George Osborne has announced dramatic changes to the benefit (i.e., welfare) system in the UK. Beyond the ending of the child-tax credit for high income earners--a poorly thought out own goal by the Tories that penalises single-income families and alienates their base constituency--the most devastating erosion of the welfare state will be felt by families on benefit.
As reported this week by the Guardian:
- The benefits of workless families will be capped at £500 per week, the median post-tax income of a working household. The cap, introduced from 2013, will in part be applied through a reduction in housing benefit, hitting about 50,000 families.
In combination many workless families face a very difficult road ahead.
The most noticeable impact will be on families living in London who will no longer receive enough money between the two schemes to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves in one of the most expensive cities in the world.
Thus, these cuts are set to initiate a significant internal migration flow out of London into the surrounding council areas, or in some cases, further afield. It is, in some respects, potentially similar in its effects to the enclosure movement of the 18th and 19th centuries, though the dynamic is from urban to suburban/rural this time around.
The cuts raise the very important issue of how are councils in the Greater London area that are already under-funded and ill-equipped--and facing further reductions-- going to deal with an influx of people for whom no infrastructure exists?
But the migration of the (un)deserving poor in Tory parlance--yes, they are openly using these Victorian terms again--is but one part of the equation. What has yet to be discussed in the media is how the removal of low income families from London fits into the Conservative plan to redraw constituency boundaries for the next general election.
If one looks at the results of the 2010 general election geographically, one can see that London is really the only area in the entire south of the country where Labour has a seat advantage. However, the overall lead in percentage of the vote was razor thin. By shifting those perceived more likely to vote Labour out into regions that already heavily poll Tory--in some cases by more than 20 points--there is an increase in the probability that Labour support in London will drop.
Add to the equation new constituency boundaries and a reduction in the total number of seats --as an aside, it will be interesting to see if they attempt to do this through Parliament or if they take it to referendum as part of the AV vote in May-- one sees that the Conservatives could be setting themselves up for success through a two-pronged gerrymandering attack.
Of course this all sounds a bit far-fetched. But what one has to remember is that support for all three major parties is so regionalised that one of the few areas where the Tories could pick up seats would be a hyper-gentrified London (perhaps along with the Lib Dem belt in the South West). And remember too just how close the Tories came this time around to a majority government. A few extra seats in London could just be the difference at the next general election.
So, it's not just that the UK Conservative Party appears to lack the ability to treat people on low incomes with dignity and respect or to show any compassion. They may also be engaged in some sneaky gerrymandering through economically coerced migration too.
