How strange to argue about the changing role of the state without considering the explosion of interest in social policy, social protection, health care and social welfare. For an alternative view, try "What is the welfare state for?" bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/trade/what-i...
This article still supposes there's a trade-off between types of 'spending'. Defence is spending; benefits aren't. Benefits are *transfer payments*, largely economically neutral; the amount of money in the economy is the same after distribution as it was before. They're best paid for by higher tax.
Reconsidering AI: I have to recant
In previous postings, I've been supportive of some of the key principles behind AI. I wrote last year: using material to train AI, sometimes called ‘scraping’, is quite different from copying. The LLMs aren’t copying: they’re processing the information. (There…
Why social security benefits won’t “bankrupt the country”
There have been repeated attacks in the media on the principles of social security. Matthew Elliott told the Lords that "The Government will collect £331bn in income tax this year, and spend £333bn on welfare. In other words, we now spend…
David and I have clashed bitterly in the past, because we both care about what we're doing. On this issue, however, he's absolutely in the right. Universities, and social science, depend on our ability to disagree with each other.
The Acts of Elizabeth came much later, in 1598 and 1601. The earlier Tudor Acts were partly punitive, but the Act of 1536 was also influenced by the 1531 defence of welfare provision made on behalf of the city of Ypres. Read the astonishing Ypres report at rgu-repository.worktribe.com/output/1238880
Vives published his arguments for welfare in January, 1526. It's the 500th anniversary of that work.
‘tis the season to be jolly… wrong, in the Daily Mail. This time the Mail manages to give a 3 child family on benefits over £25k more than is correct when comparing with a single high earner. benefitsinthefuture.com/tis-the-seas... #benefits #work #dailymail
A Korean translation of my edition of two 16th-century works of social policy has been published at jeniecreative2025.imweb.me . For those who, like myself, can't read or speak a word of Korean, the English edition is freely available at observant-paulspicker.wordpress.com/open-access/...
This clip is from legal theorist AV Dicey, writing in 1917.
I've read it and cited you (on 'consistency'), but its quirky issue-based agenda isn't a basis for a taught course. The core of ethical teaching for policy makers needs to consider
* ethics of the policy
* responsibilities to the agency
* individual ethics, and
* constraints on the use of power.
The BBC should reject Trump's libel claim.
1. The words used were Trump's own.
2. The edit still put two sides - it could have stopped with his call to "fight".
3. Trump has pleaded immunity: these are the words of the POTUS, not an individual.
4. There is no evidence of reputational damage.
I agree - but there's more to managing immigration than revising the system of controls. observant-paulspicker.wordpress.com/2025/09/10/w...
We have to stop thinking about pensions and benefits as 'spending'. They're transfer payments, or redistribution - quite different! - so they should be paid for by taxation or contribution, and should be treated distinctly in the accounts.
If the i paper is right, 'lifting' the 2-child limit might be for working families only, or a 3-child limit. Neither is good enough. Both exclude some of the poorest children. Both impose a penalty for blending families. And both call for questions about rape.
Do you mean you can teach without first having to move the furniture?
In "What is the welfare state for?", I argued that welfare provision is now the norm for all governments. bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/trade/what-i... A new report from the ILO on social justice researchrepository.ilo.org/view/deliver...
shows less poverty, less inequality, better social provision.
There are many such critiques - here are two of mine.
*What is the welfare state for?* (2025) is about welfare states round the world, bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/trade/what-i...
*How to fix the welfare state* (2022) policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/how-to-fix-t... is about Britain.
The EU is consulting on anti-poverty strategy. ec.europa.eu/info/law/bet... They see that poverty is multi-dimensional (correct) and plan to look at intergenerational continuity (largely a myth. Longitudinal studies point to 3 main predictors: education, partnering and the state of the economy.)
I'm not sure where the figure of 6.5 million people on 'out of work' benefits comes from, but mainly it's 1.6m on "unemployment benefits" and 3.5 m on "incapacity benefits" (www.gov.uk/government/p...) Incapacity means it is "not reasonable" to expect claimants to work: Welfare Reform Act 2012.
The debate over #gerrymandering reveals a major difference between US and European democracy. The US approach (Federalist 46) is meant to subordinate local interests to national priorities. The European ideal is to treat each constituency as an integral geographic community. Neither method works.
Jonathan presents it as I was taught it. Managing the economy has to be thought about in a different way to balancing the public finances. tinyurl/bdeecy93
'Welfare' and 'pensions' are transfer payments: the money is still there, in the economy, it's just being moved. We ought to account for them differently.
No, it doesn't. According to the article, the UK Foreign Office told him that he was now on the USA's list of potential sanctions: 'il figure sur la liste des fonctionnaires de la CPI susceptibles d'être sanctionnés par la nouvelle administration américaine."
In 1951, Harold Wilson and Barbara Castle joined Nye Bevan, resigning in protest against the Labour government's introduction of NHS charges. Whatever happened to them?
The OECD's "Pensions at a glance" reports % of GDP accounted for by public and private provision.
Unfortunately, you're absolutely right. The government are so fixated on disability that they have forgotten what sickness benefits are supposed to do. I wrote this two years ago:
observant-paulspicker.wordpress.com/2023/03/15/t...
There are still things that might be done with PIP. Uncouple Mobility Allowance. Revive SDA. Reset extensions. Review assessments. But there's a basic problem: first, you need to understand what PIP is and how it works. The government doesn't.
The public finance argument is not sound. Benefits are 'transfer payments'; when paid for by tax, they are redistributive, and any economic effects (presumptively neutral) are marginal. The decision to cut benefits is at root a decision not to redistribute - down to politics, not economics.
