If all of the available data is pulled together and the conclusions drawn, the historical and contemporary evidence strongly suggests that the appropriate response to austerity is to increase universal provision and so stimulate economic activity, equalise damaging wealth disparity and improve both government and wider economic efficiency
By Professor John Robertson OBA
Today, the Scotsman’s comment editor, Ian Johnston, has:
The case for ending universal benefits is strong even for those on the left
Typically, under-researched and ill-informed.
The facts, from the Jimmy Reid Foundation:
In 2012, I read and was much impressed by their The Case for Universalism An assessment of the evidence on the effectiveness and efficiency of the universal welfare state which made these telling comments, we’d do well to keep in mind:
•Moving from universalism to selectivity increases social and economic inequality and diminishes rather than enhances the status of the poor
•Selectivity requires process and procedures that separate benefit recipients from the rest of society, increasing stigmatisation and reducing take-up
•Universalism is incredibly efficient – the selective element of pension entitlement is more than 50 times more inefficient than the universal element measured in terms of fraud and error alone and without even taking into account the cost of administration.
•In economic terms universalism is clearly shown to deliver Merit Goods (things we all benefit from) and Public Goods (things that could not be delivered without collective provision) which selectivity simply cannot deliver.
•The economic impact of universalism is much greater than the economic impact of selectivity because of the multiplier profile of expenditure
•Universalism also creates positive economic stability by mitigating the swings in the business cycle and creating much more economic independence among the population
•On virtually every possible measure of social and economic success, all league tables are topped by societies with strong universal welfare statesPage 2
•Universalism creates a higher and more progressive tax base which also improves economic stability, reduces price bubbles and creates more efficient flatter income distributions
•Universal benefits promote gender equality and do not suffer form the inherent bias built into a system designed within a framework of assuming a male breadwinner model of welfare
•There is a ‘paradox of redistribution’ which creates the rather counter-intuitive result that systems where benefits are not targeted towards low-income groups are the ones that most benefit low-income groups
•It is impossible to disentangle redistributive tax and universalism – if universalism is reduced, redistributive taxation is reduced and visa versa
•Where social services are ‘rationed’ for those on lowest incomes the quality of the services decline without ‘majority buy-in’ for those services
•Selectivity is not a form of universalism but the rejection of universalism. Selectivity is a cost-driven judgement, universalism a function-driven judgement
•Selectivity and universalism are elements of two entirely different political philosophies – universalism inextricably linked to the European Social Model, selectivity inextricably linked to US neoliberalism
•Wherever we find a move from universalism to selectivity we find privatisation and corporate profiteering, often at the expense of those least able to bear the impact
•If all of the available data is pulled together and the conclusions drawn, the historical and contemporary evidence strongly suggests that the appropriate response to austerity is to increase universal provision and so stimulate economic activity, equalise damaging wealth disparity and improve both government and wider economic efficiency
https://reidfoundation.scot/portfolio-2/the-case-for-universalism-an-assessment-of-the
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
SCOTSMAN ARE BRIDED INTO TWISTING THE TRUTH.
LikeLike
They are stupid enough to think they are the good guys. But the mainstream news media and journalism are fast becoming true enemies of society — the storm troopers of power and capitalism, if you will.
Or, maybe it’s me that’s daft, maybe they have always been that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I assume that ‘the many on the left’ who oppose universalism with regard to benefits are those self proclaimed ‘progressives’ who are to the ‘left’ of some Tories – new Labour.
new Labour were great advocates of ‘meritocracy’, despite the fact that Michael Young (a founder of the welfare state) wrote his book to show up the nonsense of this as a concept. The mendacious Labour Party were keen on the idea because a corollary of the fallacious meritocratic concept was that poor people were poor because they had FAILED. Ergo, they were the ‘undeserving poor’ and so, universal benefits were in the words of the undistinguished Johan Lamont ‘the something for nothing society’.
The two ‘star’ columnists of The Scotsman are new Labour nasties, Brian Wilson and Susan Dalgetty.
Alasdair Macdonald
LikeLiked by 5 people
“Wherever we find a move from universalism to selectivity we find privatisation and corporate profiteering, often at the expense of those least able to bear the impact“
Tesco profits rose by £1.6 billion from the previous yrs profit of £ 800 million in the middle of cost of living crisis, they basically tripled their profits at a time when people are struggling to meet mortgage, rent, gas and electricity payments.
Universalism doesn’t work for the well off.
Golfnut
LikeLiked by 2 people
it is difficult to properly define the Westminster ‘left’ now. Labour has gone so far to the right that being left of contemporary Tories puts them roughly where Thatcher was.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Non universitalism increases administration costs. Universitalism is often not taken up by those who do not use it. Bus passes, nursery places, school dinners. Many take a packed lunch. The allocated participants do not take up the benefits. Old age pensioners in poverty do not apply for their rightful benefit. If they were universal, an increase in pensions, all would get their entitlement. Not starving people’s mothers.
Higher paying taxpayers pay it back through tax.
LikeLike
Yesterday’s PMQ’s.
Pete Wishart addresses Starmer at PMQ’s .
He received a (non) response from Keir Starmer.
In what was yet another example of the Labour party’s ‘No CHANGE there then’, from their leader Keir Starmer, to the type of behaviour we all formerly witnessed from the various previous Tory PM’s at their PMQ’s when they , the Tories , were formerly in power.
Where it was a common occurrence , with various Tory PM’s, to seek a cheap laugh at the SNP’s expense.
This then used to prompt much hilarity in the chamber and it was where they, the Tories, truly found, yet again , consensus with their former BT colleagues in 2014, as in the Labour party.
So yesterday Starmer, chose to behave just like various former Tory PM’s, in him also seeking a cheap laugh at the SNP’s expense.
So Starmer stood up after Pete Wishart spoke and said this:
“I remember when they (SNP) used to sit here (pointing to where the Lib Dems now sit as the third party at WM ) it’s a long way up (pointing to where the SNP now sit) and there’s very few of them so I don’t think we need lectures on popularity ”
This then prompted much hilarity in the chamber and it was where they, Labour, truly found , yet again , consensus with their former BT colleagues in 2014, as in the Tory party.
Of course , the time that Starmer was referring to, well that would also be at a time when Labour only had ONE MP elected in Scotland (as in Ian Murray) and although now they, Labour, have made gains in Scotland he, Starmer, should not assume that he or his Labour party are now popular here or once again take us, Scotland, and also our votes for granted.
I remember when Labour once used to sit opposite the Tories when Jeremy Corbyn was their leader. And there was very few of them, in the Labour party, who supported Jeremy Corbyn as their Labour leader.
Indeed they, many Labour MP’s, did more damage to him, Corbyn, than the Tories ever did as the opposition party.
So I don’t think the SNP need any lectures from keir Starmer on popularity as the Labour party’s former leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was most unpopular with many of his own Labour MP’s .
In fact those same non socialist Labour MP’s were not afraid to show their contempt and dislike for Corbyn as their party leader, or indeed attempt to challenge him , with one example being when Corbyn’s leadership was challenged in what was an ill fated and failed attempt that the media referred to as #ChickenCoup which they, Labour as a party , chose to do the day after the 2016 Brexit vote. (great timing NOT)
So Starmer , like the Tories, has a very selective memory and is at risk of being seen to be way too cocky in his interactions with the SNP in the HOC and also very dismissive towards them as well, which was exactly what happened to the SNP in the HOC when the Tories were in power.
Anyone seeing a real “Change” (as in a “Fresh start”) in behaviour and attitude in the lack of respect still not being shown to the SNP, as a political party , from the current Labour party and their current leader as PM in the HOC – compared to the same kind of bad and disrespectful behaviour once shown to the SNP, as a political party, from the Tories and their various leaders as PM’s in the HOC , when they, the Tories , were previously in power ?
Anyone ?
No neither am I.
LikeLike
Then why are we still there? The S.N.P I’m talking about. While I agree that all the unionist parties are contemptuous towards us, I ask again, why are we still there? Personally, I cannot see us having any effect on any English Government policy, so why bother to try. We are playing Westminster’s game, and I believe that we will never win, Independence I mean, by taking that course.
LikeLike
So do the SNP then choose the same path as SF have ?
What about the fact that we , Scotland, would still be subject to and at times suffering under the UK government’s reserved powers.
How then would all voters in Scotland react to the SNP not wanting to sit in WM when Scotland was still a part of the UK ?
I totally understand what you say but I believe that until we see far more voters in Scotland concur with and be aware of that which we all see and know to be true then what can the SNP do ?
If they , the SNP, choose to not sit at WM then we all know how that will be presented by both pro UK parties and their media i.e. as negative publicity.
How would that negative publicity go down with all of the public in Scotland who as a public, are as yet , still all not so convinced on both the SNP as a party and also on independence for Scotland ?
So how do we convince the still unconvinced voters in Scotland of the very good points you make in your above comment ?
As to the SNP seeming to be “playing WM’s game” then the last GE shocked many an independence supporter when seemingly some Scots were also, once again , most willing to also “play WM’s game” in voting once again for Labour.
(Same Labour who in 2014 betrayed Scotland via their collaboration with the Tories in the BT campaign- where they , Labour, promoted propaganda on behalf of their UK – which has proven to be, as propaganda, all founded on pro UK lies).
Some other voters in Scotland in the recent GE also chose to continue to “play WM’s game” in them choosing to retain some of the same Tory MP’s and even elected a new one too who took the seat from the SNP .
The same thing happened with the Lib Dems in Scotland where the same MP’s also retained their seats and they, as a party also gained two additional seats in Scotland in the GE. Both of their new seats were gained from the SNP.
So who convinced these voters in Scotland to do that considering all that we in Scotland have suffered and witnessed since 2014 all because we, Scotland, are still a part of the UK !
I really do not know How or where we go to try and finally get our independence.
However I would prefer we did it with a far larger majority of people in Scotland who were willing to all demonstrate that they supported it as they, as SCottish voters, finally saw the light on both the UK and parties who supported it.
That is more people in Scotland willing to vocalise, March , Protest and so rebel against WM and it’s UK politicians to then demonstrate their democratic right for gaining Scottish independence.
Then the SNP would have to do something more , other than that which they seem to only be doing now , which I agree appears to be them being too polite and too obliging to both WM and the parties and media who both support and promote it (on behalf of their UK).
We perhaps need more Stephen Flynn’s in the party and less of ( or none of) some of the others currently within the party.
If I knew the answer as to how to get Scottish independence then maybe I would be the SNP leader and the FM !
LikeLike
Additionally may I also add that perhaps KS’s “popularity” in recent poll ratings was not the best point for Pete W to make under the present circumstances, especially now that the SNP in WM, find themselves a greatly reduced party in the HOC, via the recent UK GE.
An own goal yes , by Pete W , that he awarded to KS.
However KS could have shown some dignity and also a clear distinction from the type of responses we used to hear from various former Tory PM’s , who as former Tory PM’s, always resorted to , like KS Yesterday, choose both insults and ridicule as their (and seems also his KS’s) preferred responses to most of the SNP’s Q’s and comments in the HOC.
It really would be refreshing if the SNP were not, as a party, treated so contemptuously within the HOC by most of the other Pro UK parties and their leaders (and also always treated as such by the useless and (Labour) partisan Speaker of the House who is also now seen as Starmer’s YES man aka Starmer’s Pet Poodle #GazaVote).
If only more within Scotland as voters were of a similar opinion to us and so they too supported , via a (far larger) majority, independence over the UK.
Then maybe we, Scotland, and also those we elect , could break away from WM politics and their controlling UK government’s reserved powers that greatly impact Scotland (many times negatively) as well as the rest of the UK !
LikeLike
People voted Labour not because they support them. To get rid of the Tories. Labour losing support already. 2026 Holyrood election. Then GE.
Labour could get the backlash. Starmer should not annoy more people, especially in Scotland.
LikeLike
“People voted Labour not because they support them. To get rid of the Tories”
Yes I know and there was no need to do that in Scotland for the Tories to be ousted as the UK government .
Also how many of those who voted Labour in Scotland were aware of Scotland’s seat allocation at WM now being down 2 seats to a total of only 57 seats via the new boundary changes in the 2024 GE where only England within the UK saw an increase in their seat allocation (of an extra 10 seats) in this boundary changes in the 2024 GE.
Pity also that some in Scotland also chose to retain some of the same Tories as in Bowie, Lamont & Mundell and also elect two new Tories as well.
Douglas Ross only lost his seat because of his actions against a fellow Tory.
Also tragic that all of the Lib Dem MP’s kept their seats and even gained two more seats in Scotland.
Who knows what propaganda Labour and the media will promote in the 2026 Scottish elections to try and oust the SNP as the Scottish government.
However they have already started the campaign for Labour in Scotland, even before the UK GE, so expect many deflections and distractions to protect Anas Sarwar and his party in Scotland. (together with a continued focus of negativity directed at the SNP by media and opposition parties while they simultanously they continue to try and promote Anas Sarwar and the Labour party here in Scotland).
God knows if the same people in Scotland who voted Labour , Tory & Lib Dem in the UK GE will also decide to vote for these same UK parties in the Scottish elections in 2026. (irrespective of their ratings in the polls for their respective UK parties).
Nothing surprises me with voters in Scotland but the word ‘fickle’ springs to mind as do other words also.
LikeLike