THE UNMENTIONABLE
FACE OF POVERTY IN THE NINETIES:
DOMESTIC INCOMPETENCE, IMPROVIDENCE,
AND MALE IRRESPONSIBILITY
IN LOW INCOME FAMILIES
Digby C. Anderson, The Social Affairs Unit, 1991, £4.00, 32pp.
(ISBN 0-907631-42-8)

As a libertarian, I desire nothing less than the total abolition of State welfare. Let those who are hungry work, or let them beg. Even in a market not completely free, they will find no shortage of employers, nor perhaps of charity. Otherwise, let them starve. But, above all, let there be no handing out of public funds. From both a moral and an economic view, the £58 billion now spent on keeping the feckless poor alive would be far better devoted to cutting the taxes of the respectable classes.

But this is not yet an acceptable position to take in the debate on poverty. It will become acceptable, I am sure. For the moment, though, the best hope is the limitation of damage. The means must be argued for of containing the rate of increase in the welfare budget, and of ensuring that it shall not too greatly demoralise its recipients.

This is the virtue of Dr Digby Andersons's latest pamphlet. As a Christian and a conservative, he does believe in the principle of State welfare. He shares enough of the basic assumptions to be able to argue for change without abandoning his right to a hearing. And how he argues! Whether we look to the force and cogency of what he says, or to its reception in the media, Dr Anderson may be regarded as the most deadly critic of our poverty lobby.

His argument is condensed in the title of the pamphlet. The worst effects of poverty in this country, he says, are the fault of the poor themselves. Low incomes alone cannot be blamed. For these nowadays are usually enough to buy all the necessities of life. They are usually enough, indeed, to buy somewhat more. Even among the poorest fifth of households, there is mass ownership of the main consumer durables. If, as is the case, many low income households cannot manage without falling into debt, the cause is not lack of money, but simple incompetence. The cure is not more money, but better behaviour.

Dr Anderson rejects the usual reply to this for the nonsense that it is. The poor, he says, can change their ways. They are not the passive victims of external forces, but "are poor in part because of the things they, or those close to them, choose to do". How people manage their money, not how much they earn, is the real determinant of poverty. He looks at one low income family, the male head of which is in work but also deep in debt. They saved nothing. "He spent £5 to £10 a week, out of the £90 earnings, on tobacco, drink and gambling". Does anyone wonder why, at the first stroke of adversity, the whole family sank into destitution?

He looks at another, this time unemployed. "I go fishing at night" says the husband. "I dig my own bait.... I've got a freezer full of cod: it's a good meal, cod, full of protein". Dr Anderson comments: "Let us be judgmental. Let us moralise. For this man deserves our praise. His wife is a lucky woman." If this be true, surely the other family deserves our blame?

These may be the extremes. But repeatedly, Dr Anderson sees mismanagement linked to poverty. The poor insist on buying

@QUOTE = expensive convenience foods, designed for people who do not have time: tinned peas,... packets of shepherds pie,... fish fingers. They overlook cheaper, often more nourishing, foods - ie, breast of lamb (75p each... and yielding over 1lb of lean meat),... ox-liver or kidney (both under 50p a pound),... inexpensive pulses, dried peas and lentils.[p. 18]

They do little to maintain their clothes, or to minimise transport costs. Nor do they seem to fear being in debt. Rather than save and then shop around, they prefer to buy on credit through relatively expensive mail order catalogues. "Many families are in debt paying an average of 11.5 per cent of their net incomes in repayments." They take out loans and never seem to care what the interest rate may be, or how many instalments must be paid. At best, they worry only about the level of repayments.

Here is the truth about poverty. Each year, we pay more in taxes to support the poor than we have paid to finance every war fought by this country since 1945. Much of it is spent on fish fingers and crowding my husband's morning train with idlers out on a spree. What better case is there, I ask, for abolition, or at least really savage cuts? But Dr Anderson is not an abolitionist. Instead, he proceeds, on the most rational statist assumptions, to argue for certain reforms.

What must be done, he says, is to recall the poor to sounder, if less fashionable, ways. They must be taught that a wise domestic economy lies in management, regularity, prudence, and thrift. The benefits are more than the simple avoidance of want. Rather these virtues bring others in their train - self-respect, patience, perseverance.

The poor must be made to realise that poverty is something that they, by their own efforts, can do much to avoid.

It is suggested that domestic economy be given a leading place in the national curriculum. Alternatively, it might be worth teaching the discipline directly to those claiming welfare. In Switzerland, for example, benefits are made conditional on improvements in domestic management. If the relevant official is not happy with how a claimant has managed over the previous fortnight, money is stopped out of the next cheque. Again, in the more socialist areas of the United States, wasteful behaviour is hindered by giving not money but food stamps to the poor.

But one point is clearly and repeatedly made. If the poor are to be helped by the State, they cannot be helped merely by handouts.

In return for their benefits, the poor must be made to change their attitudes and way of life. The question of how this is to be done must be moved to the top of the public agenda. Otherwise, Dr Anderson concludes, much more of the Department of Social Security's £58 billion budget will simply be "thrown into what is currently a black hole".

Of course, it all does currently go into a black hole; and the real answer is to stop throwing any of it in. But, this not being an answer likely to be considered, Dr Anderson's is probably the best answer available - to suggest ways in which the rate of growth may be checked, and the acceptance of State welfare made less initially attractive than it has been for the past generation. This is a step in the right direction. Bearing in mind the drift of almost every other participant in the debate on poverty, it is a very considerable step.

Marian Halcombe