After a political 'honeymoon' that looked as if it would go on and on, Tony Blair's authority over his government is facing its biggest challenge with the project to reform the welfare state.
Predictably, the problems of dissent have been internal to the Labour Party. But with his popularity still at unprecedented levels and with an unassailable parliamentary majority, the Prime Minister knows the best time to take unpopular decisions is now, at the beginning of a five-year term of office. Reacting to his critics, Mr Blair admitted that 'change is always hard'. But he said: 'The system isn't working and we have got to reform it.'
On present trends, the annual welfare budget in Britain is set to break the £100 billion barrier. The reply of Tony Blair to his critics is that more is spent by the government on benefit than is spent on schools, hospitals and the police put together. By tackling the expanding bill for welfare, he hopes that money will be released to tackle the causes of poverty and get people to work. But his goal is not simply one of cutting back on spending. The momentum for reform reflects a project that transcends these short-term concerns. It marks a shift in the political debate that should excite evangelicals and challenge us to careful reflection on the business of government.
For the first time in recent political history, the value-laden assumptions which determine the scope of the political discourse over welfare share territory that is 'owned' by Christians. This 'territory' has a historical context which evangelicals in previous centuries constructed through their influence on the emergence of voluntary mutual associations that provided social insurance, means of savings and trade union organisation.
Rebuilding the fabric
Tony Blair's conviction that the primary task of his government is to rebuild the torn fabric of society, is the driving force behind welfare reform. Underpinning it is an orthodox Christian view of human nature and a developed theological perspective on what is behind many social ills. This is what is distinctive about his 'Christian Socialism' and could open up the prospect for a wider political assault on the consequences of modernism.
Tony Blair - unlike many of his contemporaries - does not blame simply economic individualism or 'Thatcherism' for social dislocation. By reminding people they have responsibilities as well as rights, he has shown he is willing to point the finger at the idea of the supremacy of self and how this has undermined the alternative of a 'community' where people watch out for each other. He is not afraid to say: 'I am my brother's keeper.'
One of the most significant speeches he ever made on this was to a South African audience in November 1996, when he called for the introduction of a 'social morality' in Britain. He has not used the phrase since. However, the intention is clear. The Prime Minister wants to fill the void modernism has created in society by a state-directed social morality. The project to reform the welfare state is the biggest vehicle available for this hugely ambitious project. The historic importance of Tony Blair's political ambitions and the success he has had with his own party can be seen by looking at the shift in Labour's underlying philosophy.
'Old' Labour blamed social division and class inequality on the deficiencies of capitalism. Through state intervention in the economy, they were determined to remedy this. Welfare became a way of redistributing wealth to the poor and guaranteeing a social minimum. The underlying assumption in the 1980s was that society's 'sin' was not personal - it was primarily 'structural'.
Structural sin?
The state did not 'judge' personal behaviour - whether children were born out of wedlock, abandoning a family to start another or simply the unwillingness to provide for oneself. But the state was expected to pick up the cost of these individual choices - regardless of the burden on the Exchequer. No-one calculated the additional social costs to wider society by the delivery of the powerful message that it is the 'right' of people to choose whatever lifestyle they want. The myth of the value-neutral state was a powerful tool in modernism's hand that helped privatise morality and foster selfish individualism.
But 'New Labour' has cast these views aside. Labour reformers realise that the welfare state may actually do the reverse of what its defenders intend. Rather than fostering community and dealing with injustice, the way in which the welfare net has been provided actually fractures it by encouraging fecklessness and individual irresponsibility.
The Field good factor
The main proponent of this view is the minister for welfare reform appointed by Tony Blair to think the unthinkable, Frank Field - another Christian Socialist. You don't have to wait for his promised Green Paper to grasp what he is about. Writing in Stakeholder welfare, published by the IEA Health and Welfare Unit, Field is very clear. He says that any proposals to reform the welfare state must be based on the understanding that 'self-interest, not altruism, is man-kind's main driving force'. He points out that welfare cannot help but influence behaviour, as it operates 'by the simple device of bestowing re-wards and allotting punishments', and as Social Security now accounts for a third of all central government expenditure, it must have a correspondingly large influence on 'the ground rules for society's behaviour'. The nature of our character depends in part on the values which welfare fosters,' he says.
Unfortunately, according to Field, the current system encourages bad behaviour and penalises the good. Because of the way that the tax and benefit system works, low earners find themselves facing extremely high marginal tax rates as they try to rejoin the workforce. Those who are honest about their earnings and their savings, if any, find themselves disadvantaged. The answer, according to Field, is to reform the system in a way that harnesses self-interest to the common good.
Stakeholder welfare
In his existing work, Field has proposed a form of stakeholder welfare. Every-one would 'own' their personal welfare fund to cover foreseeable needs like retirement and unplanned misfortunes like unemployment. Those too poor to contribute, because they are either unemployed or low-earners, would have their contributions paid for them by the state.
The second strand of historical interest for evangelicals is how Field proposes to deliver his new 'stakeholder' welfare. He sees the new scheme as a means of rebuilding the mutual aid organisations which flourished in the 19th century, and which placed such great emphasis on the development of good character. There is a possibility that funds would be administered through workplace bodies, trade unions or friendly societies.
Christian Democrats on the continent are familiar with these ideas. In Holland and Germany, a whole range of welfare organisations exist which deliver social benefits - including medical care - and which were set up by the churches. Until 1948, friendly societies were approved agencies for the disbursement of state benefits in this country. Field holds out an intriguing return to this former system. Parallel to his work has been the valuable biblical and social research on welfare delivery systems conducted by Michael Schluter's Jubilee Centre in Cambridge.
The underlying themes of welfare reform that Labour is exploring are the reconstruction of social cohesion, through the concept of mutuality, and a smaller role for the state and a larger one for families. But above all is Blair's drive to create a state-sponsored 'social morality' to guide society and, presumably, personal behaviour. Conservative thinkers have been moving in this direction too. Writing in 1994, the late Keith Joseph called for a new generation of friendly societies, and for charities and churches to offer friendly society services as supplements for their supporters. He said: 'these would enhance the social glue.' The Shadow Chancellor, Peter Lilley, is in charge of the Conservative post-election review of policy. A Christian, it seems likely that when he puts forward the new Conservative platform it will embrace many of the same thoughts.
Short -term solutions?
But how far will Labour go? There is a political conflict within the Cabinet rooted in the problem of finance. Moving from National Insurance to privatised welfare is not a cheap way of resolving the growth of the welfare budget. And Labour wants short-term solutions too. For this reason, Gordon Brown seems to be going for salami-slicing. But taking away benefits - such as the single-parent supplement - won't dent the total sum of welfare very much and carries with it all sorts of social and political problems.
But more importantly, there is talk from Brown and Harriet Harman of widening the means-test system to benefits such as child benefit and the disability living allowance. This would run counter to the whole tenet of Frank Field's critique of the present welfare system which is that means-testing is part of the whole problem.
The clearest indication of whether Labour will go for Field's radical approach will hang on what happens to disability benefits. David Blunkett illustrated the nature of the argument when he sent a private letter to Gordon Brown that was subsequently leaked. In it, he expressed 'grave anxiety' about hitting the totality of support for those who are disabled, and warned that moves by the Treasury to switch National Insurance based benefits to greater use of means testing 'would undermine social cohesion.' This was a side appeal to Blair as much as a rebuke to Brown.
An evangelical assessment of the reform of welfare can enter the debate at any level and have something to say. But if we are watching 'the signs of the times', evangelicals will get hold of the notion of the construction of a 'social morality' that is at the heart of Blair's political project. This goal can be found in the discussion on crime, and in the debate about the future of education. It needs to tackle how our economy runs and be introduced to the discussion of medical ethics and the environment.
It is a reflection of what Archbishop William Temple said when he argued that good government is about making self-interest seek what justice demands. But ultimately, we must say that Labour's project cannot succeed without Christ. For the only coherent morality that echoes in the memory of Britain is Christianity. And the gospel that brings social redemption needs faith and the response of God's grace as much as any act of personal salvation.
David Campanale is vice-chairman of the Movement for Christian Democracy.
Home
Archives
Subscriptions
Adverts
Find a church
About us
Contact us
Site Map
Printable