in Russia who expropriated the oil and gas money could give moral lectures to the Russian poor about their moral duty to stop binge drinking Vodka, but it would have no effect. When the economy on which your living depends falls down one effect of such stress is drink and drug abuse. Also crime and suicide, or Anomie as Durkheim calls it, the price we pay for a society that does not value all its members.

This Crass and uncaring rhetoric reflects very badly on those political operators who employ it, some of whom must be educated enough to know better but do it anyway. Cameron did drugs himself but I suppose he won't be volunteering to go into the stocks so we can throw eggs at him for being a bad boy. Don't criticise people much less privileged than you when you showed no more restraint and moral fibre than they do.

[Jim]

@Keith: I'm guessing that as I make no 'contribution to society' you won't be wanting (or needing) my £30K of income tax payments. Tell HMRC to send me my money back, there's a good chap.

[bernard]

So you can do what with them, buy a one-way ticket to Somalia where there's no government to oppress you?

[scandalousbill]

Cecily,

You say:

"Addicts that are fit to work should pay for their addiction and obese people should receive economic support if they really cannot work, but as soon as they can they should see that benefit reduced"

While few would disagree with this point, the fact is that IB is not awarded to applicants on the basis of either drug addiction or alcoholism., the data foisted by the Tory coalition comes from those who are in receipt of IB for another condition and who have also listed these two factors as one of their ailments.

So the question is; should someone who has a chronic disability be denied entitlement because of alcohol or drug abuse, even though the original ailment for which they receive benefits is still valid? I would say yes, Grayling and the Tory coalition and the right wing press say no.

[scandalousbill]

OOOOOPs

Sorry,

Wrong way around,

Should read I say no andGrayling and the Tory coalition and the right wing press say yes.

Long day at work....sorry

[Keith]

Jim,

you can keep your income tax if you promise to never use the roads or the police or courts or the NHS or become ill and need to claim benefits or get old and want to claim the state pension,

or die and need a paupers funeral.

And if you die from drug or Alcohol abuse should we pay for the funeral or let your corpse rot in public?

lots of Love

Keith

[Jim]

@Keith: as I pay Road tax and fuel duty, I'll keep the roads, but as for the rest, its a deal. The police are bl**dy useless, as is the NHS, which actively tries to kill you IMO, and I have no need of a pension. As I don't drink or smoke or take illegal drugs, dying from them is fairly unlikely. Where do I (and millions of others) sign up?

[Ian Bertram]

I don't care if payments for a few messed up people add upt to £400m. That's peanuts in terms of the amount wasted by poor defence procurement - which IS something amenable to managerial intervention, but is generally b######ed up by the two way traffic between the MoD and the arms manufacturers and the meddling and fiddling of politicians, who also make a bit on the side for the arms firms.

[Glenn]

Jim, when all the drug addicts decide to plunder your house, or sleep on your lawn, I won't be there to help you clear it or to call the police for you. If by some chance you lost your job or all your money, and were out on your arse, perhaps started drinking or sniffing glue to ease some of the feeling of cold in winter... we'll just let you die of exposure shall we?

[Jim]

@Glenn: I not going to lose my job, I work for myself. I also own my house outright. But if the worst came to the worst I've helped enough people along the way to be owed a few favours. As unlikely as you might find it, I'm pretty generous, and have helped a fair few people, who would help me if the tables were turned. I'll manage the druggies on my lawn myself though, thanks.

[chaussures air max tailwind 92]

thanks.

[Glenn]

Jim - fair enough but what do you suggest we do with the millions unemployed, addicted, etc?

What would you do with someone mentally ill or retarded, yet unemployed and not getting any particular help or assistance?

Suppose you fell on hard times, and lost all your social networks - what would you do? beg?

You say it won't happen to you - but this has happened to people who thought they had all the safety nets in the world.

[CharlieMcMenamin]

Aside from all the improbable scenario building, I'd be really interested to hear a response from Jim, or anyone who thinks on the same lines, to a position recently floated on Crooked Timber (or was it Bad Conscience- I forget, I read too many blogs..).

The question to anti-state types/libertarians posed there was basically: what makes you feel you could claim it as 'your money' in the first place unless there was a functioning state already in existence to guarantee personal property and (at least a rough approximation of) the rule of law? Without these things, no-one, except the biggest gangster, could have any confidence that they would be able to hang onto *any* personal resources. Paying tax seems a minor issue by comparison.

[Bert]

Another point missed in the hoo-haa about this is the fact that huge numbers of addicts (opiate-addicts in particular) have been victims of sexual abuse as children - American studies show this could be as high as 40 to 70% of female heroin addicts. Some smaller studies have found even higher incidences of childhood abuse.

The phrase 'no fault of their own' takes on a different slant, when considering the help and support people in this position need from wider society.

(I am sure that Jim, above, has some sympathy for children who have suffered abuse - it is a shame he cannot extend the same empathy to those children if they grow into damaged adults...)

[Glenn]

I'd be also interested to see if these folks had any actual empathy for people who have personal, social, or medical problems.

[Charles Wheeler]

Of course the government know that the savings from scroungers, fraudsters and the 'undeserving' are relatively small. The objective is to discredit the benefit in general, thus making it easier to abolish. After years of this drip-fed rubbish many voters assume 'most' benefit claimants are scroungers.

The welfare reforms in the pipeline aren't aimed at sorting sheep from goats, but at cutting benefits from (almost all). Those deemed capable of 'some work-related activity' (which, using Stephen Hawking as an example, covers just about everyone) by someone working for a company being paid to reduce the claimant count will be placed on Jobseekers' Allowance saving £20-30 a week. The rest will be placed on a 12 month time-limited benefit then be expected to rely on their partners'/family's support.

It has absolutely nothing to do with desert.

[Jim]

@CharlieMcMenamin: its a matter of degree really. I would be happy if a line were drawn in the sand somewhere regarding taxation which stated 'Any individual should not lose more than X% of his or her income in taxation (of whatever type)'. Then you know where you stand, and the State has a limited amount of money to 'steal' from taxpayers.

As things are, spending continues to grow inexorably, paying for more and more things that even 30 years ago would have been considered beyond the pale. Taxation continues to rise, in various hidden forms. What I want is an upper limit, a point beyond which each individual taxpayer has the legal right to say 'No more.'

Then the State, faced with a fixed level of revenue (in % terms anyway) would be forced to choose - do you want drug addicts to have benefits, or do you want to give more money to other things instead?

I am also intimately aware of the workings of the benefit system through people I know within it, and see the consequences thereof. There is a total lack of personal responsibility created by the State benefit system - whatever your behaviour, however bad,or self-harming it is, the State (ie the rest of us) will ALWAYS pay to pick up the pieces. Again I want to see a line - behaviour beyond this line is unacceptable to society, and we will not help you if you act like this. Drug taking is a criminal act (maybe it shouldn't be, but that's another argument) so I see no reason why my tax should partly go towards such an activity.

[Glenn]

Depends how you construe "the state". For me it should be the collective view of society. I don't really want it to be an exogenous entity extracting cash from me. Folks may argue that its more like the latter, but I'd rather work towards my naive ideals than simply pull down the shutters and tell the outside world to bugger off.

The fixed revenue hypothesis - the problem is that economic output and hence, govt revenue is rather choppy - not smooth nor predictable at all. And then along come things like epidemics, wars and natural disasters (even very cold winters) and also put new uncertainties into how much tax revenue you can take, and how much you need to spend. And then there's things like having to make massive capital investments in things like transport (or the navy) which led to innovations such as national debt to help actually make fiscal management a lot easier...

[Jim]

@Glenn: the average person pays over 50% of their income in tax in one form or another (income tax, NI, VAT, fuel duty, other 'sin' taxes, IPT, council tax, road tax etc etc). How high can that % go? Are you prepared to take 100% of people's incomes in tax and then give them a State approved living allowance back? Or is there some % that even you consider the State should not go beyond?

[scandalousbill]

Jim,

You say,

"Again I want to see a line - behaviour beyond this line is unacceptable to society, and we will not help you if you act like this. Drug taking is a criminal act (maybe it shouldn't be, but that's another argument) so I see no reason why my tax should partly go towards such an activity."

I presume that you are aware that no incapacity benefit is available for such abuses and that the criminal justice system is still functioning. Does cutting the people you mention off benefits solve the problem or merely create a new set of problems. Will the crime rate drop, will there be less druggies on your lawn? Or will these people simply be pushed into further desperation? The belief that there would be an accrued tax saving is more spin than substance.

[puma pas cher]

The phrase 'no fault of their own' takes on a different slant, when considering the help and support people in this position need from wider society.

[אומנויות לחימה]

Interesting case..Its really very sad that many people are getting addicted to drugs and steps need to be taken to save those obese people.They should be made aware of society and their self respect.But from my side I will not be the entity and may not expect any extract of money from me.The politics of Trivia are majorly being affected by three possibilities like statistical illiteracy,managerialism and revelation of character...

[oahu helicopter tours]

Where appropriate the Travel Reports include Travel Warnings highlighting conditions in countries the department considers unsafe for Canadians.