Sorting out the Welfare State II

 

Credit: Cottam- Radical Help

Movements become Monuments.

The NHS is broken.  No one in government will speak about it, but Local Authorities are broke. The spirit is weak, and the body is weak.  We are living on our overdraft limit.  There is a sense of waiting, but for what?  

I like Cottam's description of the shifts that are needed, as summarised in this diagram.

My aunt's aphorism is that if you have a problem, then you also have a solution.  A problem is something that has a solution.  That is it's definition.  If it does not have a solution, it is not a problem, it is a fact.

A healthy welfare state focuses on welfare.  The question is how to create cultures, institutions and systems that promote wellbeing.   To do this there will be a need to move the locus of power and control away from those in authority, to those who use systems.  What does this mean in practice? This will evolve a lot of work.

1) Children organised into councils, that are able to comment on their education, how safe and well they feel, and what might help improve their experience.

2)  Ensure that all citizens are invited to regular meeting in local wards/ councils to discuss the main issues.  Make sure people are invited to attend (also online), and contribute to the agenda.  This will need to be managed, but their should be an assumption that people will attend, and local politics should be conducted with an audience.   This may moderate against the factional fighting that goes on in all councils.

3) Moderate against the sense of 'then and us'.  This is echoed in the sense that services (like school dinners) are to be complained about.  I have wondered whether towns and cities in France look better than in the UK because the revolution broken down the sense of then and us.  We are the people and it's up to us.

4) The welfare state should continue to be reliable and dependable, but it should also see itself as a facilitator, linking a community and promotion creativity.  It should be a partner with the creative sector, nurturing it like a gardener, to ensure that important projects do not 'die' from lack of attention, when they could survive with a little attention and help.  An example in Leicester would be a charity that works with people with the ADHD diagnosis.  It is a fun and positive project, but is ended today due to financial problems.  does anyone care?  Could a little bit of help have made a difference?

5) One political position is to see that people (like me) are basically fine, and do not really need the welfare state that much.  There are just a few 'troubled families, or people', that we need to target, and manage.  Budgets are set to target these few, with clear eligibility criteria. 

The other political position is to see all people on a spectrum of need which is likely to affect most, if not all at some point in their lives.  It starts from the very young, and continues into old age.  7% of children have a significant disability.  16% of working age adults have a disability, and 43% of people at state pension age have a disability.  This means that a fifth of the population are likely to experience significant disability in their life time.  

The SureStart programme began in 1999, and ended in 2010, due to financial and political constraints.  The philosophy of SureStart was that it should be accessed by all, and focused on the first five years of life.    The principles of SureStart were that with a positive start to life for parents (mother in particular) the child would be likely to form strop attachments, feel secure, and experience as little trauma as possible.  The evidence shows that these are the most positive indicators for stronger mental and emotional wellbeing in the future.  Many social problems are caused by 'the weeds'.  This are little niggles that are allowed to grow roots that after time create ongoing undermining  difficulties, that could have been dealt with when the roots were easier to pull out.  At the time we are not sure whether the effort of weeding is worthwhile.  Could these weeds be a threat?  They look so insignificant.  Are we bothered?  Like litter in the street, people give up picking up litter when the task becomes overwhelming.  As a society, we then look to the state to sort out the problem.  The state does this when the problem smacks them in the face.  And we get a whole heap of other problems along with it.  I recall the phone conversation at social service from a parent says, "What do I have to do to get help?  Hit them over the head with a frying pan? - no don't do that, you current problems will escalate ten fold."