Trotter attacks ACT

Chris Trotter has probably done ACT a favour today by attacking them in his Dominion Post column. His point of objection - ACT's slogan to "turn back the clock", as expressed by ACT's number 5 candidate David Garrett. Trotter insists that to turn back the clock to the low crime, full employment New Zealand of the 50s ACT would need to restore the cradle-to-grave welfare state that it rails against. Let's examine that.

Welfare creates a cycle. Just as the economic cycle exists and seasonal cycles exist. But the cycle is far more protracted than either of these. The 1830s in the Britain saw a peak of the welfare cycle, that is, it was at its most destructive. Reforms were instituted which essentially abolished outdoor relief - cash payments to the unemployed and others unable to make their own living. The choice was work or workhouse.

This was the mood that prevailled as the early settlers left Britain and other European countries of origination. When they arrived in New Zealand they resisted calls for establishing rate-payer funded welfare although provinces funded what was called charitable aid through hospitals. The rightful provider of welfare was considered to be the family.

But as the cycle progressed and advocacy for an old age pension and thereafter more and more benefits won the day, dependency and slowing productivity started to grow. Societies gradually buy into what's on offer. Values are changed as in the transformation from the morals-based non-abused welfare state (up to the 60s) to the entitlement based highly-abused welfare state, where everyone wants a slice because they are owed. And when their slice isn't big enough resentment and a breakdown in cohesion results. Dysfunction and crime grow.

So I contend we are at another destructive peak in the welfare cycle and have been since the early nineties. Which is why we need to pare it back. And soon.

Trotter is mistaken. More welfarism won't improve matters. But I do agree that we cannot turn back the clock either. Values have changed too much. We can however go forward by acknowledging how much conditions for women have improved (the DPB is unnecessary) how private insurance for unemployment tends to build in fewer disincentives (the dole should go) how the best results in helping the poor come from voluntary one-on-one efforts (harness the potential of our active and youthful ageing population). What we don't want is a reintroduction of tariffs, subsidies, and all the other protectionist facets of phoney job creation Trotter moots.

Yes. Being attacked by a luddite like Trotter shouldn't hurt at all.