So it must be true. Nick Clegg appears to be a ‘Cameron lite’. The Liberal Democrat members will have all received an email from Clegg today regarding our new unemployement proposals. My concerns are not about the proposals themselves (whilst I do have some resevervations), they are more about his choice of words. I have included the letter again below, highlighting the phrase that made me think, are you serious?
Dear Jane,
We cannot afford to let millions of young people get trapped on the dole. That’s why today I’ve launched a new plan to tackle youth unemployment.
Did you know that nearly a fifth of 18 to 24-year-olds are currently unemployed? Without action now, more than 1.2 million young people could be unemployed by the end of 2011.
The Conservatives failed a whole generation in the wake of the last recession. A whole generation became trapped in a culture of dependency. Labour look set to repeat the same mistakes now. We can’t let that happen.
Today I’m launching new policy that would take almost 900,000 unemployed young people off the streets.
Under our plans more than 800,000 young people will be given a leg-up into industry via paid internships. An extra 60,000 places will be funding in universities and colleges, opening up further and higher education.
We will slash the time Labour forces young people to wait for support, fully fund apprenticeships to put British industry back on track and give more youngsters places on essential back-to-work schemes.
Our proposals would cost £1.1 billion and would be paid for by scrapping the VAT cut immediately.
For more details see my website: NickClegg.com/LostGeneration
Only the Liberal Democrats will nurture the talent of young people and ensure no one is left behind.
Best regards,
As you can see from the highlighting, the phrase that really caught my attention was ‘culture of dependency’. For how long has it been the party line to support this flawed and illogical right wing concept? That is a Tory concept, which I have consistently argued against in previous blog posts. What it does is make out it is only the individuals fault for their problems. It takes the attention away from the structural reasons people rely on benefits, stigmatising them for their supposed depraved values. I never thought I would hear this type of rubbish from a Lib Dem, especially our own Leader!
It is even more depressing to read this when we look at our policy framework, that has a good balance between taking into account the structure and the individual causes of social problems, such as poverty. What this does, is distort reality. I only hope that this does not become an usual sound bite and part of the party’s rhetoric, as an attempt to encapsulate some of the Tory voters.
I wholly disagree with the phrase ‘culture of dependency’. It is unfair, stigmatising, shown to be empirically incorrect and actually makes the social problems worse as it leads people to miss the route causes. I hope Clegg realises that this was a mistake, and that our party should not be drawn into using flawed concepts the Tory’s pride themselves on.
September 10, 2009 at 7:59 pm
you're absolutely right. Firstly, much of the evidence points to the absence of a 'culture of dependency'. A cosy consensus has formed between the three main parties on this, but I have yet to see any actual and thorough statistics to support the notion.
Secondly, we are living in a time of increased structural unemployment. Why does nobody recognise this when it comes to welfare numbers?
Our politicians should be made to live on 45/65 pounds a week for a while, to see if it makes them 'dependent'.
September 10, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Thanks for the comment.
Exactly. I do Sociology, and there is study after study highlighting how flawed the concept is. It is more of a Tory concept than Labour's or the Lib Dem's. This is the first time I have heard a Lib Dem say this.
Agreed. The mainstream attitude is that people are the ones to blame. It makes no sense, when politics has increasingly moved away from structural focused policies to individual focused policies.
Agreed:)
September 10, 2009 at 10:06 pm
I also got the email and noticed the phrase had a tad of a Cameron ring to it, however its a bit harsh to hit Clegg for using it in the way that he did.
To me, that section of the email suggests that they have become trapped in a 'culture of dependency' as a result of structural and external reasons out of their control, subsequently due to failures on the part of the Labour government.
September 10, 2009 at 11:10 pm
It's a dog whistle. Did you know that 1/3 of Daily Mail readers vote Lib Dem? The language of the party's output is generally aimed at them, while the CONTENT, as you spotted, is generally not.
I, personally, think dog whistles do more to put off your core vote than they do to attract new voters, but I am, apparently, in the minority.
September 10, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Could I ask what is meant by "culture of dependency"?
Is it our shorthand for "a cycle of poverty that traps young people into terrible lives"?
Or is it referring directly to an idea that young people choose to be poor?
I'm intrigued as to the evidence against the idea, and if you could point me to some, I'd be very grateful!
September 11, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Wilder,
Structural problems and the 'culture of dependency' are conflicting terms. It doesn't matter if he dressed up the culture of dependency concept in flowery talk, the concept itself has negative and stigmatising meanings that blames the individuals for their disadvantages in society.
Jennie,
That is an interesting point. I agree with your view that it puts voters off. The way you talk about policies, as much as what you actually have policy wise in content, is considered when people join.
CSLD,
Culture of dependency is a very negative term, which means that basically it is the individuals fault that they have got trapped onto the benifit system and are now dependent on the state for a survival. It ignores structural reasons for why individuals may need benifts, and simply looks at factors such as the person being unable to hold down a job, as their own fault.
Cycle of poverty is a different concept, that focuses on structural limiations that individuals have such as educational. That if i remember rightly, was developed in constrast to right wing arguments such as the circle of depravation, that said that it is basically the families and individuals fault for their poverty, as they are basically wanting their kids to be in the situation they are as they are unable to get themselves out of it, basically ignoring structual reasons for why this may be the case.
There is a wide range of evidence that shows that there is no cultural of dependency. There is a lot of reasearch for example, that looks at the ways in which poor people do not want to be in that situation, showing how if they had the structural ability they would get themselves off benefits into work. There are the odd few who like benefits, but it is wrong to categorise and generalise them as some great big group. Basically, most left wing arguments are against the culture of dependency.
September 12, 2009 at 7:46 am
The language comes from David Laws MP who has been saying this kind of thing for many years now. He also introduced the term "Nanny State" into Lib Dem discourse, a term that I think is an unfair caricature and seems rather silly now that we are supporting an expanded state to save the banking system and prevent an even worse recession.
I think as far as "dependency" is concerned, there is a lot of it about. We depend on fossil fuels, many people depend on their cars, the rich depend on high paid jobs in order to send their children to private schools. So as we have seen recently with the bankers, a lot of what they do is "socially useless", but they do it anyway in order to fulfill their dependencies. Yet when it comes to dependency it is the poor who get singled out.
The reassuring thing is that the policies are not as bad as the rhetoric.
September 12, 2009 at 11:07 am
Left Lib,
That is really interesting, I didn't know he did that. Thanks for the info.
It is depressing that we are joining in with this type of stigmatisation. What you say about the bankers and the rich is very true. We prop them up with various forms of relief that makes them dependent on the state to get what they get. Such as the tax loop holes or as you rightly point out, the fiscal stimulus. What makes their dependency any different? Nothing is the answer. It is just that those in power want to take attention away from their dependency and focus it onto the poor, who have little voice to disagree.