John Sentamu: Britain has lost its “big vision”
Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu believes that Britain’s social cohesion and sense of common purpose have disappeared in recent decades. The nation, he argues, has lost the “big vision” that was evident in welfare-state social programmes of the 1940s.
That big vision was mainly the product of William Temple, Richard Tawney, and William Beveridge, three public intellectuals and social activists who met as young men at Balliol College, Oxford. The Beveridge Report of 1942 set forth principles to combat social and economic deprivation, which were soon implemented in a ground-breaking and comprehensive series of government programmes.
The Report offered three guiding principles for its recommendations:
First, proposals for the future should not be limited by “sectional interests” in learning from experience and that “a revolutionary movement in the world’s history is a time for revolutions, not for patching”. Not sowing a new cloth on a worn-out garment. It is a time for setting aside personal agendas, encouraging the change of heart and empowering all people to tear down the walls of fear, cruelty and hatred.
Second, social insurance is only one part of a “comprehensive policy of social progress”. The five giants which were obstacles on the road to reconstruction were: Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness”. All five giants had to be tackled together. A piecemeal approach was inadequate to create a fire-break.
Thirdly, policies of social security “must be achieved by co-operation between the State and the individual” with the state securing the service and contributions. The state “should not stifle incentive, opportunity, and responsibility: in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family”.
The social reforms implemented by the Labour Party after the 1945 General Election, led to the creation of the Welfare State. The range of Acts including the Family Allowances Act 1945, the National Insurance Act 1946 and the National Health Service Act 1946, addressed the five giants of deprivation.
It’s hard for us today to take in the full impact of these Acts. For the Beveridge reforms transformed the lives of millions. They virtually became a touchstone of what Britain was about. For the first time, everyone was entitled to a reasonable income if they were unemployed, a proper pension, paid holidays and above all, free healthcare. If you became sick, the state would care for you. There are many countries in the world that still do not enjoy these entitlements today.
Built into these reforms was a strong conviction that the state should provide support as needed. However it was not to encourage dependency. Beveridge envisaged that workers could and should seek to improve conditions for their families.
Why has that vision been lost? Abp Sentamu blames loss of the British Empire, acceptance of a multicultural ideology that does not expect immigrants to integrate into British culture and society (adopt British “values” if you like), and loss of Britain’s public Christian tradition.
I agree that Britain has lost its way, and I am very sympathetic to the desire to recover social cohesion and renew Christianity and its role in the public square. I would argue that Abp Sentamu has overlooked a critical factor, however. In my view, the “big vision” contains within itself the seeds of its own corruption. Expansive social welfare has played a crucial role in causing Britain to become atomised and inward-looking.
The state cannot guarantee freedom from want and idleness without, at the same time, stifling individual responsibility. To provide public funds on demand to everyone who asks is necessarily to diminish self-reliance and encourage dependency. It is predictable that making public support a matter of right will create an ethic of self-regard and lack of concern for the greater good.
Because of generous public welfare spending for the past 65 years, Britain now has families in which no one has held a paying job for two or even three generations. Life-long dole recipients come to believe that the state owes them their living. They lose all care for the public good and become resentful of any suggestion that they should be expected to make a positive contribution to society.
There is, in short, a trade-off between state welfare and social cohesion.
Just to be clear, I do not oppose all public welfare. Certainly, those unable to work due to physical or mental infirmity need help. I also support reasonable unemployment insurance for people who have lost jobs. Unconditional provision of state funds to persons able to work when jobs are available, however, is not sound public policy. That saps initiative and individual self-reliance, both of which are necessary for a healthy society.
I respectfully suggest that Abp Sentamu take a critical look at the foundations of Britain’s welfare state to see why the country went off the rails.
h/t: Anglican Samizdat
“Second, social insurance is only one part of a “comprehensive policy of social progress”. The five giants which were obstacles on the road to reconstruction were: Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness”.
Unfortunately social insurance is itself a major source of at least one of “The five giants” – Idleness. When govenments hand over money for doing nothing then people don’t stop being idle, they become idle.
Many kids are not taught to work hard in school (and obey the law) as it is a govenment endowed right that whether they are idle of busy in their childhood, they will still get “social insurance”.
Personally I would like to see social insurance increase for people such as the ill and the disables, but decrease for the lazy, but that is unlikely to happen.
[...] MODERNITY is all about rebellion; John Sentamu: Britain has lost its “big vision” …. [...]