A week or so ago I shared a blog with the table above on the Dorset Eye facebook page. I expected some trolling from right wingers but it utterly surprised me as to where the principle trolling would come from. Let’s look at the table and then look at you, the reader before telling my tale.
It shows that under the new benefit cap, how a single parent with three children (or more) and two parents with three children (or more) on any out of work benefits will be made homeless from November – wherever they live in the UK.
Welfare payments will not cover a suitable home, whether in social housing or the private sector, and it is inevitable that children will either be forced to live together in unsuitable accommodation or under the threat of eviction social services may be called in and potentially the children put into fostering or even adopted.
Ask yourself these questions. Even without the nightmare scenario of families being broken apart due to the state’s hatred of the unemployed, should anyone be made homeless because of their inability to find work due to their personal or social circumstances? Should people be treated properly by a good healthcare system for their mental health, substance misuse or physical problems? Should people escaping war be given somewhere safe to live? With a fast growing economy with not enough people living here to do all the jobs in towns and cities where there is too much work to go around, should people be encouraged to come here to do the work that the natural population cannot do? Should everyone be allowed to worship in the faith they truly believe in? Finally, should anyone be tarred with the same brush as those who break society’s rules within their group – for example, should all Muslims be hated for terrorism, Jews for Gaza, welfare recipients for swinging the lead?
Discourse, truths and ‘the other’
I’m going to introduce a couple of concepts to you so I can write a little more economically later in this piece. Discourse is roughly speaking, defined as the direction of discussion among a large group of people. An example of a discourse is the general belief in free trade in the Conservative Party. Discourse is the dominant direction of discussion. It is not politics. Politics is below discourse – discourse feeds politics.
Truth is what you believe to be true. A truth can be false! Theresa May’s opinions on immigration are not as truthful as the fact you have fish and chips on a Friday. However, if the same story is told time and again, false ‘truths’ can become truths within the dominant discourse.
‘The other’ is a minority group. They could be European immigrants, welfare recipients, Muslims, refugees – any that aren’t the same group as you perceive yourself to be in.
Connecting the three together the dominant right wing discourse’s truths suggest that: Poles are ‘the other’ and accused of ‘stealing our jobs’. Muslims for ‘supporting ISIS’. Unemployed for ‘wasting government money’. Disabled ‘for being alive’. People with hidden disabilities for ‘swinging the lead’.
Right wing discourse
The Brexit vote did not happen because of an overwhelming set of facts that made it sensible to leave the EU. There was a left wing argument that said we should destroy Capitalism. This didn’t win the argument.
Is immigration going to be controlled? No. Where’s the extra £350 million for the NHS? These were blatant lies that won the argument. They became the dominant right wing discourse that were apparent ‘truths’ – that even the day after the vote were admitted to be outright lies.
Since around 2008 there have been a lot of newspaper articles showing how unemployed people are ‘stealing benefits’, and this has entered the dominant discourse.
Prejudices
We are all individuals. We are steered by our own moral compasses. We learn about the world in our different ways. We form prejudices. It is easy to hate.
Eating pork is unholy to two religious groups. Beef to another. Among large groups of people you will find that they casually blame immigrants of all colours, farmers will hate badgers, and because so much is printed in the media many will come to believe that they ‘know someone who is swinging the lead with their benefits’.
Prejudices can be manipulated by those in power through the dominant discourse. Before you accuse me of being delusional, I will just point out that much of the press is owned by rich right wing proprietors. The S*n, Times, Star, Mail, Express – even the Guardian! The media informs people and the discourse comes from that. Reading the Mail you could come to believe that hordes of immigrant Corbyn supporting unemployed people are going to rape your daughters and break the Treasury by taking so many benefits.
Politics
Let’s go back to the reason I started writing this blog – the table at the top of this page. I shared the post on Dorset Eye (click on the link to see it) and expected some comments from people of various beliefs. What surprised me was that a very senior Liberal Democrat councillor from Weymouth and Portland Borough Council would speak of her prejudices. I can’t name that person or what brief they hold as they deleted their comments from the thread.
The first comments could be summed up as ‘these people cannot budget which is why they will be made homeless’. Another comment was that ‘I have been told that one of them used their benefits to get a full face tattoo’. She actually believed that families with three children or more who could not work should be made homeless.
As an aside, I have a 16 month old daughter and it is very hard for my partner to work. She pays £150 a month for a day’s nursery a week so she can freelance as the editor of three international trade magazines. There is no state support for that until our midget turns 3. Women become very fertile after their first child so it is quite easy to pop out two more within 27 months of conceiving the first. That would mean for someone who cannot easily afford £450 a month (3 children, 4 days a month in nursery) in any low paid job they would be unemployed for upwards of four years.
The councillor’s comments made me lose my temper as a result. I pursued her over this and she defended herself by saying she had been to briefings from the officers of Weymouth and Portland Borough Council (and possibly the Jobcentre too). She had been told these stories by the officers and civil servants. Additionally, she had been told other stories by people she had spoken to while door knocking to win votes.
This tells me that the dominant right wing discourse that says ‘the other’ is at fault has spread far too deeply. That a senior brief holding politician from a supposedly centre left party believes the lies promoted in the media, and that she is briefed by supposedly politically neutral civil servants and officers within that right wing discourse, is something quite saddening.
How about changing our target?
In this piece I have shown you how the people of Great Britain hate each other. The rich proprietors of newspapers hate poor people, left wingers hate billionaires, people on disability benefits hate immigrants. The working poor hate unemployed people and those with disabilities. Everyone hates terrorists. The list goes on! At the beginning of this piece I asked you a load of questions – taking a step back, should you really hate anyone who struggles?
Who started this discourse? It all comes from people at the top of society who are protecting their interests. If we all hate each other then we are wasting our energy elsewhere and not targeting the real problem – those who are attacking us all.
Why are benefits being cut and taxes for the rich being cut at the same time? The cuts are to save the rich money – the rich are robbing the NHS and welfare state not people who are ‘swinging the lead’. The rich control discussion so we are too focused on ‘the other’ to focus on the real problem.
If you are earning £25,000 a year, what does a high top rate tax band mean to you? It means that those at the top are paying for those at the bottom. All these tax loopholes? They don’t bother you, though you may even use them yourself. The tax loopholes for the most part mean that those at the top don’t have to pay for everyone who needs that money at the bottom.
Does this mean we should burn Sandbanks? No. It does mean those living there should pay for those in the bedsits of Boscombe to be able to sort their lives out. It is time to shift our target from each other to those who are telling us to hate our neighbours.
Richard Shrubb
