European Tribune

Display:
Jeremy Seabrook: The poor: a future foretold | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Labour's disdain has its antecedents in Victorian, Elizabethan and even medieval strategies for controlling the 'worthless poor'

It is astonishing how much contemporary political debate is rooted in historical precedent. Efforts to control the poor, as well as the movement and rewards of labour, are intertwined, and of considerable antiquity in Britain. Disapproval of "demands" for higher wages and prohibitions upon "economic migrants" long pre-date the industrial era.

Who would have thought that current efforts by a Labour government to get people off invalidity benefit and into work were yet another re-working of the first law enacted in Britain to distinguish between those who chose to "beg in idleness rather than earn their bread in labour"? This was the Statute of Labourers of 1351. Leaving aside the advisability of government taking inspiration from the medieval world, the statute followed severe reductions in population as a result of the black death. It was designed to curb wage-inflation induced by a shortage of labourers, who had deserted the fair fields of the land for the sweeter pastures of the afterlife.

Interesting historical view of attitudes to the poor in England and how the language of then gives us the demagoguery of now.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Mon Aug 11th, 2008 at 12:13:09 PM EST
I found the argument unpersuasive. I just thought that each generation invents its own language to justify a lack of charity. After all, there is a jump from Attlee to Thatcher where such attitudes went into retreat.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Aug 11th, 2008 at 12:19:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it has everything to do with greed and power.  Someone who has the power to choose between retaining wealth or giving it to others (others who have typically contributed greatly or entirely to its "creation") demonstrates inherent greed when they find excuses to retain that wealth for themselves.  

The path of greed is a great way to increase personal wealth in the short-term but demonstrably poor in the longer term.  The Henry Ford position (pay your workers enough to buy your product and the money will come back to you exponentially) is decidedly more appropriate for a capitalist system.

We must work to detach the concept of greed from the concept of "capitalism" which is a term in desperate need of re-branding.  How ironic that the commie bastards on the left will enjoy the privilege of that re-branding.

by paving on Mon Aug 11th, 2008 at 03:13:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series