‘Chavs’ and Ministers to Adopt Workless Families
Owen Jones’ Chavs is simply the most incisive political book to appear for decades.
One cannot help but think that behind David Starkey’s bellowing on Newsnight was some dim recognition of just how powerful a book it is – here.
Its main themes are well-known: that the working class is demonised, that there is prejudice against the workless, and that any effort to create an egalitarian society has been replaced by the free-market scramble for wealth, consigning millions to low-paid jobs and unemployment.
That calling low-paid people ‘chavs’ and making fun of them – not in themselves wrong (I’m always in favour of having a laugh) was part of deeper process. This has shunted them off from society and made them the objects of state action, never political actors.
That the Labour Party and liberals focus on ‘equality of opportunity’, and promote multiculturalism rather than advancing the interests of the working class. Diversity became more important than equality. That is they substitute individual solutions for collective ones. That instead of fighting for a universal improvement of people’s conditions they want to offer a helping hand to those who want to ‘escape’ the working class.
In this vacuum we have government measures such as the New Deal. It did not create jobs but a vast ‘unemployment’ bizness’ (my expression not Owen’s) which stigmatised the out-of-work and placed them on unrewarding schemes. These ended up largely benefiting the companies and ‘voluntary’ sector that ran them rather than participants.
Now we have the Work Programme. Owen does not directly outline it but describes how it was foreshadowed by the Labour Work and Pensions Minister James Purnell and his adviser David Freud (now a Baron and an open Conservative). Both wanted to destroy the welfare system. They blamed the out-of-work for their own plight. Now the Work Programme’s ’solution’ to unemployment is an attempt to turn everyone into a Samuel Smiles. Whether they like it or not.
Chavs (which I read and nearly finished last night) sprang to life when I saw this in the media this morning.
Some of David Cameron’s ministers and advisers are to volunteer as “family champions” and “adopt” families on benefits.
Under the scheme, designed by ‘social entrepreneur’ Emma Harrison who manages a number of the Government’s training contracts, politicians will use their contacts and help manage the family’s finances to encourage them back to work. Tim Loughton is amongst the first volunteers.
Work and Pensions Minister Chris Grayling said “my colleague Tim Loughton is setting up a charitable foundation to help in a sense be a thought-leader for family intervention”. He added that the Department of Work and Pensions was going to also help by helping get families back to work.
This gives some meaning to the expression ‘tough love’ – tough for those who’ll get it inflicted on them, love (or at least they hope) for the politicians who participate.
Andrew
I am glad you have reviewed this book as I stayed away from it as I found Owen’s articles a bit defeatist, however it being the most incisive political book to appear for decades is some recommendation and as I value your opinion (despite at times disagreeing) I will get a copy.
cheers
Yes. It is beautfully clear. Owen is of course a very long-standing comrade from Labour Briefing as well and I’ve followed his writings for some time.
On the response to this plan this has just been released:
“The Government was today accused of engaging in gimmicks following the disclosure that a minister is personally to “adopt” a workless family to try to help them off benefits and into work.
The Department for Education confirmed that children and families minister Tim Loughton had agreed to become a “family champion” under a scheme devised by social entrepreneur, Emma Harrison.
The Sunday Times reported that Mr Loughton was among a number of Government ministers, advisers and MPs who had volunteered to take part. They were said to include Rohan Silva, one of David Cameron’s senior policy advisers.
However there appeared to be some confusion in Whitehall over the plan with employment minister Chris Grayling – who was also named among the volunteers – saying that he was not involved.
“I was rather surprised when I read this one. It was news to me that I was going to be in there,” he told Sky News.
“Tim is the children’s minister and I know that he wants to lead from the front over this. I am sure he will do an excellent job.”
However shadow home office minister Vernon Coaker dismissed the plan as “gimmicky” and accused ministers of lacking a proper strategy for dealing with the long-term unemployed.
“It smacks of something that gets a headline, but what is going on underneath? What is the strategy?” he said.
The scheme is intended to encourage the middle classes to act as mentors to families in which no one has worked over two or three generations. They would introduce the families to their contacts, help them manage their household finances and guide them through the bureaucracy.
Ms Harrison, whose company manages £300 million of government training contracts, denied the scheme was a gimmick.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5i2ChfGjOAhfWtTZUef-UnC1UiEsQ?docId=N0504781313927433674A
Nothing will come fo this. It’s unworkable. It makes my blood boil to think that this useless woman has been paid for this kind of shite.
The book works on two levels – an exposure of the myths that have arisen about the British working class, and an argument for an assertive Labour movement. Obviously, the second is going to have more relevance to those active in the party and affiliated unions. What is significant is that Owen pays attention to the labour process – and whilst I think this is problematic in terms of accepting a division (albeit redefined) between the “working class” and “middle class” – the conclusion that the purpose of our movement is not merely to provide security of income and improved conditions, but to extend democratic participation in everyday life, which for most people means the workplace.
James thjanks for clarifying that.
Owen’s been criticised for his picture of the working class. When I say criticised I mean ‘criticised’ in the way only the left can do.
Personally, having spent many years reading books that attempt to define class (my degree is in Sociology and Politics) I think he does describe the labour process. if eh does this in a way that does not bore people it;s perhaps because Chavs is a concrete description, and is highly readable.
There is an argument that an assertive labour movement is always needed for people to identify themselves politically in terms of class – which I think he makes.
That is we rise all togther, rather than through ‘escaping’ individually through a meritocracy.