Forum Home → Discussion → Access to justice and advice sector issues → Thread
Archbishop of Canterbury says there is a problem of people depending on the welfare state
BBC News report that the Archbishop of Canterbury has said there is a problem of people depending on the welfare state. Dr Rowan Williams said it was wrong to think of “centralised state provision as the solution to everything”.
He was delivering a speech at the Welsh assembly following a weekend spent in his native Wales. He said community was incompatible with “passive welfarism” or “passive statism” - “an assumption that the state is the provider of solutions and solver of problems”.
He said: “We may bridle as I sometimes instinctively do at the way welfarism is used in a derogatory sense these days, because the achievements of public welfare have been enormous. Yet there is some substance to that suspicious use of welfarism.
“There is a problem about dependency. There is a problem about assuming somebody else resolves the problems and there is certainly a problem about centralised state provision as the solution to everything.
“And those who have recently from both left and right pointed out that welfarism is not good news for those who want a mutually responsible active, creative community have not been wrong.”
The church sticking its nose in again by the looks of it. I would like to see his statistics to back up his argument then. He states the negative connotations and derogatory opinion around “welfarism” and then writes a negative comment about it himself! He then mentions dependency on the state is a bad thing - is God going to pick up the shortfall?
There are nearly 3 million out of work and some towns have 50+ people competing for the same job. Tell those people, or those wrongly denied ESA that they shouldnt rely on state support. Whats the alternative that he is suggesting? The coalition are thinking of sorting out the foxhunting bill once and for all - why dont we just hunt the poor! 2 problems solved.
Mere flowery language, no original thought and in places simply a statement of the bleedin’ obvious! Just another lazy ramble from the ivory tower. Yawn.
Ruth Lister, emeritus professor of social policy at Loughborough University, counters his arguments very eloquently. And she also did this more than 6 months ago, thus demonstrating astounding foresight as well.
Both right and centre-left versions of a revitalised contributory principle are animated by the spirit of “something for something” – that slogan beloved of politicians on both sides of the political divide. While this slogan can encourage the principle of reciprocity, all too often it has more punitive overtones. As such, it points towards a potentially more exclusive contributory benefit system.