.png)
Divide and Conquer: the new democracy of the twenty-first century
- David Alan Simmons
- Sep 18, 2019
- 6 min read
Updated: Dec 1, 2022
As far back as the rule of Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne (2010-2016) and in the United States, the Presidential term of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989), dishonesty and divisiveness have been standard equipment in the politicians’ toolbox. Once its power and effectiveness were recognised, our elected masters were quick to see that it was a ploy with no costs, certainly not if there was a pliant or co-operative media in place.
Ordinary citizens felt too much respect – or perhaps it was deference - to those who had been installed in office by the approval of millions. To question the statements and opinions of those who bestride the television screens of a nation would be a step too far. Such people are usually both confident and articulate, which doesn’t necessarily imply the ability to make correct judgements about policy, but lacking detailed knowledge in person of the elected representatives, they have to be judged from what little voters do know about them.
The honesty and competence of our elected leaders is not doubted by those who voted for them, but also, the public may see politicians as exemplars, the voice of authority, the wise elders of the tribe. David Cameron spoke of spending cuts “by saying the government could not cut the deficit "by just hitting either the rich or the welfare scrounger".” This implies that taxing the rich and “the welfare scrounger" were both on the last as targets for higher taxes, or smaller payments.
Not that Cameron had any intention of hitting the rich, who instead were given generous tax cuts. But there was no need to mention the “welfare scrounger," because their role in damaging the nation’s finances was minimal. Benefit fraud is of such a low level that it would be more expensive to identify and locate all those incorrectly claiming benefits than to just carry on paying it. The level of known fraud is somewhere between three and five per cent of all claimants, depending on which survey one reads. Apparently the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) do not regard this volume of fraud as sufficiently damaging for it to be cost-effective to seek out and block all fraudulent claims.
To attack those on benefits as near criminals may sound unlikely in a properly raised human who has had all the advantages of a liberal education, and gives the impression of being an honest, caring person. But honest politicians are not as common place as some people may think. Author Adam Kay writes, “I thought my opinion of David Cameron was immovable – that he was a terrible prime minister. His autobiography For the Record made me appraise him anew. I can now add “grasping, desperate shell of a human who exists in a moral vacuum”.” (Adam Kay. The Guardian. Saturday December 21 2019.)
But Cameron, who at least has access to all official figures, thought it necessary to mention those few cases making false claims, as if such theft is widespread, if only to let voters know that there are people to blame for the spending cuts. However, in 2012, George Osborne was given the perfect case to cite when trying to argue that the DWP could cut back on its spending. Mick Philpott. an unemployed father of 17 children, as part of a revenge plot against a former girlfriend, set fire to his home in Derby, with the aim of blaming the fire on the ex-girlfriend. Tragically, six of his children died in the house fire. Philpott, living with two women, was charged with murder. He had committed so many crimes, and infringements of family values, that he was a perfect example of the moral reprobate that some sections of the tabloid press love to hate. Whatever else he was, Philpott was not your average “welfare scrounger."
Yet Osborne thought this was an appropriate case to use to question if the state should "subsidise" the lifestyles of people like Philpott. Osborne said there was a "question for government and society" about the influence of benefits on behaviour. Given that this was a totally unique case, it might be considered unsuitable for judging a system which deals with 20.3 million families. It is certainly not sufficiently representative for judging the effectiveness of the DWP at allocating funds only to upstanding citizens with strong moral codes. Perhaps they should only be judged by politicians with strong moral codes.
But when talking about the influence of benefits on behaviour, perhaps we should look at the more usual effects, rather than making an accusation out of one case, it might be more useful to look at general tendencies. Sir Michael Marmot reviewed health inequalities in England, and found that “If you go back 100 years, from the end of the 19th century, life expectancy just kept increasing by about one year every four years…” “The dramatic change in the curve began around 2010, he said. “It’s not due to a winter effect, because the slowdown was seven-eighths as big in the non-winter quarters.” (Sarah Boseley. The Guardian. February 26 2020.)
It is no coincidence that the change in direction started around 2010. That was when Cameron and Osborne took office and introduced the most damaging and most flimsy excuse for a policy that Britain has seen for many years. They argued that the “massive debt burden” left behind by Labour’s “wild spending” necessitated a cut in spending. “Intellectually, the case for austerity has pretty much collapsed, having been reduced at this point to the Three Stooges Theory: we’re supposed to consider austerity a success because it feels good when you stop, or at least let up.” (Paul Krugman. December 12, 2013.)
Sadly, austerity has a variety of side-effects, for example, stress and insecurity. And these can wreak havoc with an individual’s mental equilibrium. A life that previously seemed safe and reliable suddenly becomes unpredictable and threatening. People need stability in their lives to function properly, as workers, friends, or family. A study published in 2011 found that stress was the biggest cause of workers being absent from work. (Tom Meltzer. The Guardian Thursday October 6 2011.)
Nonetheless, with an intellectual credibility that makes the Flat Earthers look respectable, Cameron and Osborne carried on with their “flimsy excuse for a policy,” and cut spending, well, wildly. They cut spending on the NHS, on welfare benefits and on education. They also cut the amount of central government funding for local councils, so councils cut their budgets for libraries, Sure Start and social care. Jonathan Carr-West, the chief executive of the Local Government Information Unit, said, “Council budgets are stretched beyond measure. Increased demand coupled with the management of nearly a decade of cuts from the government has left local government at breaking point.” (Patrick Butler. The Guardian. Friday February 10 2017.)
A study by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania found that there was a direct causal link between austerity and suicide in Greece. It found that “there was a 35 per cent rise in suicide cases in June 2011 - the same time as the government imposed further austerity measures to pay the country’s debts - which was sustained through 2012.” (Evan Bartlett. The Independent. Tuesday February 3 2015.) Charles Branas, the lead author of the study, said, “We found that perhaps it is the economic policies themselves, but also the public messaging of these policies by the government and the press that are both driving the changes in suicide.” (Evan Bartlett. op cit.).
What the government and the media say about their policies makes a huge difference to how the populace perceive themselves and the situation. A demagogue may blame outside forces, internal enemies, or particular social, ethnic or religious groups.
With services dwindling or becoming inaccessible, many people looking for healthcare, support for an aging relative or just a home to live in, life was getting more insecure. Services that one could rely on in the past were now an unknown quantity, and would perhaps not be available. The insecurity makes them angry and resentful, and the may look for someone to blame for their problems. As it is, politicians are ready, willing and eager to offer a few suggestions; immigrants, skivers and of course, “welfare scroungers.”
The country’s psychological temperature has been brought to the boil, perhaps with the subtlest of phrasing, and no overt accusations, but once the electorate has been pointed in the direction of who to blame, the government will have much less trouble selling its policies. And democracy has been replaced with manipulation.
David Simmons is the author of several politics-related books available from www.davidalansimmons.co.uk One of his books is, The Lie of the Land, available on Kindle, http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00LGVYYTU Price £3.49
His most recent book is What’s The Worst That Could Happen? And What To Do About It. 2nd edition £2.99 UK link for Kindle edition is -
Comments