[DanaC]

This is a nice little piece in response to Lord Freud's latest vocal assault on the poor:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...isk?intcmp=239

Every once in a while, politicians take the time to remind us of the duties of the poor. The latest to take the pulpit is the Tory peer Lord Freud, a former city banker who has since advised both New Labour and the Tories on "welfare reform". This time, the poor are told they must take more risks, abandoning the "lifestyle" of welfare for the adventure of enterprise.

Before assessing this claim, it is worth asking who it is that is taking risks with the livelihoods of the poor. Freud began his work on welfare reform knowing, by his own admission, nothing about welfare. In fact, it seems fairly safe to say that he continued in this vein, as he continued to make utterly ignorant claims about the system in order to justify government cuts.

Freud's lament about the risk-averse poor has two layers. The first is simply a rationalisation for a government policy of deep welfare cuts. The government maintains that the welfare system, rather than supporting the victims of market failure, is simply holding people back in various ways by incentivising unemployment. After all, Freud avers, "people who are poorer should be prepared to take the biggest risks" as they have "the least to lose": only their attachment to welfare holds them back.

The second layer is implicit in every Tory homily about risk. It is a commonplace of conservative political philosophy that people, barring a restless few touched with genius, are essentially stagnant and unproductive without the threat of privation acting as a whip. Government ministers are apt to talk about "making work pay" but, as they are busy attempting to suppress wage claims, this translates as making benefits so inadequate that even a poverty wage is an improvement. The implication is that by reducing benefits, and thus making life on welfare more difficult and stressful for many, one will goad the poor into becoming petty entrepreneurs.

Yet, whenever a Conservative politician gushes about risk, one is reminded of Nye Bevan's retort: "The assertion of anti-socialists that private economic adventure is a desirable condition stamps them out as profoundly unscientific. You can make your home the base for your adventures, but it is absurd to make the base itself an adventure."

This is precisely the point. It is true that the poor have the least to lose in purely financial terms. It is just that this little they have to lose is what is keeping them fed and warm, is not the sort of thing one gambles with and at any rate it yields poor returns. The rich, being more endowed with resources and more secure in their position, are far better placed to take risks. Bankers of Freud's ilk have an even greater advantage in this respect, as they take risks with the money and livelihoods of others.