POLITICS

The Smith who set out to think the unthinkable and ended by saying the unthought

BRUCE ANDERSON

Chris Smith belongs to a minority. The shadow Social Security Secretary, he is one of the few Labour front-benchers who sounds as if he might perform effectively in government. Able, thoughtful and likeable, he appears to possess the qualities neces- sary to turn shadow into substance.

This may explain why Mr Blair sent him to Social Security, a complex and demand- ing portfolio. All commentators agree that the present system is doubly unsustainable: not only does it cost too much, a lot of the money is wasted. But theoretical criticisms are one thing, practical solutions another; the intellectual battle to reform social secu- rity has hardly begun.

It was widely assumed that Mr Smith would make a contribution. This is one area in which new Labour has shown a ten- tative interest in radicalism, and in early November last year, the Labour Party announced that Mr Smith had been given six months to 'think the unthinkable'.

He took seven months to announce his conclusion, and to modify his remit. He has not thought the unthinkable: he has said the unthought. In a 15-page lecture, Mr Smith tells us nothing of value on general questions and nothing specific about Labour plans. Needless to say, the prose is as tedious as the contents are vacuous; when they extend beyond sound-bite length, Lord, what bores these new Labourites be.

On page one, Mr Smith tells us that he has an argument. It is as follows: 'the wel- fare system has to adapt to the changed cir- cumstances of the modern world'. Gosh, what an unthinkable thought — and there was more boldness to come. We learn that the answer does not lie in ever-increasing payments, but in `help[ing] people to move out of dependency and into work'.

That is less of an insight than Mr Smith would have us believe. Its intellectual antecedents could be traced at least as far back as the New Poor Law. It was one of Beveridge's principles, and has been part of the foundations of the welfare system for the past 50 years. The problem is that the building and the foundations have come adrift.

Mr Smith claims to have an answer. It is called 'welfare into work': payments to unemployed persons should be made in such a way as to encourage them to seek work, rather than to remain dependent. There is nothing wrong with that proposal, and if Mr Smith had made it two years ago, his claim to have had unthinkable thoughts (by old Labour standards) would be unde- niable. Unfortunately for Mr Smith, he is too late. Everything of value in his sketchy plans has already been incorporated into the job seekers' allowance scheme, which is shortly to replace the existing unemploy- ment benefits and income support for the unemployed. There is a hypocrisy here. When the Job Seekers' Allowance Bill was going through Parliament, the Labour Party condemned it. Now Mr Smith has pinched many of Mr Lilley's ideas though he has omitted some of the tougher-minded elements.

Mr Smith is not keen on tough-minded- ness. He would prefer 'a completely new relationship between the individual and the welfare system. We must ensure that those who turn to the welfare state . . . do so as citizens, not as supplicants.'

But what does this mean, especially for the unemployed? We would all agree that there should be no gratuitous assaults on their dignity, but an element of supplica- tion is inevitable. The unemployed are ask- ing for money which they have not earned. This money comes from taxpayers, who had to work hard to earn it, and who are enti- tled to be reassured that it is not squan- dered. Any system of unemployment bene- fit that is not rigorously administered will be open to fraud. In order to prevent this, claimants will sometimes have to be treated as supplicants. Then there is compulsion. Mr Lilley believes that the unemployed should be required to demonstrate their interest in returning to work. Mr Smith takes the odd grandmother's-footstep in that direction: `The citizen's part . . . must be played . . . in ensuring that proper efforts are made to reach out beyond welfare and back into work.' But if these efforts are not made, what then? Mr Lilley would take away the benefit. Mr Smith does not say what he would do. Does he really believe that prissy exhortation is all that is required?

Mr Smith is right to focus on unemploy- ment. There is one simple way to solve the problem of social security: a return to the unemployment levels of the 1950s. But there are two massive obstacles.

The first is international competition. In every previous period of technological change, the Luddites always predicted that unemployment would rise, and they were always wrong. The new jobs more than compensated for the old.

But there is something to be said for wearing the same sandwich-board for 180 years: at last, the Luddites may be vindi- cated. The computer and the Orient between them have not only destroyed British jobs, they have made it difficult to create replacements, and that applies to the middle-classes as well as in manufac- turing.

The second obstacle to employment aris- es from high-mindedness. In the 1950s, many youngsters who would today be unemployed were able to find work. The jobs were generally ill-paid, and the employees had few rights. Some of them were exploited and ill-treated. But they were at least on a ladder, however lowly their rung. Once on a ladder, you can rise.

Over the past couple of decades, a lot of those ladders have been destroyed. Gov- ernments have been so worried about youngsters being badly paid and maltreated in the wrong sort of jobs that they have made it hard for them to find a job at all. Now Mr Smith's party wants a minimum wage and the Social Chapter. Those would have one inescapable consequence: to increase youth unemployment in Britain towards average EU levels.

Needless to say, Mr Smith does not attempt to answer those arguments: that would be unthinkable. As I said earlier, he is a decent fellow, and I cannot believe that he could re-read his own text without embarrassment. Perhaps he should set him- self a more limited goal: forget about the `unthinkable' and just do some thinking.

That would help in other respects. Chris Smith liked and respected John Smith; he now mourns him and reveres his memory. So how could he allow himself to write the following: 'A month ago I visited the island of Iona . . . I wanted to go and stand by John Smith's grave, and when I did so I have to say that the two words that first came to my mind were "social justice".' What mawkish, tawdry rubbish; for God's sake, chuck it, Smith. That the author ends by expressing heart-felt emotion in such insincere-sounding language is a fitting comment on the worthlessness of his lec- ture, and on the endemic insincerity of new Labour.