“Libertarianism is
growing among politically active young people” observed
Mark Littlewood, rightward-marching Director General of the Institute of
Economic Affairs (IEA), another of those Astroturf lobby groups that makes
endless appeals to authority, earlier this month. Thus the latest pronouncement
from the man
involved in campaigns like No2ID,
the campaign against the “Database State”.
Do not approach this man. He may be appallingly smug
So it may surprise some to read that the same Mark
Littlewood has today advocated a quantum leap in the very same “Database State” so that information
on every benefit claimed by and paid to every citizen should be made openly
available. Thus the ability to snoop on our neighbours would be massively
enhanced. And it wouldn’t just be levels of benefit payments that would be made
public.
For starters, we would by implication discover the level of
disabilities endured by all those fellow residents. We would know how many
dependent children they have – whether at home or otherwise. We would
presumably also know about anyone with student loans outstanding – after all,
these are guaranteed by the state. We would be able to find out about our
neighbours’ other dependents.
So much for any kind of data protection. Moreover,
Littlewood does not appear to understand that benefit claimants and taxpayers
are not mutually exclusive. And he clearly does not understand just what happens
when information about benefit claimants gets out there, as happened when a
couple living near Nottingham claimed a universal benefit even though they
had a lottery win.
The Mail – that’s
the same family of papers that published Littlewood’s piece – published close-up
photos of the couple’s house, while suggesting that they didn’t deserve their
Motability car – another favourite Mail
target – because they had another house in Ireland. The suggestion was then
made that the couple, one of whom has arthritis in both legs, only remained in
the UK to claim benefits.
What happened to Mick and Jeana O’Shea, who were too
frightened to go out in the street after the Mail (and the Sun) went
after them, would be magnified hundreds of times over if Mark Littlewood got
his way. The elderly and disabled would be driven underground, if not straight
away, then after the first wave of attacks. They would be easy prey –
especially as their incapacities would be made public.
That is what “classical
liberal” means: freedom for Mark Littlewood and his pals, while the less
able and less well-off have to bar their doors against the hacks seeking cheap
copy, and the hate mobs who read their papers. This suggestion is so wicked and
predatory that it beggars belief that it is being touted in a supposedly
mainstream newspaper. And I have one word of warning for the IEA man.
Anybody is only one accident away from dependency, Mark. All of us.
2 comments:
http://whofundsyou.org/org/institute-of-economic-affairs
"IEA told us: “We do not give out information about specific donors. The editorial position of the IEA is wholly independent of any donors."
Do as I say, not as I do.
Of course, Littlewood fails to call for the publication of the amounts of tax payers money paid to private sector firms or the salaries and bonuses of bankers working for part-nationalised institutions such as the 87% taxpayer-owned RBS. Nor or the other breaks such as charitable status the rich usually get.
BTW on the http://whofundsyou.org site it's noticeable that the right leaning "think tanks" are far more secretive than the centre or left-leaning ones.
Post a Comment