ANOTHER VOICE
We should not waste our time worrying about the fortunate 'poor'
AUBERON WAUGH
Between 1979 and 1994, the average income in Britain increased in real terms (taking tax and inflation into account) by 50 per cent. It is even better news, of course, for the most productive, talented or lucky 10 per cent — all 5.5 million of us — that our income doubled in the same period.
I would not propose to dwell on this sec- ond figure, still less gloat over it, except to the extent that it might do something to restore a sense of well-being to those who have benefited in this way. But the fact that the average income has risen so spectacu- larly over a 15-year period must be cause for celebration with the governing party. Perhaps other countries in Europe have done even better. I do not know, nor did the Joseph Rowntree Foundation bother to tell us in its two studies published last week. So it is safe to suppose that not many people know for certain whether other countries have done better. These two reports — one from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the other from Swansea University — should have been proclaimed from the rooftops in the run-up to Thursday's elec- tions.
Instead, they were treated as another nail in the Tories' coffin. This was because one of them claimed the poorest 10 per cent were no better off, the other suggested that the poorest sixth (16.67 per cent) were actually worse off than they had been earli- er. In fact, 20 per cent of the population (11 million people) now lives on or below half the national average, which is what these people define as 'poverty'. This com- pares with an all-time low of 3 million (under 5V, per cent) under Labour in 1977.
The news of these two Rowntree reports was generally juxtaposed with the same day's announcement of a snap Gallup poll giving Labour 54 per cent of the vote with Tories in third place behind Liberal Democrats, as if the two were somehow connected: Conser- vative failure to look after the poor (often fearfully imagined by Conservative voters to constitute a majority) was thought to explain the fact that only 21 per cent of the elec- torate were prepared to vote for them.
I suspect this is nonsense, another exam- ple of the guilt and insecurity of the well- to-do. The vast majority — 86.33 per cent — are better off by the gloomiest reckon- ing, and most of them are immensely better off than they have ever been in their lives. We have never had it so good. The growth from three to eleven million in the numbers of those living in 'poverty' or half the national average income should take into account that under Labour income differ- entials were squeezed by redistributive tax- ation and income policies. Even now, if they manage to take away the 50 per cent increase in average incomes, they will vastly reduce the number living on half the aver- age income and more or less abolish `poverty' at a stroke, to the applause of the entire Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
The increase in unemployment following our exciting experiments in progressive education has provided obvious fodder for the poverty industry. On Sunday, the Observer valiantly tried to put flesh and blood on the spectre of poverty in our midst by focusing on the agony of a poor family living in affluent Sussex: Natalie Upperton, 24, is *unemployed. Her partner, Michael Reckett, 35, has not worked for ten years. They have three children, aged three, six and ten, and live on £200 a week in State benefits. Home is a three-bedroom housing association house on the edge of East Grinstead. Their income is barely enough to pay the bills and run their battered 14-year-old Vauxhall. Holidays are out of the question. All this, and they are surrounded by wealth . . .
The chasm between the have-lots and the have-nots is also apparent at the school gate when Natalie drops off her sons Ian and Jamie. The rich parents roll up in their big BMWs and their kids show off their new trainers,' she said. 'They don't talk to us. We're at one side of the gate and they're on the other side. Some of them can be a bit nasty.'
This ménage is presumably to be seen as an object of concern, even pity, if its £200 a week is 'barely enough to pay the bills' and run their Vauxhall, not enough to pay for a holiday. It might seem hard-hearted to sug- gest that since they do not work, their need for a holiday might be less than it would otherwise be. My purpose is not to suggest that as a solution to the problem of those hundreds of thousands of citizens who can- not be bothered to take low-paid jobs that `Fancy a bite? I know this great little Italian.' we should reduce welfare entitlements. Many of these people may think they are exercising choice, but are, in fact, unem- ployable, and a reduction of benefits would be to invite an explosion of criminality which neither the police nor the prison ser- vice is in a position to contain.
My reason for drawing attention to this couple is to suggest we should not waste our time worrying about them. They are every bit as lucky in their way as the couple in the top 10 per cent whose income has doubled. No doubt they will vote Labour. They always will. That is what the Labour Party is for, to receive their votes. But we should not deceive ourselves that the Uppertons and Recketts of this world will decide the election.
If the Government is to win the next gen- eral election it must focus the minds of every individual voter and every couple on their position in the scale of economic dis- tress: do we belong to the 16.67 per cent who have done badly under Conservatism, or to the 83.33 per cent who have done well? If the latter, do we feel that our own chances of maintaining this improvement will be reduced or enhanced by a govern- ment which is dedicated to giving more of our earnings to Natalie Upperton, 24, and her partner, Michael Reckett, 35?
There are other things the Conservatives should do in order to secure re-election, but that must be the main drift. Alcohol duty should be halved, and the extra rev- enue made up with heavy taxes on satellite and cable television (as well as a new 'nip- ple' tax on newspapers of a penny a nipple). Interest rates should be raised in acknowl- edgment of the fact that savers outnumber borrowers in a ratio of seven to one. Per- haps the Eastleigh result will have taught them this simple democratic truth. The Cabinet must be brought to heel. Redwood and Lilley should be dropped, Mr Howard should be sent to Northern Ireland (prefer- ably in a Chinook helicopter). Portillo should remain in charge of sacking public employees and told to sack at least 40,000 a month for three years. Finally, something must be done about Mr Major. I suggest that Douglas Hurd, like Geoffrey Howe, should make a passionate resignation speech, giving Major's U-turn on the 'slow track' issue as his reason. Then the 1922 Committee should pass a public vote of no confidence, and we can send for Lady Olga Maitland.
Previous page
