The Guardian reports that the number of rough sleepers across England has doubled, and there are some 3,600 sleeping on the streets every night. This is put down to rising rents, cuts to government housing benefit allowances and a 45% reduction of the help offered by local councils to avoid homelessnes. 40% of the rough sleepers have mental problems . In London 57% of the people living rough are non-citzens, the largest proportion being Roumanians.
Let’s leave aside migrants for a moment (why would you go to England from Roumania only to live on the street? I think it’s dreadful that they have to, but the priority should be people born in England).
If a government cannot look after its homeless and mentally ill, what is the point of having a government at all? Not long ago my wife and I walked past the Danish Embassy in Washington. I reflected on the fact that the Danes are reckoned to be the happiest people on Earth. Why is that? Because they have a culture and a government that ensures that extremes of poverty and wealth are kept under control ; because they have a single-payer healthcare system under which everyone is treated equally; they have an excellent education system that does not discriminate in favour of rich kids. In other words, it is an Epicurean system where the government looks out for all the people, not just the rich and the corporations. And Denmark has no natural resources to speak of, except its people. Danes seem to have it right. You would think this was a no- brainer for the rest of us. Apparently not. Why do you think this is?
I think there’s a genuine appetite for a Danish-style welfare system in much of the UK. You mention London specifically, this is a city has just elected a social democrat in Sadiq Khan, marking a sharp break from the economic neoliberalism of the Boris years. Other British cities are doing the same: Bristol, Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds all have mayors and councils clearly in favour of greater social welfare provision. Public spending makes up a greater proportion of GDP in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; those countries seem to be in favour of greater social protection.
The trouble will be convincing people living in the South of England outside of London, as well as those living outside urban areas across England generally. In these areas, the Conservatives won a majority of votes and the vast majority of seats, largely because the cuts to public spending they implemented in coalition were popular. As for the working class in small town England, they increasingly opted for UKIP, preferring to attribute their plight to the EU and immigration rather than an inadequate welfare state.
Also, be careful what you wish for in trying to emulate Denmark. In their most recent election, the Social Democrats shifted to the right on economic policy; Helle Thorning-Schmidt is the wife of the Labour moderate Stephen Kinnock. The vote was also split between the economically liberal Venstre and the welfare chauvinists in the DF. The point is, no major Danish party advocated the sort of policy program you believe in, and yet these parties seem to have a democratic mandate, as evidence by the 85% turnout in the most recent election. There’s also the argument that in the era of mass migration and refugees moving to Europe, there isn’t a democratic majority in favour of significant welfare expansion.
Appreciate your response, Owen. Whatever its imperfections and fragilities, I think that Denmark-lite, if necessary given current American political culture, is worth seeking (even if there’s a good bit of head-bashing on walls in the process.)