located: | United Kingdom |
---|---|
editor: | Gurmeet Singh |
I can't quite remember where I heard it, but it's a pretty apt description of feigned, hysteric morality, that the cry "taxpayers' money!" is to our societies what "women and children!" was to those in the early 20th Century. Want to print James Joyce's Ulysses? Think of the women and children! Give women the vote? But what will become of the children? The point is clear, that deeply conservative (and sometimes reactionary) political tendencies could be disguised as real, social concern. What's more, it could be done publicly, with reams of "women and children" cries filling the papers. In this sense, the cry is purely performative.
Likewise "taxpayers' money!" Taxpayers are lumped together in one, single undifferentiated mass. The rhetorical force of this mass lies in its assumed, collective moral power – people who pay their taxes are the only 'real' citizens and therefore their money should be respected. Furthermore, it turns popular political will into a transactional power, the money itself is used to 'buy' certain social goods for 'real' citizens and not others. This makes this claim nigh-irrefutable. Any contradiction is met with: "but surely you're not arguing with taxpayers?"
But there probably couldn't be a more transparent object behind which to hide. "We're using taxpayers' money to pay for immigrants?", "taxpayers' money to house the homeless?", "taxpayers' money for refugees!?" It's a way of isolating the unwanted outsiders in society and barring them from entry into the mainstream. It's a way of treating these people and projects as immoral. It is a way of saying, 'if you're poor, from a different country or if you need political asylum, I don't care about you', without actually saying that.
This is especially relevant during times of austerity, where all kinds of social programmes have been cut all across Europe and the cry "taxpayers' money" has been used as a moral defence against taking refugees during the crisis. In the U.K., the austerity programmes instituted by the Conservative governments since 2010 have cut the heart out of the U.K.'s welfare state. It has been justified again and again by government ministers, journalists, think-tanks and other institutions, with the claim that the U.K. government cannot simply afford to use taxpayers' money to pay for "non-productive" people. People, in other words, who need help.
The hollowness of the decade-long austerity programmes can be summed up by a recent UN expert's assessment of the U.K.. Human Rights Watch summarised:
"The United Nations expert on poverty and human rights has warned that the UK government is inflicting “unnecessary misery” on people living in poverty. Professor Philip Alston’s preliminary findings of his 11-day visit to the country found the government’s approach to welfare support over the last decade “punitive, mean-spirited and often callous.”"
That is the truth of the U.K.'s approach to supporting its citizens. It is cruel, unnecessary and punishes people for being poor or outside the mainstream of money-making society. This isn't without consequence. People are going hungry. People are dying. The lie needs to be uncovered.