This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/world/europe/09iht-letter09.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
British Divides Highlighted by Austerity British Divides Highlighted by Austerity
(about 4 hours later)
LONDON — Every so often, a crime as lurid as it seems inexplicable becomes a bellwether, seized on by politicians to diagnose a broader social ailment and offer a cure cut from their ideological cloth.LONDON — Every so often, a crime as lurid as it seems inexplicable becomes a bellwether, seized on by politicians to diagnose a broader social ailment and offer a cure cut from their ideological cloth.
In 1993, it was the case of 2-year-old James Bulger, abducted and murdered by two 10-year-old boys — an episode that Tony Blair, then in the opposition, called an omen of “moral chaos” under a Conservative government.In 1993, it was the case of 2-year-old James Bulger, abducted and murdered by two 10-year-old boys — an episode that Tony Blair, then in the opposition, called an omen of “moral chaos” under a Conservative government.
Last week, it was Mick Philpott, 56, jailed along with his wife and a friend for the manslaughter of 6 of his 17 children by starting a fire in what a judge called a “wicked and dangerous plan” to emerge as a hero by rescuing them.Last week, it was Mick Philpott, 56, jailed along with his wife and a friend for the manslaughter of 6 of his 17 children by starting a fire in what a judge called a “wicked and dangerous plan” to emerge as a hero by rescuing them.
The courtroom retelling of the passions that played out in May 2012 at a humdrum housing project in the English Midlands unfolded as a bizarre story of arson and dysfunction.The courtroom retelling of the passions that played out in May 2012 at a humdrum housing project in the English Midlands unfolded as a bizarre story of arson and dysfunction.
But it sparked a political firestorm when George Osborne, the Conservative chancellor of the Exchequer, drew contentious conclusions from reports that the jobless Mr. Philpott and his extended family lived on about £54,000, or more than $80,000, a year in welfare benefits.But it sparked a political firestorm when George Osborne, the Conservative chancellor of the Exchequer, drew contentious conclusions from reports that the jobless Mr. Philpott and his extended family lived on about £54,000, or more than $80,000, a year in welfare benefits.
“I think there is a question for government and society about the welfare state — and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state — subsidizing lifestyles like that,” Mr. Osborne said, “and I think that debate needs to be had.” Prime Minister David Cameron supported him. “We want to make clear welfare is not a lifestyle choice.”“I think there is a question for government and society about the welfare state — and the taxpayers who pay for the welfare state — subsidizing lifestyles like that,” Mr. Osborne said, “and I think that debate needs to be had.” Prime Minister David Cameron supported him. “We want to make clear welfare is not a lifestyle choice.”
At any other time, the uproar from critics and opponents who said the remarks stigmatized many other people on welfare — if not the entire benefits system on which Britain has long built a self-image of social justice — might have seemed part of the Punch-and-Judy knockabout of British political discourse.At any other time, the uproar from critics and opponents who said the remarks stigmatized many other people on welfare — if not the entire benefits system on which Britain has long built a self-image of social justice — might have seemed part of the Punch-and-Judy knockabout of British political discourse.
But, with debt-driven austerity measures gnawing at living standards, and the dominant Conservatives in the political doldrums, the affair seemed to reach to the core of the kind of society Britain will become by the time the next national election is held in 2015.But, with debt-driven austerity measures gnawing at living standards, and the dominant Conservatives in the political doldrums, the affair seemed to reach to the core of the kind of society Britain will become by the time the next national election is held in 2015.
Mr. Osborne spoke as the country confronted severe and wide-ranging welfare reforms, devised by him, that will impose new limits on benefits available to any family, forcing many more — including the disabled — to pay residency taxes from which they were once exempt and freezing tax breaks for retirees.Mr. Osborne spoke as the country confronted severe and wide-ranging welfare reforms, devised by him, that will impose new limits on benefits available to any family, forcing many more — including the disabled — to pay residency taxes from which they were once exempt and freezing tax breaks for retirees.
At the same time, changes introduced last weekend reduced taxes on personal income over £150,000, to 45 percent from 50 percent, meaning that more than 300,000 of Britain’s wealthiest people will see their after-tax income increase, just as welfare for the vulnerable is reduced.At the same time, changes introduced last weekend reduced taxes on personal income over £150,000, to 45 percent from 50 percent, meaning that more than 300,000 of Britain’s wealthiest people will see their after-tax income increase, just as welfare for the vulnerable is reduced.
It did not help that the BBC had just published the results of a study showing that Britain’s traditional class divisions — upper, middle, working — had been supplanted by a subtler range of distinctions with an elite at the padded upper limit and a group dubbed the precariat — precarious in every sense — at the bottom.It did not help that the BBC had just published the results of a study showing that Britain’s traditional class divisions — upper, middle, working — had been supplanted by a subtler range of distinctions with an elite at the padded upper limit and a group dubbed the precariat — precarious in every sense — at the bottom.
Mr. Osborne, like Mr. Cameron a product of expensive private schooling, is self-evidently part of the upper crust. The people his reforms hurt most, his critics argue, are from much lower rungs of the ladder.Mr. Osborne, like Mr. Cameron a product of expensive private schooling, is self-evidently part of the upper crust. The people his reforms hurt most, his critics argue, are from much lower rungs of the ladder.
In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Osborne’s official, high-ticket S.U.V. was photographed in a parking spot reserved for the disabled at a highway service station. “Disabled people will see this as rubbing salt into their wounds,” said Richard Hawkes, head of an advocacy group, alluding to cuts in state funding for the disabled.In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Osborne’s official, high-ticket S.U.V. was photographed in a parking spot reserved for the disabled at a highway service station. “Disabled people will see this as rubbing salt into their wounds,” said Richard Hawkes, head of an advocacy group, alluding to cuts in state funding for the disabled.
But his gamble could pay off. As The Observer commented, the dominant Conservatives “strike a popular chord when they say they want an end to the something-for-nothing society, and that welfare as it is currently organized rewards Philpott-style irresponsibility.”But his gamble could pay off. As The Observer commented, the dominant Conservatives “strike a popular chord when they say they want an end to the something-for-nothing society, and that welfare as it is currently organized rewards Philpott-style irresponsibility.”
To some outsiders, the entire debate seems to illuminate the vast sweep of the British welfare state: almost two-thirds of British families, according to advocacy groups, receive benefits ranging from child upkeep to state pensions. To some outsiders, the entire debate seems to illuminate the vast sweep of the British welfare state: Almost two-thirds of British families, according to advocacy groups, receive benefits ranging from child upkeep to state pensions.
But the root of the problem, said the columnist Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian, is that too many British jobs “pay too little” and “have to be topped up by benefits” that are now in jeopardy.But the root of the problem, said the columnist Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian, is that too many British jobs “pay too little” and “have to be topped up by benefits” that are now in jeopardy.
Government ministers have devised what their opponents call a bedroom tax, increasing rental costs for social housing with spare capacity. With more than a hint of social engineering, some officials have suggested that benefits for child upkeep should be scaled back for families with more than two children.Government ministers have devised what their opponents call a bedroom tax, increasing rental costs for social housing with spare capacity. With more than a hint of social engineering, some officials have suggested that benefits for child upkeep should be scaled back for families with more than two children.
There are the stirrings, though, of a backlash. One minister, Iain Duncan Smith, said last week that, if necessary, he could live on £53 per week — the amount a street vendor estimated as his income after reductions in the housing benefit, equivalent to around 3 percent of the minister’s current pay.There are the stirrings, though, of a backlash. One minister, Iain Duncan Smith, said last week that, if necessary, he could live on £53 per week — the amount a street vendor estimated as his income after reductions in the housing benefit, equivalent to around 3 percent of the minister’s current pay.
By Monday, an online petition urging the minister to pony up — or down — had garnered more than 459,000 signatures, a show of dissent that Mr. Duncan Smith chose to dismiss as “a complete stunt.”By Monday, an online petition urging the minister to pony up — or down — had garnered more than 459,000 signatures, a show of dissent that Mr. Duncan Smith chose to dismiss as “a complete stunt.”