Reflex that drove austerity rolling back equality for women. Long. Long. Long.

Alterations to family structure in the twentieth century constitute some of the most significant alterations in human organisation in history, and involved changing lifespans, birthrates, and emergence of new systems(Allan, et al, 2001, pg.819-837, Arber et al, 2007, Bengston, 2001, pg.1-16). 20th century economists could not have been aware how significant this was. Guided by Keynes thoughts on instability, I explore the evolution of systems around these changes. I find a complex synthesis of institutions reflecting major unexpected alterations to the structure of our society and economy, reflecting evolving power relations in the 20th century. I identify the change to family structure as a major force shaping institutions in the 20th century.


Juxtaposing these systems against the belief system shaping our cash transfer system, I demonstrate an individualist belief system blind to these shifts is generating reflex response to crisis, which is generating political risk, institutional failure and social and legal crisis. I build on Minsky’s thoughts on cash transfer systems, demonstrating the reflex described by Mary Daly and Jane Lewis, to strip back capacities to care, has also driven this cycle. The resulting crisis vindicates Hayek’s warning to William Beveridge in Road to Serfdom, adding another dimension of the cycle identified by Minsky in ‘Stabilising and Unstable Economy’. I argue this was inevitable, and allows us to examine systems over their lifespan, analysing data for known outcome instead of what was responded to at the time.
Literature Review


Atkinson, Galbraith share common themes in ‘Inequality: What can be done about it?’ and ‘Inequality: What everyone needs to know’. Galbraith and Atkinson highlight limitations of existing tools in illuminating the multi-dimensional nature of inequality, with Galbraith outlining the need for new inequality measures in in Inequality and Instability(Galbraith, 2016, 2012, pg.20-43). Galbraith places financialisation as a driver of instability and inequality, welfare economics central to this(Galbraith, 2012, pg.20, pg.5, pg.108-109). There is  agreement inequality fell significantly during World War 2, welfare state institutions shaped by changing family structure, were established here(Atkinson, 2015, pg.57, Galbraith, 2016, Piketty, pg.271, Milanovic, 2016). Piketty explores the language of rights, and stigma attached to the modern welfare state and ‘alludes to real inequalities’, the evolution of these systems is of concern (Piketty, 2014, pg.478-9).


Minsky says there is little that can be done with an ‘institution until it has run its course’and ‘market forces will shape it, these include evolutionary forces(MInsky, 1986, pg.8). Milanovic states inequality does not go down by itself rather it generates processes (Milanovic, 2016, pg.98).


Through Galbraith, Atkinson’s and Piketty’s overarching narratives we gain a view inequality is cyclical, we are seeking a multi-dimensional understanding of the economy we do not have. This understanding would be beyond capacity of a single perspective but crisis tell us how systems are connected and expose power dynamics. Keynes and Hayek are agreed that systems show their flaws over time and ideas erode, it must follow that system failure is cyclical(Minsky, 2008,  Minsky, 1986, Caldwell, 2007). The context changes around economic models, this has to generate crisis(Skidelsky, 2016).


Through Allan et al, Bengston and Attius-Donfut and Arber, we find changes to family structure constitute some of the most significant alterations to human organisation in history, accompanying changes to birthrate, lifespan, and this shaped institutional development in the twentieth century, and is shaping the demands on 21st century systems, including our cash transfer system (Allan, et al, 2001, Bengston, 2001, Arber al, 2007). These were fundamental alterations to the structure of our economy and society and shaped our institutional structure organically.


Minsky acknowledges that at time of writing his understanding of care is limited, but that changing demographics will make this more important, that ‘economic policy must reflect an ideological vision’ but ‘it is naive to assume all stated social and economic goals are mutually consistent’(Minsky, 1986, pg.9, pg.11). Institutions mediate power relations, power relations evolve and so do institutions.


Atkinson and Galbraith discusses the limitations of family units that form the basis of economic modelling, and shows recognition of some change to family structure in the 20th century(Atkinson, 2015, pg.28-30, pg.41-42, pg. 159-60, Galbraith, 2012, 38-39).  Piketty identified the family as a means by which wealth resists redistribution. He neglected this also identifies the family as a stabilising institution, and used literary references from Balzac and Austen in lieu of examination of changing family structures in the 20th century(Piketty, 2014, pg.53-54, pg.105-106, pg. 241, pg.411-412).


Through Bettio, Brennan, and Himmlewhite we see the care economy the family is central to cannot be reconciled within current individualist thinking, and there has been tension between these systems and ideologies shaping them, and there is a substantial body of literature attempting to ‘gender’ welfare states (Bettio, 2004, Bettio and Plantenga, 2004, Brennan et al, 2012, pg.337, Himmlewhite, 2006, pg.581-599. Orloff, 2009).


Daly and Lewis identify distance between family, equality and work trajectories in EU policy. Lewis has followed this tension for a long period, Daly and Lewis show this tension is rooted in evolving institutional development, and a legacy family model, and this can be seen through the development of the ‘adult worker model’. This is generating a reflex response to spending caused by other events; the reflex to strip back capacities to care(Lewis, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2006b, Lewis and Giullari, 2005, Daly, 2011).


We explore the evolution of the tension and reflex identified by Daly and Lewis, and tension demonstrated by Bettio, Brennan and Himmlewhite, identifying this as having evolved to crisis point through Universal Credit(Daly, 2011, pg 1-2, Lewis, 1992, pg.159-173, Lewis et al, 2008).


Atkinson says of historical records, revisitation of this data through such studies, allows us to understand how inequality rose(Atkinson, 2015, pg.45). Piketty’s longitudinal modelling of tax return data caused an extraordinary reaction because it placed synthetic modelling into context, this is not something we do with data our institutions produce (Piketty, 2014). Nicholas Timmins shows the boundaries of Universal Credit are now being resolved through crisis resolving tension between the intention of the project, and what is possible(Timmins, 2017).  I seek to expand our understanding of the crisis at this intersection of systems and argue that through observation of crisis, we can view how dimensions of the economy fit together together.




Keynes said we were with no conviction aware of the intensely unusual, unstable, complicated, unreliable, and temporary nature of the economic organisation of our world (Keynes, 2012, pg.1). The UK had a reputation for stability. In the latter part of the 20th century, inequality relations were mediated by complex but stable and evolving institutional arrangements (Dearlove and Saunders, 1984, p.15). This is no longer true.

I will identify three major shifts shaping institutional development in the 20th and early 21st centuries: changes to family structure, changing demographics (including longer lifespans and falling birth rates), and the emergence of a formal care economy. I explore the relationship of these shifts to financialisation and the evolution of gender equality through the development of our cash transfer system. I demonstrate a reflex response to financial instability is driven by a central belief system structurally unable to see these shifts or their significance in the final years of an inequality cycle. This is generating institutional failure, crisis and political risk, undermining the rule of law, and defining the end of a cycle. It vindicates Hayek’s warning to Beveridge in The Road to Serfdom and adds another dimension to the cycle Minsky describes in Stabilising an Unstable Economy(Minsky, 1986, Caldwell, 2007).  

First I examine the changes to family structure in the 20th century and how this has shaped institutional development. I examine the principles of care economics, how the state conceptualises the family, and the legislation laying out the relationship between family and state. I examine the social work function in relation to tensions that shape institutions and political responsibility for the care economy, I lay out the structure of unexplained ‘attachment’ to welfare state institutions noted in Paul Pierson’s examination of the politics of retrenchment Dismantling the Welfare State’ (Pierson, 2007, pg. 13, 132).

I examine the development of the UK’s cash transfer system as distinct from other institutions, exploring financialisation and the evolution of gender equality through this system. I demonstrate how a belief system wrapped around theoretical economics, liberal philosophy and discussion of the deserving and undeserving poor, and the exclusion of this system from the rule of law, have generated a multi-faceted crisis that necessitates re-examination of its flaws and how it is upheld. I show that this cycle has been driven by reflex responses to crisis.


I argue this crisis vindicates Hayek’s warning that reliance on theoretical models that cannot see the evolving context in which they exist, shaping centrally planned institutions, and the lives of people, result in system failure, marginalised groups being controlled by centrally planned institutions, undermining the rule of law, and generating political risk(Caldwell, 2007).  As cash transfer system is linked to housing costs, it provides another dimension of the cycle Minsky describes in Stabilising an Unstable Economy, which he felt simply clarified Keynes’ own thoughts on the cyclical nature of instability, Galbraith sees financialisation as a driver of inequality and sees links between this and welfare economics(Galbraith, 2012). Institutional data sources illustrating the relationship between financialisation, inequality, and instability, over the course of a cycle, would offer potential for new measures of inequality sought by Galbraith(Minsky, 1986, pg.324, Galbraith, 2012, pg.20, Caldwell ed. 2007).

I suggest system failure provides opportunities to examine the lifespan of our cash transfer and child protection systems.. I recommend applying to these institutions the methodology Piketty applied to tax return data, analysing data for trends and patterns against the known outcome rather than that responded to by policymakers at the time.


Section 2: The Family: A force shaping institutions

In Capital in the 21st Century, Thomas Piketty identifies the intergenerational transfer of resources within families as a means by which wealth resists redistribution, establishing family as a m

eans by which inequality is reproduced. He neglected this identifies it as a stabilising institution (Piketty, 2014, Pg.363, 374, 400).

Changing family structures represent major changes to the underlying structure of our economy and society. This is the primary institution and central to the identity of most people, and is difficult to examine as a result(Piketty, 2014, Arber et al, 2007, Allan et al, 2001, Bengston, 2001).

2.1 Changes to family unit

Changes to family structures over the last century constitute some of the most significant alterations to human organisation in history. This was a gradual change – crossing national borders, intertwining with significant changes in lifespan, birth rate, new aspects of the economy, systems crossing paid and unpaid work, and requiring us to understand how different dimensions of the economy fit together. It is an evolutionary shift that cannot be undone, shaping institutional development in the 20th century and the demands of the 21st (Piketty, 2014, Arber et al 2007, Allan et al, 2001, Bengston, 2001).


Emile Durkheim’s concerns at changes to marriage in his lifetime and Popeno’s family decline hypothesis were expressions of anxiety at the essential functions of the family being undermined, we could not revert to a state where this was done within a household unit (Bynder, 1969, Bengtson, 2001). It was reasonable to fear changes to family structure would disrupt society and the economy and the changes have been quite significant. Our institutional structures are at different stages of recognising it. Family shape has changed, but the concept of the family is not done(Edwards and Gillies, 2012, Edwards, et al, 2012)


Arber’s Myth of Intergenerational Conflict outlines the impact of changing family shapes by examining intergenerational equity, the redistributive effect of intergenerational transfers, the relationship between public and private transfers, and the shifting of the gender contract from the workplace and family to questions of distribution of public resources and meeting major economic challenges. The volume examines wealth distribution in this context (Arber and Attius Donfut, 2007).


In Beyond the Nuclear Family: The Increasing Importance of Intergenerational Bonds, Bengtson outlines why changing birthrates and ageing populations make understanding intergenerational bonds more significant as the 21st century progresses, identifying several different dimensions of intergenerational reciprocity (Bengtson, 2001).

2.2 Coercion and abuse legislation: transformation of marriage


Changes to family structure were evident in the 19th century, but until the last quarter of the 20th century there was a clear empirical connection between sex, marriage and childbearing across Europe and the US (Allan et al, 2001, Kiernan and Lewis, 1998). One contested process of innovation which allowed this change was women’s emancipation from the control and violence inherent in their role within that unit, asserting their right to maintain care and to protect their children. Jane Lewis cites domestic abuse in the progression of divorce legislation back to the 19th century, with the evolution of the right to live independently from abuse and maintain care of your child won over a long period through many institutions and laws (Kiernan and Lewis et al 1998, 64-5, 98, 235, 238).  The heterogeneity of family forms is no longer contested, and the right to freedom from coercion and abuse became a legal duty when children are involved, a cash transfer is required for basic liberty as well as security( Brammer,2007, pg.218-220, Caldwell, 2007 ).


Routine violence that blights the lives of black women is the starting point for Crenshaw’s development of concepts of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991). The history of the evolution of domestic abuse services and child protection services, and the tension between these and lone mothers, is fraught and features cycles of mother-blaming, institutional failure, tragedy, harm to children and state abuse, individualising what is a social problem rooted in power relations at the core of the family unit. This is not new or unique to the UK (Humphreys, 2011, Dominelli and McLeod, 1989, Coy et al, 2015, Chzen,et al, 2012, Cassiman, 2012). Power relations hidden in the family unit now have institutional and legal manifestation. Countering domestic abuse only recently become a central policy goal; legislation recognising the coercion at its core passed in 2015, and forced marriage became a specific offence in 2014 (Home Office 2017, Home Office, 2014, Smartt, 2007).


A recent divorce application was refused in Owens v Owens. Sir James Munby, head of the Family Division, used the judgement to say the law is badly out of date. Institutions evolve by crisis (Owens v Owens [2017] EWCA Civ 182, [2017]) – in this case a contested divorce exposed the inertia in institutional recognition of changes to the norms of relationship formation. In the UK, relationships where people are subordinated, coerced, or forced to carry out unpaid domestic, caring, or sexual labour are unlawful.


2.3 Forces shaping an evolution of systems


Every person is gestated in a uterus. Women take the majority of the responsibility for care labour but women are now market actors. The state’s role in the formal care economy is a permanent one that can’t be abdicated and is central to the functioning of many other dimensions of the economy. Care has historically been seen as a household responsibility, and not a factor in economic functioning. Crisis forces it into view as a policy issue but there are huge conceptual issues when trying to quantify it or measure it. This just does not correspond to those tools, these systems exist anyway and shape our economy(Folbre, 2006, Zachorowska-Mazurkiewicz, 2015, Gianelli et al, 2012).


Laws and institutions reflecting the changing family unit evolved throughout the 20th century, but the significance of this change was not fully evident in the late 1970s as monetarism was reshaping our economy. Margaret Thatcher’s problematising of lone mothers reflected her sincere shock at the first generation of politically visible independent mothers. This reaction was triggered by the growing demand she saw in welfare budgets and Children’s Departments, this shift always shaped an intersection of systems (Lewis et al, 1998, pg.166, 186, Thatcher, 1995, pg.121).


A synthesis of institutions has evolved to uphold women’s ability to exit an abusive household and maintain care of a child. The rule of law developed through many systems, and involved the evolution of new systems.


2.4 The social work function


The social work function named within the Act is the embodiment of political responsibility for the care economy and family (Dominelli, 2002). The function is recognition of the multiple locations of control shaping institutional development manages the relationship between them around named groups. It is embodied so there can be reflection on power dynamics(Thompson, 2000, Dominelli, 2002). Lena Dominelli explains that challenges to the prevailing notions of citizenship and participation in society, changing notions of welfare and civil society, and groups challenging oppression and asserting autonomy within institutional arrangements and equality legislation, have been at the core of our growing understanding of the nature of oppression and power dynamics (Dominelli. 2002, Parker and Doel, 2013).


This function is the embodiment of reflection on the social cost of uneccessary intervention, and the balance between that and the role of the state in protecting from harm. It evolved naturally as a response to crisis, scandal, and institutional and political failure, without reference to Friedrich Hayek (Day, 1981, Caldwell, 2007, pg86, Thompson 2002, Butler et al, 2005, Baines, 2006).


In Five Giants: A Biography of the Welfare State, Timmins says he barely covers social services because it is to fall down a deep hole (Timmins, 2001, pg.7). As in Hayek’s time, a systematic response to institutional evolution which needs to be embodied and faced with human power relations has the potential to harm; social work is the statutory function which evolved as recognition of this (Caldwell, 2007). Social work is the site of direct political responsibility for the care economy. The work of this function should be a reflection of the dominant political and economic ideology of the day as the site of responsibility for what it cannot see(Hothersall et al, 2010).


Local authorities are institutions shaped by a variety of tensions outside policymakers’ control. Policymakers can control the shape of the institutions, eroding the institution does not erode the responsibility, nor can it undo learning that has already shaped institutions and has to be maintained (Coulshed 2006).


2.5 Care Economy


The principles of care economics are different from the principles of market orthodoxy. This is another dimension to the economy, it has always existed. Care economics are linked to norms and practices in society and families. Care institutions can only supplement kinship relations. In touching story about Burgess, the family sociologist his lecture commemorates, Bengston outlines why outcomes for those without kinship

relations are poorer (Bengston, 2001, Brennan et al, 2012, Himmelweit, 2007, Betti, 2006, Dupuy and Fernandez-Kranz, 2011).


Stability is key – the relationship is the output. When market rationale is applied to care institutions, it sacrifices this primary output in favour of more measurable tasks that can be quantified in pursuit of efficiency. This generates crises related to abuse and neglect, linked to political responsibility (Himmelwhite, 2007, Brennan et al, 2012, pg.239-251, Dominelli, 2002, National Audit Office, 2011).


Care labour is the basis of intergenerational reciprocity, a combination of time and money and labour transfers between generations that fluctuates over time. This is at the core of inequality reproduction, as well stabilising the economy (Attius-Donfut et al 2005, Piketty, 2013, Furstenburg et al, 1995).


Neither state nor market can do of this. Time spent doing care labour cannot be spent in the market economy; time in the market economy is purchased if it cannot be obtained through kinship networks. A care chain is a feature of the economy, reproducing inequality in the female labour market and across national borders. It directly shapes our cash transfer system as a reflection of the economy (Brennan et al, Wolf, 2013, Bettio, 2006, Williams, 2012, Lutz and Palenga-Mollenbeck, 2012).


It is easier to see crisis than stability. Policymakers have difficulty when primary outputs cannot be measured, quantified, or replicated, and they have little interest in care or family. Risk, power dynamics, legal frameworks cannot be quantified so crises force these into our understanding.


The debate over the bounds of care economics is endless, but the baseline of statutory responsibility is tangible and evolves through a process of legal precedence and crisis. It is always linked to political responsibility, shaping our institutions.

2.6 How does the state conceptualise the family?  


The state needs a concept of the family for a legal framework through which questions can be resolved so responsibility for this unit can be maintained. It must account for the complexity of the evolving family unit, power dynamics and distribution within it, the wider institutional context, how inequality shapes it’s functioning, and outline the limitations of state intervention in the private domain.


The Children Act 1989 (‘the Act’) provides this. The age of the legislation and the ease with which it evolved reflect how well it meets these aims (Brammer, 2007, pg.170, HMSO, 1989). The small number of families who use these courtrooms reflect the consistency with which these responsibilities are met.  


Domestic abuse is overrepresented in private family law, reflecting law that mediates power relations in families, and law as an instrument that can override those seeking to coerce, control and abuse (Scott et al, 2015, Rights of Women, 2012, Coy et al, 2015). Public family law concentrates on power dynamics inherent in physical, psychological, emotional and sexual harm to children, defining the limits and boundaries of state intervention and responsibilities to those children (Brammer, 2007, pg.53).


Core principles shape all decision making and are understood across institutions. The Welfare of the child is paramount in all decision making(S.1.1). Delay in proceedings is harmful and the process in of itself is likely to prejudice, the welfare of the child (S.1.2). ‘Unless contrary is shown involvement of that parent in the child’s life will further the child’s welfare’ (S.1.2a)(HMSO, 1989)


The Act does not define any ideal family unit or make specifications beyond a welfare checklist, and demands assessments that orbit a child’s identity and attachment, taking into account each of the contexts in which they exist and preventing social engineering(Re A (A Child) [2015] EWFC11.


Decisions are made with the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, in light of his age and understanding, his physical and emotional and educational needs, the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances; his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant, any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering, how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs. All decisions should be made with reference to the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in, Brammer, 2007, Pg.171).


‘Where a court is considering whether or not to make one or more orders under this Act with respect to a child, it shall not make the order or any of the orders unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all’(S.1.1)(Stationary Office, 1989). This is legislation which has to recognise state intervention and legal orders as harmful because they are.


It recognises significant alterations to family structure in the 20th century, normalising shared residence in recognition of stable post-divorce family forms(). It is the venue for these rapidly changing power dynamics to play out. It defines an institutional and legal context where emancipation from abusive relations is a responsibility, not an aspiration, in systems which can easily be used to coerce and abuse (Brammer, 2007, pg.218-220, Scott et al, 2015).


The Act assumes parental failure if children’s needs are not met; its structure implies it is legitimate to do so. There is no scope within the Act to recognise inequality between adult parties. The Act cannot recognise inequality between those adults, beyond recognising domestic abuse as significant harm to children and indicative of future harm to the child, no function can be introduced to the act which does this, so it must rely on institutional context to offset this inequality and assume the responsibility can be met.

Family courtrooms are closed and deal with complex issues of liberty, power dynamics, kinship relations, and the limits of state intervention in the private domain. Discussion of proceedings is held as contempt of court to protect the identity of the child at the centre(Sheehan, et al, 2012).


2.7 Relationship of families to institutions


The legislation marks out the bottom line of relationship between state and the family. It outlines parental responsibility for meeting children’s needs and contains two main legal thresholds for statutory intervention. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (s.[17]) gives local authorities the power to provide accommodation and financial support to families with ‘children in need’; the state is bound to responsibility when parents cannot meet their children’s needs. Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (s.[47]) places a duty on local authorities to investigate and make inquiries into the circumstances of children considered to be ‘at risk of significant harm’ (HMSO, 1989). This is a line between poverty and abuse.


2.7 Room for doubt


The Act uses a civil standard of proof. ‘Balance of probability’ provides more uncertainty than a criminal burden of proof; ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ removes the ability to manage risk and protect children. Balance of probability is adequate for risk assessment and management, with reflection on the potential for harm without the accountability of a public courtroom and with room for doubt (Brammer, 2007, pg.598).


Adoption is the only permanent severance of parental responsibility. This can only be done when all other avenues have been exhausted (Macfarlane and Reardon, 2010, (Re B-S(Children)[2013] EWCA Civ 1146).


This is the Hayekian rule of law, comprising “systems and laws that evolved naturally to tell us not what we must do, but what we must not do so as to avoid harming others, and so we obey no man only the law” (Caldwell, 2007). The complex power dynamics and potential to harm laid out by Kimberle Crenshaw is recognised through legal precedence; the enormity of the power exercised here is recognised, and so is the harm available instruments do (Crenshaw, 1991,Sullivan, 1985). Complaints about family courtrooms go through the parliamentary ombudsman via Members of Parliament (CAFCASS, 2017b). Imbalances have intergenerational consequences but cannot indefinitely avoid political attention.


2.9 Conclusion


I have outlined three major shifts shaping institutional development in the early 21st century: changes to family structure; changing demographics, including falling birth rates; and extended lifespans. I have shown that a synthesis of institutions has been shaped by these changes, and within this the rule of law has evolved. I show how the dynamics of power and abuse described by Crenshaw shaped institutional development within this synthesis of institutions, and freedom from domestic abuse became a duty. This is evidence of systems able to respond to major unexpected shifts in the structure of our economy and society and to reflect evolving power relations.


Part 2: Belief systems shaping institutions


Our cash transfer system is central to this synthesis, children subject to child benefit claims, likely to be subject to this legislation. I juxtapose the belief system shaping our cash transfer system, with this synthesis of institutions. Skidelsky describes how damage to social, legal and political life by mismanagement through central planning and collectionsivism, led to the collapse of communism. Skidelsky describes the liberal economic remedy of privatisation, deregulation, and individualism as remedy to problems generated by collectivism (Skidelsky, 1997). Margaret Thatcher believed her reshaping of the British economy with was inspired by Hayek (Thatcher, 1985).


Hayek’s views were shaped watching the collapse of the stable Habsburg Empire and the rise of National Socialism (Caldwell, 2007). ‘The Road from Serfdom’ articulates the extent to which the liberal economic remedy of privatisation, deregulation, and individualism was also shaped by fear of of communism in the latter half of the twentieth century, this is confirmed by Margaret Thatcher in her memoirs (Thatcher, pg.356, Skidelsky, 1997).


A system corresponding to Hayek’s view would not rely on theoretical modelling aggregating vast amounts of information to create artificial certainty or shape lives this way around needs of a centrally controlled money supply. The Road to Serfdom started as a letter to William Beveridge, warning of just this, arguing that, since the acceleration of the process of collectivism was triggered by the crisis of war, grave defects would become evident as time went on (Caldwell, 2007, pg.89).


Keynes argued that the ideas of economists and political philosophers are more powerful than commonly understood(Minsky, 1986, pg.9). He was sure the power of vested interests was vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Certainly the journey from a discipline concerned with the political problem of balancing economic efficiency, social justice and individual liberty, to a discipline concerned with policies which can be sold, indicate this erosion (Atkinson, 2015, pg.14-17, Caldwell ed. 2007, pg.32). Minsky points out ‘a theory which denies what is happening can see unfavourable events as the work of evil forces, rather than characteristics of an economic mechanism’. With monetarism the symbolism of the welfare claimant and public spending, has been sufficient to explain such events (Friedman, 2008, Tyler, 2008).


Hayek was aware the monetarism Thatcher was evangelical about was in essence Keynesian, in that it utilised the power of central planning to which it promised the antidote (Sullivan, 1985).


Market forces do not include evolutionary forces, evolving legal frameworks, care labour, the forces which shape household functioning, other forces shaping institutions, or how power dynamics shape this. There is no way to view intergenerational reciprocity within this belief system. It does not see the evolving institutional context in which it exists, so crisis indicating institutional evolution trigger the politics of blame  (Pierson, 1994). Minsky, Hayek and Keynes are agreed on the importance of reflection on evolving context economic theories exist in, here there is no acknowledgement or link, reflex protects this(Caldwell, pg.115, Minsky, 2008, pg 9, Daly, 2011).


3.2 Equality and Cash Transfer Systems


Equality legislation is tangible evidence that for some groups equality is contested, these groups can be demonised more reliably than other groups, there will be political capital in doing so. Strands reflected in equality legislation should be reflected in welfare spending. Labour attached to child benefit, has to be delivered regardless of pressure created by policy and is regulated using the same authority given to the cash transfer system, capacities to care can be stripped only until crisis end the reflex.


Nicola Lacey says in her critique of the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act, that as well as having insufficient resources to enforce it, welfare systems are excluded from its remit, welfare plus equality legislation is the liberal prescription for inequality. Lacey is dismissive of the illusion of equality created by the Act, but this was a powerful statement of the baseline for citizenship (Lacey, 1987). A liberal prescription where welfare undermines the rule of law, and the two are prescribed together undermines rule of law gradually and systematically. The rhetoric of the Equality Act 2010 applied duties across public sector institutions (Wadham, 2010).


In a recent ruling overturning increased employment tribunal fees, Lord Reed was forced to clarify the rule of law. He said:


At the heart of the concept of the rule of law is the idea that society is governed by law. Parliament exists primarily in order to make laws for society in this country. Democratic procedures exist primarily in order to ensure that the Parliament which makes those laws includes Members of Parliament who are chosen by the people of this country and are accountable to them. Courts exist in order to ensure that the laws made by Parliament, and the common law created by the courts themselves, are applied and enforced. That role includes ensuring that the executive branch of government carries out its functions in accordance with the law…laws are liable to become a dead letter, the work done by Parliament may be rendered nugatory, and the democratic election of Members of Parliament may become a meaningless charade.(Para 66, [2017] UKSC 51 On appeal from: [2015] EWCA Civ 935 )


3.3 The Beveridge System, Working Men, a Mediating Class


Beveridge viewed care labour/childraising as essential labour but was clear it should be contained within marriage (Glennester and Evans, 1994, pg.60, Timmins, 1995, pg.55). He was aware of the power of this system. He viewed it in terms of working men, the labour market and state, its purpose preventing idleness he imagined was the cause of inequality. He was bringing together existing employment insurance schemes, hardwiring loss of citizenship into the bureaucracy he established for every person outside the contributory version of unemployment benefits, a small aspect of our cash transfer systems. This system has maintained a legacy breadwinner/unpaid carer standard family model(Lewis, 2001). This was not undone by equality legislation or evolution of duties to children which shaped these systems. Heavily influenced by the Fabians, this was not a system for enfranchised citizens, but the poor to be shaped by a mediating class.


Skidelsky identifies the Fabian view of socialism as an intellectual construction accompanied by a new class of social engineers, philosophers, and political scientists, inherently linked to this version of collectivism. Andersen points out the distance between those who theorise egalitarianism and those who have won rights as citizens within a democracy, a failure to connect theorising fairness with systems which evolved to address inequality and have potential to harm (Skidelsky, 1997, pg.40, Andersen, 1999, pg.289-).


Elizabeth Andersen’s critique of how liberal philosophy is used to frame the questions of egalitarianism as a redistribution from a fortunate ‘us’, to a less fortunate ‘them’, describes the change to citizenship created for recipients of cash transfer systems by this, regardless of equality legislation and the wider institutional and legal context(pg.).


The work of Rawls and Nagel and Dworkin, provides a motif in lieu of examination of power dynamics and how they shape systems, this can be seen across disciplines, and in how we measure inequality (Salverda et al, 2009, pg.2, Andersen, 1999 p.288, Coulshed, 2006, Dominelli, 2002).


Notions of liberty here are not nuanced questions of state intervention, unequal power relations, and liberty, which occupy our courts; this is identity formation in a belief system which cannot tell the difference between natural human reproduction, the rule of law, and publicly funded institutions so seeks to undermine all as one.


3.4 Evolution of an Institution


Within the bureaucracy that has been the Department of Health and Social Security, Department for Social Security, Benefits Agency and Employment Service, the Department for Work and Pensions, there are multiple locations of control including decisions made on behalf of the Secretary of State. Bureaucracies are useful for providing universal services nationwide, evolve slowly and are stable (Coulshed, 2006). They can be rigid, require staff able to develop relationships, clear lines of democratic accountability, reflection on power they exercise and a clear understanding of the rule of law which binds them. Centrally planned institutions form part of the Civil Service in service of the Crown. A responsibility to deliver services impartially, fairly, universally and within the rule of law – should stabilise against abusive policy instincts(Cabinet Office, 2017).


The system Beveridge wanted never materialised, what emerged was flexible enough to adapt to decades of unexpected shifts. Women’s emergence from a family unit defined by coercion, emergence of gender equality as a goal, market participation of mothers, deindustrialisation, financialisation, and financial instability have all form tides of its evolution.


3.6 Forces shaping a system


Minsky described the hysteresis created if cash transfer systems which restrict economic and social activity are combined with an unstable debt based economy, each episode of destructive instability perpetuating an extension of control and expansion of welfare spending which ‘does not recede because new economic activity is restricted’. He refers to the ‘complexity of the array of entitlement programmes’(Minsky, 1986, pg.29-30).


Minsky discusses how entitlement programmes swell, on one hand entitlements sustain demand, prevent economic falls, increase disposable income, subsidise care labour, on the other they carry an inflationary bias, are harmful when continually expanded (Minsky, 1986, p.29). Once state control exceeds a proportion of the whole, the effect of its actions dominate the whole system (Caldwell, 2007 pg 102). Paul Pierson describes how crisis generates a reflex response of blame politics, which never successfully retrenches the welfare state(Minsky, 1986, Pierson, 1994). Piketty identifies that debt and forced labour also forms part of a cycle, Workfare has featured heavily in the latter years of this cycle(Middlesex University, 2014, Piketty, 2016)


Minsky identifies that ‘transfer payments which provide income without work, set a floor in money wage rates ‘(Minsky, 1986 pg.29.) The symbolism of the deserving/undeserving division is applied at the cash transfer ceiling Hyman Minsky identities. Our cash transfer system is a live record of wages connected to child benefit, housing and childcare costs and therefore the motherhood pay-penalty(Lips et al, 2012, Lewis, 2012).


The division between welfare claimants and ‘hardworking’ citizens relies on identification against claiming benefits which cannot be relied on when that divide expands into an employed pool. It would force recognition of inherent contradictions in the belief.


3.5 Beliefs system shaping a system


Thatcher was a Beveridge woman (Thatcher, 1995, pg.120). The whip for the undeserving hardwired into the system was central to her revolution, she used think-tanks outside our institutional structure for policy making, viewing existing institutional structures as resistance to change (Timmins, 2005, Thatcher, 1995).


The welfare economics shaping our cash transfer system is dominated by synthetic inequality modelling, welfare claimants as symbols of dysfunction, amplified reflections of tabloid symbolism, and measures of GDP which do not recognise care, intergenerational reciprocity, family or law, reinforced by opinion polling. Theoretical models orbit a simplistic household unit. Discussion is of expected behaviours attributed to household units. Millions of units aggregated in theoretical models, disagreements concern how cash transfers will change spending patterns, and moral hazard. Aggregating millions of units ensures this unit cannot be a complex evolving form, there can be no analysis of the interaction of this unit with multiple systems, coercive impact of those institutions, nor an evolving legal framework or different dimensions of the economy(Cowell, 2011, Salvera et al, 2009, pg.650, Atkinson, 2015, Galbraith, 2016).


3.7 Reflex which drives cycle.


Stripping capacities to care for and protect children as a response to pressure caused by other forces is a reflex which has driven this cycle. Mary Daly outlines pressures which trigger the reflex to strip back at capacities to care, this includes demographic shifts, demands of an ageing population other spending pressures caused by changing family structures (Daly, 2011).


Jane Lewis outlines attempts to ‘harmonise’ work and family reconciliation, with gender equality goals across Europe, demonstrating this reflex is in action not just here but across EU. She notes the ‘slipperiness of policy meanings’ and the ‘implications of this on policy development’. She demonstrates the distance between these trajectories is tied to institutional development across the EU, and the evolution of these goals()This was the case in 2007(Lewis, 2002, Lewis, 2006). Haux and Knjin et al demonstrate the smooth progression between Labour policies to ‘activate’ lone parents as workers, to post-2010 Governments(Haux, 2012, Knjin et al 2007).


A central theme of welfare economics is recreation of a ‘two adult worker model’ household and an ‘adult worker’ model. This model has long formed the core of a welfare discourse about responsibility.(Lewis and Giullari, 2006, Daly 2011). Without acknowledgement of responsibilities to children, there can be no consideration of the material risk created by this.


The UK is a country with a birth rate which just excludes us from acute fertility worries of other countries, the evolution of a harsh ‘liberal regime’ is considered central to this. Schmitt discusses scholars who are still unable to accommodate the dual role of women as workers and mothers in 2012’ (Macdonald, 2006, Schmitt 2012).


The starting point for mainstream welfare state scholarship is Epsing-Andersons cross European typologies of welfare states which sees the relationship of state to labour market, and is blind to what child benefit signifies (Arts and Gellisen, 2002, Epsing-Andersen, 1990). A cross national typology is not possible with this included, the evolving functions which link to children are tied to the functioning of the nation state. International comparisons of approaches to child maltreatment, present difficulty for the same reason(Brown et al, 2017). Paid childcare is valorised over unpaid labour, because it is recognised in GDP(Daly, 2011).


The reflex to strip back at capacities to care is limited by political, social, and legal crisis. The judgement in Portugal vs Soares De Melo(72850/14), referred to ‘the ease with which the paternalism of creating poverty and rescuing children from it can become corrupted’, stating ‘European courts have a responsibility to uphold that the interests of the mother and the child are linked.’ The judgement related to a cash transfer system and action taken to remove children from a mother’s care after she was stripped of the ability to provide for them.


3.8 Crossed Line


In the UK this reflex reached a conclusion. By giving government unlimited powers, the most arbitrary rule can be made legal and despotism is made possible(Caldwell, 2007, pg.119). A test has been introduced to ask if a mother has been raped, sexual autonomy at conception resulting in loss of benefits for that child, loss which must be absorbed until crisis warrant intervention. Only the sexual assault of the mother renders a child valid, a professional is required to evidence the form, the word of the mother insufficient. Professionals have refused(HM Revenue and Customs, 2017, BBC News, 2017c).


An institution working to the pleasure of the crown actively seeking to remove ability to meet duties imposed and enforced by the crown, undermining the rule of law, encroaching on human reproduction itself, and generating crisis; adjudicating the validity of a child the on the basis of their mother’s sexual violation. This cannot undo the twentieth century, but provides vindication of Hayek’s warning to Beveridge revealing another dimension of the cycle identified by Minsky. A reflex to strip capacities to care is a reflex that has driven this cycle, this is now generating crisis and linked to political risk but offers opportunity to review our development of these systems.


Part 3: System failure: Learning from Crisis:


3.0 Branco Milanovic says a ‘very high inequality eventually becomes unsustainable, but does not go down by itself, rather it generates processes that lower it’ (Branco Milanovic, 2016, pg.98). Minsky is clear there is little can be done to an institution once it is established, it must run its course, you must restrict yourself to internal operations, until social and economic order is disrupted enough to warrant redefinition of that institution(Minsky, 1986). If flaws become apparent over time, this should be cyclical.


Skidelsky referred to the damage to political, legal, social economic life caused by collectivism, we will limit ourselves to institutional, legal, and political dimensions of this crisis. Economic, social, and media crisis can be seen through this lens(Skidelsky, 1997).


  1. 1 Legal


In a recent judicial review brought by a group of single mothers attempting to challenge the benefit cap, Lord Justice Collins stated that application of the cap to children under two was causing ‘misery for no good reason’[2017] EWHC 1446(Admin) Case No: CO/379/2017). On the application Mothers of young children demonstrated the links between caring, the labour market, and our cash transfer system.


Statements and public judgements from Sir James Munby, Head of the Family Division, in the period 2010-2017 demonstrate  institutional failure, concern about political use of adoption, concern about the state’s ability to meet the needs of children in its care. These warnings now focus on systems, rather than individuals or organisations.  The Re:BS judgement had to reiterate the evolution of the rule of law around adoption and stemmed a 26% rise in adoptions in 2013/14(Re B-S(Children)[2013] EWCA Civ 1146)).


Care demand statistics have shown increases in care applications, year on year. Increased prevalence of domestic abuse and neglect is visible even without statistical analysis. Between April 2016 and March 2017, Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Services(CAFCASS) received a 14,579 applications, 14% higher compared with the previous financial year( Between April 2015 and March 2016 Cafcass received 12,792 applications, 15% higher compared with the previous financial year(Cafcass, 2017).    


This is not a new or sudden problem. Harlow, has traced the evolution of the impact of this belief system on social work departments(Harlow et al, 2003, Harlow et al, 2012). The question of how managerialism impacts social work practice, has been explored intensively. Laming Report into the death of Victoria Climbie, offering a startling picture, Rogowski outlines the way managerialism shapes Social Work, with Coulshed and Mullender’s ‘Management in Social Work’, seeming prescient as we enter this crisis(Coulshed, 2006, Rogowski, 2011).


The absence of recording of domestic abuse as a primary classification of harm obscures this is harm not caused by person who is subject of the application. Figures obtained by the Independent Newspaper about 18 of 43 police forces, showed the number of reports of domestic abuse surged by more than 13,500, from 431,000 to 444,600, between 2015 and 2016, charges brought by police slumped from 60,700 to 54,800. This was reported as police failure, it is as likely to indicate reluctance to press charges due to lack of available options to leave, this is not a new problem, it is one we learned from(Humphrey and Absler, 2012, Agerholme, 2017).


The rate of child deaths due to maltreatment in the UK should remain static, a reflection of the rarity and constancy of this risk, care application figures should be stable for the same reason(Jones, 2014, Hall, 2003). These figures indicate system failure and cannot coexist with a functioning child protection system, which can only exist as part of a functioning wider synthesis of institutions and is linked to the functioning of the nation state.  


3.2 Institutional:


The imposition of sanctions for failing to meet the conditions of Jobseekers Allowance, the whip Beveridge devised, was notable for being a minor part of our one of the smallest benefit in our cash transfer systems and complex to deliver. In the years 2010-2017 was expanded, peaking in 2013(National Audit Office, 2017, Office for National Statistics, 2015, Timmins, 1995). Sanctions are resource and labour intensive and impact other institutions and budgets, and cannot be delivered consistently across the country, they rely on limited understandings of claimant behaviour (National Audit Office, 201 pg.15). Sanctions have been linked to food poverty, the growth in food banks, rising malnutrition admissions, and to deaths, lone parents have been particularly impacted by sanctions(Gingerbread, 2017, Reeves and Loopstra, 2016). Universal Credit attempts to expand this to cover our entire cash transfer system.


Press reports cite Universal Credit costs ballooning to over £15.5bn. This project has been dogged with problems since its inception (DWP, 2016, , Department for Work and Pensions, 2015, Timmins 2017, Lakhani, 2014). The scale of the project, mean crisis in delivery are resolving tension between the intention and what can be delivered, this will form the boundaries of a new system(Timmins, 2017). Once a system is defined it must run its course, but this system is in flux.


3.3 A synthesis of institutions in crisis


There is longstanding evidence of institutional failure in Children’s Services Departments. Treatment as a constant blinds us to when a line has been crossed. By 2010, entire Children’s Services departments were being declared unfit for purpose, Dr. Eileen Munro’s review of the administrative burden on social workers, demonstrating the administrative aspect of this function was in crisis(Cockcroft and Gimmell, 2010, Munro, 2011).  


Media vilification as a reaction to the death of Peter Connelly was accompanied by threat of privatisation, and stripping of consideration of maternal inequality from assessments, and lowering of risk thresholds, indicating dysfunction at the site of political responsibility for the care economy and the same reflex in action here (Jones, 2014, pg.59-125). There are concerns over social work’s future as a profession(Cooper, 2015).


This tandem system failure expose significant institutional erosion, problems with how policy makers conceptualise institutions, what shapes them and binds them, disconnect with how rule of law develops through them and how power is exercised with them, as well as a belief these responsibilities can be abdicated. The reflex to strip back at capacities to care can include the ability to protect children it is still limited by crisis.


This crisis unfolds while an enquiry into child protection failure in the twentieth century is underway. Changes to family structure were at the core of major shifts defining the 20th century, our systems will not adapt to the 21st without acknowledging them.

  1. 4 Political risk and inequality


Inequality links to politics in ways that cannot be denied, but they are not always clear(Galbraith, pg.9, 2016) Iain Duncan Smith resigned citing the fairness of the welfare changes he was to deliver(BBC News, 2016, Duncan Smith, 2016). This was political crisis for this welfare blueprint, after a long period of corrosive properties of our cash transfer system being elevated as a reflex response to crisis.


The Labour Party(‘Labour’) manifesto retained 7bn of the welfare cuts covered by Iain Duncan Smith’s resignation, in 2017, allocating only 2bn to reviewing cuts to Universal Credit (Savage, 2017, Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2017) As a final anchor for this particular strand of our dominant economic and political consensus we can see how it was upheld throughout its lifespan.


Labour symbolise a coalition of direct democracy, a parliamentary party, and trade unions, since the Party was born with the Labour Representation Committee in 1900(Labour, 2017). They identify as the ‘unchallenged representative of the working class’, cash transfer system recipients were excluded from this definition, so expansion of our cash transfer system would always have caused problems. This identity has fuelled internecine warfare between liberal and left factions of the party within rigid institutional structures connected to elite institutions throughout their history(Crick, pg.2, Healey, 1989). Trade unionism is now linked to public sector institutions, including cash transfer system and Local Authorities, rather than industry(Comfort, 2013).


The liberal left symbiosis is uninterrupted by the evolution of citizenship or these institutions(Crick, pg.2, Caldwell, 2007, pg.157-170, Healey, 1989). The internecine warfare surrounding Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership is a recurring Labour Party and Movement crisis. It becomes risk when the institution transitions significant shifts. Tony Blair aimed to reform Labour so they could adapt without this. Labour culture and structures prevent them discussing consensus they share, or consensus they orbit, they relive this internecine crisis channelling tension from external crisis into it(Crick, 1984, BBC, 1995, Healey, 1989) . This legacy identity and shapes trade union, and a parliamentary party and direct democracy functioning. Media narratives orbit it, a re-emergence of a mediating class, adding a political dimension to the cycle Minsky identified.


3.5 Social Media ‘movements’


Lock et al describe the astroturf metaphor ‘‘AstroTurf which originated in the 1970s in the United States (Irmisch, 2011) does not grow naturally but is manufactured and has to be installed. Thus, it becomes a proper metaphor for certain public affairs activities that have spread globally ’(Lock et al, 2016, pg.88). Atkinson said identifying location of control in systems is important, nowhere more so than here(Atkinson, 2015).


People’s Momentum is a company registered to Jon Lansman, Tony Benn’s campaign manager in the early 1980s(Shabi, 2017, Helm and Hacillo, 2017). The cast of protagonists hasn’t changed significantly the last incarnation of events covered by the BBC documentary ‘Cast into the Wilderness’(BBC, 1995). This is the period before Margaret Thatcher’s shock at increased welfare spending indicating generation of independent mothers. They have fulfilled this function since at least 1983, indicating stability..


The progression of Astroturf from Netroots, to People’s Assembly, to People’s Momentum show how discussion of cash transfer and local authority changes likely to generate crisis, channelled into existing political media structures and narratives and finally to loyalty to a Labour leader (Hundal et al 2011, Unite, 2013, Helm and Hacillo, 2017, Sehmer, 2017), Peoples Momentum, 2016, Caldwell, 2007, pg.157-170, BBC News, 2017a). This ‘movement’ offers an interesting record of how existing political institutions and forces reproduce systems through subordination of marginalised identities through activism, especially as these ‘movements’ are accompanied by intimidation, including that of elected officials(Crenshaw, 2011). (BBC News, 2017, BBC, 2017b). Political risk appears to be rooted in the tension between a legacy identity, expansion of our welfare system, a changing media landscape, and a period of retrenchment highlighting how power relations have evolved over a cycle


Institutional resilience.  


3.6 Crises expose resilience as well as dysfunction.  Peter Kyle, a Labour MP for Brighton and Hove demonstrated the link between the family courts and parliament is functioning(Laville, 2016). He spoke in parliament about women being abused in the family courts on, leading to cross party work addressing cross examination of vulnerable witnesses, and wider general agreement on the need to examine the synthesis of institutions around domestic abuse(Roscoe, 2017). The constituency surgery system is functioning, there is cross party awareness of this crisis and addressing domestic abuse is a central policy goal and subject to consensus, and many organisations were aware of this crisis(Women’s Aid, 2016). Six years is a significant period of inertia.


A Government attempt to introduce an opt out of responsibilities in the Children Act, through the Children and Social Work Act (McNicoll, 2017), was unsuccessful, indicating this is a line too difficult to cross. An Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, focusing on institutions throughout the 20th century is now underway(, 2017).  There is considerable disquiet over the state of the social work profession, and our ability to meet minimum requirements(Cooper, 2015).


4.0 Conclusion


In the latter part of the 20th century, inequality relations were mediated by complex but stable and evolving institutional arrangements, this is no longer true(Dearlove, 1984). Keynes said we were with no conviction aware of the unusual, unstable, complicated, unreliable and temporary nature of the economic organisation of our world(Keynes, 1919, pg.1). The family is the primary institution, changes to family structure indicate fundamental alterations to the structure of the economy and society; a major force shaping institutions.


I outlined how institutional development has been shaped by significant alterations to family structure institutions in the 20th century and show accommodation of these shifts is central to meeting the demands of the 21st. These changes included significant changes to family structure, changing demographics, falling birthrates, extended lifespans, the emergence of new systems, and the evolution of the rule of law. I use ‘Arber’s Myth of Intergenerational Conflict’  to show understanding these changes is central to understanding the relationship between public and private transfer, the shift of the gender contract from family and workplace and to understanding questions of distributions of public resources and intergenerational reciprocity. Bengston demonstrates why changing demographics make consideration of intergenerational reciprocity central to meeting 21st century challenges.


I show a synthesis of institutions, including our cash transfer system, evolved to protect the ability of women to leave coercion and abuse, which is now a legal duty where children are involved.


I place care labour as the basis of intergenerational reciprocity, a combination of time and money transfers through the generations, and because care institutions can only supplement kinship relations, the state will always have to manage and reflect on power at this intersection, this cannot be abdicated. I introduce the principles of care economics as a dimension of the economy which has always existed and which shapes institutions.


I use the Children Act 1989 to map out the relationship between the family and state.  I show it accounts for complexity of the evolving family unit, how inequality shapes its functioning, wider institutional context, and the limitations of state intervention in the private domain. I cite this as the Hayekian rule of law, ‘that which evolved to tell us not what we must do, but what we must not do so we can avoid harming others and so we obey no man only the law’, and with recognition of its potential to harm. I demonstrate this evolution of rule of law in systems shaping the relationship between family and state mark out power dynamics which used to be hidden within the family unit. These systems evolved around power dynamics described by Kimberle Crenshaw in 1991(Crenshaw, 1991). We have systems able to organically reflect unexpected and major structural alterations to our economy and society and reflect evolving power relations.


These systems are linked to our cash transfer system, which is an accurate record of wages, childcare costs, and housing costs, with child benefit as a passport benefit which is still functioning and necessary. I juxtapose the evolution of these systems with the belief system shaping our cash transfer system, to I demonstrate a reflex response to financial instability is driven by a central belief system structurally unable to see these shifts or their significance in the final years of an inequality cycle.


Thatcher believed her policies were inspired by Hayek.  I argue a centrally planned system relying on theoretical modelling, aggregating vast amounts of information to create artificial certainty, shaping lives around the needs of a centrally controlled money supply, reducing them to objects excluded from citizenship, was what Hayek warned against.


Minsky explains if cash transfer systems which restrict economic and social activity are combined with an unstable debt based economy, they continually expand and do not recede. This system is shaped by theoretical economics dominated by synthetic inequality modelling, and a simplistic household unit, attributing crisis to welfare claimants as objects of dysfunction and cannot see outside that.


We demonstrate the reflex of stripping at capacities to care as a response to spending caused by other forces is driving this cycle. Spending caused by other forces, including spending pressure caused by changes to family structure, has been trigger for this reflex, housing costs are covered by this system, so this reflex can be directly linked to financialisation(Stephens, 2005).


Through literature on the Adult Worker Model, and fertility policy we see scholars still see reconciling mothers as adult workers as intractable in 2012. Through Neyer et al, we find considerable difficulty reconciling concepts of gender equality, within fertility literature(Neyer, 2013). We trace a smooth transition for ‘activating lone parents’ as workers through policy of several governments, with the Soares De Melo judgement we show how this reflex is limited by crisis.


Through Universal Credit, the two child limit, and the conclusion of this reflex with the ‘rape clause’, we are able to demonstrate system failure around this intersection of institutions. Showing Hayek’s warning is vindicated through the first cycle of this institution’s evolution. We can now correct our understanding of what shapes and connects these institutions so they can evolve.


Part 3: Learning from system failure: inequality, crisis, and political risk.


We argue the study of inequalities will learn from crisis, systems and political forces mediating power relations are in crisis and flux but this is cyclical, institutions evolve and so do power relations. We find evidence of system failure around the intersection of systems around children. We find political risk due to tension between the legacy identity and function of the Labour Party and Movement. These institutions have to accommodate major changes, and are redefining their boundaries through crisis.


Austerity: System Failure and Inequality Reduction


We have the opportunity to measure known outcome instead of what was responded to for what appears to be a complete cycle, contained data sources, a series of shifts we know should be reflected in this data. This is information which may structure our understanding of the relationship between instability and inequality, and how different dimensions of inequality connect.


Viewing this as inevitable, cyclical, how institutions evolved within this cycle, we are able to see the intersection of systems generating crisis, and their evolution.


That reflection on power and the natural evolution of society and the economy is necessary for systems not to become harmful, defined twentieth century paradigms in many different ways. The significance of both Economic Consequences of the Peace and Road to Serfdom as texts is not their relationship to cash transfers and child protection and evolution of systems after they were written. We need to revisit those thoughts and synthesise what these crisis tell us in that context. This was inevitable.




Agerholme, H. (2017). Fears for victims of domestic abuse as number of police charges plummets in one year. Independent. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 Aug. 2017].

ALLAN, G., HAWKER, S. and CROW, G. (2001). Family Diversity and Change in Britain andWestern Europe. Journal of Family Issues, 22(7), pp.819-837.

Arber, S. and Attias-Donfut, C. (2007). The myth of generational conflict. London: Routledge.

Attias-Donfut, C., Ogg, J. and Wolff, F. (2005). European patterns of intergenerational financial and time transfers. Eur J Ageing, 2(3), pp.161-173.

Arts, W. and Gelissen, J. (2002). Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report. Journal of European Social Policy, 12(2), pp.137-158.


Bengtson, V. (2001). Beyond the Nuclear Family: The Increasing Importance of Multigenerational Bonds. THE BURGESS AWARD LECTURE*. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), pp.1-16.

Brammer, A. (2007). Social work law. Harlow: Pearson Longman.

Brammer, A. (2013). Social work law. Pearson Education.

Brennan, D., Cass, B., Himmelweit, S. and Szebehely, M. (2012). The marketisation of care: Rationales and consequences in Nordic and liberal care regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(4), pp.377-391.

BBC News (2017a). Jeremy Corbyn supporter warns Labour MPs on loyalty. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 Aug. 2017].

BBC News (2017b). Labour leadership: Female MPs urge Corbyn to tackle abuse. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 Aug. 2017].

Brown, L., Lei, J., and Strydom, M. (2017) Comparing International Approaches to Safeguarding Children: Global Lesson Learning. Child Abuse Rev., 26: 247–251. doi: 10.1002/car.2486.

Bynder, H. (1969). Emile Durkheim and the Sociology of the Family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31(3), p.527.

Bettio, F. (2006). Change in care regimes and female migration: the ‘care drain’ in the Mediterranean.Journal of European Social Policy, 16(3), pp.271-285.

Bettio, F. and Plantenga, J. (2004). Comparing Care Regimes in Europe. Feminist Economics, 10(1), pp.85-113.

Brennan, D., Cass, B., Himmelweit, S. and Szebehely, M. (2012). The marketisation of care: Rationales and consequences in Nordic and liberal care regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(4), pp.377-391.

Butler, I., Drakeford, M. and Butler, I. (2005). Scandal, social policy, and social welfare. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

Cabinet Office (2017). Civil service conduct and guidance. London: Cabinet Office.

Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Services(CAFCASS (2017). Care Demand Statistics. p.

Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Services(CAFCASS (2017b). Cafcass complaints and compliments procedure. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Aug. 2017].


Cockcroft, L. and Gemmel, c. (2010). Birmingham children’s servives declared ‘unfit for purpose’. The Telegraph. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Aug. 2017].

Comfort,N. (2013)’The Long Slow Death of British Industry: A 60 year suicide.1952-2012, Biteback Publishing, London.

Cowell, Frank (2011) Measuring inequality London School of Economics perspectives in economic analysis (3rd). 3rd, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

Cooper, J. (2015). BASW to hold summit on the future of social work following college closure – Community Care. [online] Community Care. Available at:

Coulshed, V., Mullender, A., Jones, D. and Thompson, N. (2006). Management in social work. Basingstoke [England]: Palgrave Macmillan.


Cabinet Office (2017). Civil service conduct and guidance. London: Cabinet Office.

Cassiman, S. (2008). Resisting the Neo-liberal Poverty Discourse: On Constructing Deadbeat Dads and Welfare Queens. Sociology Compass, 2(5), pp.1690-1700.

Chzhen, Y. and Bradshaw, J. (2012). Lone parents, poverty and policy in the European Union. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(5), pp.487-506.

Cockcroft, L. and Gemmel, c. (2010). Birmingham children’s servives declared ‘unfit for purpose’. The Telegraph. [online] Available at: [Accessed 8 Aug. 2017].

Coy, M., Scott, E., Tweedale, R. and Perks, K. (2015). ‘It’s like going through the abuse again’: domestic violence and women and children’s (un)safety in private law contact proceedings. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 37(1), pp.53-69.

Cowell, F. (2011). Measuring inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crick, M. (1984). Militant. London [usw.]: Faber & Faber.

Daly, M. (2011). What Adult Worker Model? A Critical Look at Recent Social Policy Reform in Europe from a Gender and Family Perspective. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 18(1), pp.1-23.

Day, P. (1981). Social work and social control. London: Tavistock Publications.

Department for Education, (2011). The Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report A child-centred system. London.

Dearlove and Saunders, (1984), Introduction to British Politics: Analysing a Capitalist Democracy, Oxford, Polity Press.

Department for Work and Pensions (2015). Universal Credit Evaluation Framework 2016. London: Department for Work and Pensions.

Department for Work and Pensions (2017). Benefit Sanctions HC 628 SESSION 2016-17 30 NOVEMBER 2016. London: National Audit Office, pp.HC 628 SESSION 2016-17 30 NOVEMBER 2016.

Dominelli, L. (2002). Anti-oppressive social work theory and practice. Basingstoke, Hampshire [England]: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dominelli, L. and McLeod, E. (1989). Feminist social work. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan.

Dunne, N. (2013). Feminism & Migration: Cross Cultural Engagements. Gender & Development, 21(2), pp.411-413.

Dupuy, A. and Fernández-Kranz, D. (2011). International differences in the family gap in pay: the role of labour market institutions. Applied Economics, 43(4), pp.413-438..

Eco, U. (2017). Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt. New York Review of Books. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 Aug. 2017].

Edwards, R. and Gillies, V. (2012). Farewell to family? Notes on an argument for retaining the concept.Families, Relationships and Societies, 1(1), pp.63-69.

Edwards, R., McCarthy, J. and Gillies, V. (2012). The politics of concepts: family and its (putative) replacements. The British Journal of Sociology, 63(4), pp.730-746.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Folbre, N. (2006). Measuring Care: Gender, Empowerment, and the Care Economy. Journal of Human Development, 7(2), pp.183-199.

Friedman, M. and Friedman, R. (2008). Free to choose. [Place of publication not identified]: Paw Prints.

Galbraith, J. (2012). Inequality and Instability. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Galbraith, J. (2016). Inequality: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gingerbread (2017). Sanctions: In Numbers. [online] London: Gingerbread. Available at: [Accessed 7 Aug. 2017].

Giannelli, G., Mangiavacchi, L. and Piccoli, L. (2012). GDP and the value of family caretaking: how much does Europe care?. Applied Economics, 44(16), pp.2111-2131.

Hall, D. (2003). Child protection—lessons from Victoria Climbie. BMJ, 326(7384), pp.293-294.

Harlow, E., Berg, E., Barry, J. and Chandler, J. (2012). Neoliberalism, managerialism and the reconfiguring of social work in Sweden and the United Kingdom. Organization, 20(4), pp.534-550.

Harlow, E. (2003). New managerialism, social service departments and social work practice today. Practice, 15(2), pp.29-44.

Haux, T. (2011). Activating Lone Parents: An Evidence-Based Policy Appraisal of Welfare-To-Work Reform in Britain. Social Policy & Society, 11(01), pp.1-14.

Hayek, F. and Caldwell, B. (2007). The Road to Serfdom. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

Healey, D.(1989) The Time of My Life. London. Penguin.

Helm, T. and Hacillo, A. (2017). Secret tape reveals Momentum plot to seize control of Labour. The Guardian. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 Aug. 2017].

Home Office (2014). Circular 010/2014: new forced marriage offences. [online] Available at: [Accessed 7 Aug. 2017].

Home Office, (2017). Coercive or controlling behaviour now a crime. [online] Available at: [Accessed 7 Aug. 2017].

Hills, J., Ditch, J. and Glennerster, H. (1994). Beveridge and social security. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Himmelweit, S. (2006). The prospects for caring: economic theory and policy analysis. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(4), pp.581-599.

Helm, T. and Hacillo, A. (2017). Secret tape reveals Momentum plot to seize control of Labour. The Guardian. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 Aug. 2017].

Home Office (2014). Circular 010/2014: new forced marriage offences. [online] Available at: [Accessed 7 Aug. 2017].

Home Office, (2017). Coercive or controlling behaviour now a crime. [online] Available at: [Accessed 7 Aug. 2017].


HM Revenue and Customs (2017). Support for a child conceived without your consent. London: HM Revenue and Customs, pp.


Humphreys, C. and Absler, D. (2011). History repeating: child protection responses to domestic violence. Child & Family Social Work, 16(4), pp.464-473.

Hundal, S., Elton, D., Penny, L. and Rickles, M. (2017). Netroots UK. The Guardian. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 Aug. 2017]. (2017). Professor Alexis Jay OBE. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 Aug. 2017].

In the matter of X (A Child) (No 3) [2017][2017] EWHC 2036 (Fam) (Royal Courts of Justice).

Institute for Fiscal Studies (2017). [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 Aug. 2017].

Timmins, N (2017), Institute for Government, Universal Credit Nicholas Timmins From disaster to recovery?. [online] London. Available at: [Accessed 8 Aug. 2017].


Keynes, J. (2012). The Economic Consequences of the Peace – The Original Classic Edition. 1st ed. Dayboro: Emereo Pub.

Laville, S. (2016). 2016. The Guardian. [online] Available at: http://MPs call for end to abusive men using courts against families [Accessed 15 Aug. 2017].

Minsky, H. (1986). Stabilising an Unstable Economy. 1st ed. Fairfield: Yale University Press.


Pierson, P. (2007). Dismantling the welfare state?. 1st ed. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Piketty, T. and Goldhammer, A. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. 1st ed. London: Harvard University Press.

Piketty, (2016), Inequality of wealth vs inequality of status: An historical perspective on modern vs ancient inequality regimes, London School of Economics, 23 March 2016(Lecture).

Access: 16/08/2016).

Skidelsky, R. (1997). The road from serfdom. 1st ed. New York: Penguin Books.

Sullivan, J. (1985).   ‘Hayek, his life and thought’.[film] Directed by J. Sullivan. Video Arts Television: John Sullivan.

Haux, T. (2011). Activating Lone Parents: An Evidence-Based Policy Appraisal of Welfare-To-Work Reform in Britain. Social Policy & Society, 11(01), pp.1-14.

Hills, J., Ditch, J. and Glennerster, H. (1994). Beveridge and social security. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Himmelweit, S. (2006). The prospects for caring: economic theory and policy analysis. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(4), pp.581-599.

Himmelweit, S. (2006). The prospects for caring: economic theory and policy analysis. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(4), pp.581-599.

Hothersall, S. and Bolger, J. (2010). Social policy for social work, social care and the caring professions. Farnham: Ashgate.

Hundal, S., Elton, D., Penny, L. and Rickles, M. (2017). Netroots UK. The Guardian. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 Aug. 2017].

Humphreys, C. and Absler, D. (2011). History repeating: child protection responses to domestic violence. Child & Family Social Work, 16(4), pp.464-473.

Institute for Fiscal Studies (2017). [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 Aug. 2017].

Timmins, N. (2017), Institute for Government (2017). Universal Credit: From disaster to recovery?. [online] London. Available at: [Accessed 8 Aug. 2017].

Kiernan, K., Land, H. and Lewis, J. (1998). Lone motherhood in twentieth-century Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Knijn, T., Martin, C. and Millar, J. (2007). Activation as a Common Framework for Social Policies towards Lone Parents. Social Policy & Admin, 41(6), pp.638-652.

Koeppe, S. (2015). Housing Wealth and Asset-Based Welfare as Risk. Critical Housing Analysis, 2(1), p.1.

Lacey, N. (1987). Legislation against Sex Discrimination: Questions from a Feminist Perspective.Journal of Law and Society, 14(4), p.411.

Lakhani, B. (2012). Universal Credit: Will it work?. Local Economy, 27(5-6), pp.455-464.

Lips, H. and Lawson, K. (2009). Work Values, Gender, and Expectations About Work Commitment and Pay: Laying the Groundwork for the “Motherhood Penalty”?. Sex Roles, 61(9-10), pp.667-676.

Lewis, J. (2002). Gender and welfare state change. European Societies, 4(4), pp.331-357.

Lewis, J. (2006). The adult worker model family, care and the problem of gender equality. The Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, [online] 14(1), pp.pp. 33-38(6. Available at: [Accessed 14 Apr. 2016].

Lewis, J. (2006b). Work/family reconciliation, equal opportunities and social policies: the interpretation of policy trajectories at the EU level and the meaning of gender equality. RJPP, 13(3), pp.420-437.

LEWIS, J. (2001). The Decline of the Male Breadwinner Model: Implications for Work and Care.Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 8(2), pp.152-169.

Lewis, J. and Giullari, S. (2005). The adult worker model family, gender equality and care: the search for new policy principles and the possibilities and problems of a capabilities approach. Economy and Society, 34(1), pp.76-104.


Lakhani, B. (2012). Universal Credit: Will it work?. Local Economy, 27(5-6), pp.455-464.

Lewis, J. (1992). Gender and the Development of Welfare Regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 2(3), pp.159-173.

Lewis, J., Campbell, M. and Huerta, C. (2008). Patterns of paid and unpaid work in Western Europe: gender, commodification, preferences and the implications for policy. Journal of European Social Policy, 18(1), pp.21-37.

Lutz, H. and Palenga-Mollenbeck, E. (2012). Care Workers, Care Drain, and Care Chains: Reflections on Care, Migration, and Citizenship. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 19(1), pp.15-37.

Lutz, H. and Palenga-Mollenbeck, E. (2012). Care Workers, Care Drain, and Care Chains: Reflections on Care, Migration, and Citizenship. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 19(1), pp.15-37.

Jones, R. (2014). The story of Baby P. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

Rachel, S. (2017). Momentum’s grassroots democracy can make Labour an unstoppable force. The Guardian. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 Aug. 2017].

National Audit Office/Department for Work and Pensions (2017). Benefit Sanctions HC 628 SESSION 2016-17 30 NOVEMBER 2016. London: National Audit Office, pp.HC 628 SESSION 2016-17 30 NOVEMBER 2016.

Macfarlane, A. and Reardon, M. (2010). Child Care and Adoption Law. 3rd ed. London: Jordan Publishing Ltd.

Mcdonald, P. (2006). Low Fertility and the State: The Efficacy of Policy. Population & Development Review, 32(3), pp.485-510.

Middlesex University, (2014). Workfare in 21st century Britain The erosion of rights to social assistance. [online] Available at: [Accessed 10 Apr. 2016].

Mcdonald, P. (2006). Low Fertility and the State: The Efficacy of Policy. Population & Development Review, 32(3), pp.485-510.

Milanovic, B. (2016). Global Inequality: A New Approach to the Age of Globalisation. The President and Fellows of Harvard College.

The Labour Party (2017). The History of the Labour Party. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 Aug. 2017].

The Labour Party (2017). The Labour Manifesto. [online] London: The Labour Party. Available at: [Accessed 13 Aug. 2017].

Minsky, H. (1986). Stabilizing an unstable economy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

National Audit Office, (2014). Department for Work & Pensions Universal Credit: progress update. London.

Neyer, G., Lappegård, T. and Vignoli, D. (2013). Gender Equality and Fertility: Which Equality Matters?. Eur J Population, 29(3), pp.245-272.

National Audit Office, (2011). Oversight of User Choice and Provider Competition in Care Markets: NAO HC 1458.. London.

Office for National Statistic, (2015). How is the welfare budget spent?. London: Office for National Statistics.

Orloff, A. (2009). Gendering the Comparative Analysis of Welfare States: An Unfinished Agenda.Sociological Theory, 27(3), pp.317-343.


Neyer, G., Lappegård, T. and Vignoli, D. (2013). Gender Equality and Fertility: Which Equality Matters?. Eur J Population, 29(3), pp.245-272.

PASCALL, G. and LEWIS, J. (2004). Emerging Gender Regimes and Policies for Gender Equality in a Wider Europe. J. Soc. Pol., 33(03), p.373.

Parker, J. and Doel, M. (2013). Professional social work.

Schmitt, C. (2012). Labour market integration, occupational uncertainty, and fertility choices in Germany and the UK. Demographic Research, 26, pp.253-292.

Rachel, S. (2017). Momentum’s grassroots democracy can make Labour an unstoppable force. The Guardian. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 Aug. 2017].

Re: B-S (Children) [2013]Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 Case No: B4/2013/1377 (Court of Appeal (Civil Division).

Rights of Women (2012). Picking up the pieces: domestic violence and child contact. [online] London: Rights of Women. Available at: [Accessed 15 Aug. 2017].

Roscoe, M. (2017). Reforms to cross-examination by alleged abusers in the Prisons and Courts Bill. Family Law Week. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 Aug. 2017].

Rogowski, S. (2011). Managers, Managerialism and Social Work with Children and Families: The Deformation of a Profession?. Practice, 23(3), pp.157-167.

Soares de Melo v. Portugal (application no. 72850/14 [2016](Requête no 72850/14) (European Court of Human Rights).

Smartt, U. and Kury, H. (2007). Domestic Violence: Comparative Analysis of German and U.K. Research Findings. Social Science Q, 88(5), pp.1263-1280.

Stephens, M. (2005). An Assessment of the British Housing Benefit System. European Journal of Housing Policy, 5(2), pp.111-129.


Newsnight (2016). Newsnight. [image] Available at: [Accessed 5 Jul. 2016].


The Labour Party (2017). The Labour Manifesto. [online] London: The Labour Party. Available at: [Accessed 13 Aug. 2017].

UNITE (2017). People’s Assembly Against Austerity. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 Aug. 2017].

R (on the application of UNISON) (Appellant) v Lord Chancellor (Respondent) [2017]On appeal from: [2015] EWCA Civ 935 (Supreme Court).

Savage, M. (2017). Labour manifesto ‘would keep £7bn of planned Tory welfare cuts’. The Guardian. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 Aug. 2017].

Sehmer, A. (2017). John McDonnell speech: MP says he would ‘swim through vomit’ to oppose ‘sickening’ welfare bill. The Independent. [online] Available at: [Accessed 13 Aug. 2017].

Stevenson, L. (2017). Munby: ‘The system is facing a crisis, and we have no clear strategy’. Community Care. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 Aug. 2017].


Sheehan, R., Rhoades, H. and Stanley, N. (2012). Vulnerable children and the law. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Skidelsky, R. (2016). “Too much Maths, too little History: The problem of Economics”. [online] YouTube. Available at: [Accessed 6 Apr. 2016].

Thompson, N. (2000). Understanding social work. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan Press.

Thompson, N. (2002). Social Movements, Social Justice and Social Work. British Journal of Social Work, 32(6), pp.711-722.

Timmins, N. (1995). The five giants. London: HarperCollins.

Tyler, I. (2008). “Chav Mum Chav Scum”. Feminist Media Studies, 8(1), pp.17-34.

Wadham, J. (2010). Blackstone’s guide to the Equality Act 2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wolf, A. (2013). The XX factor, London, Profile Books.

Women’s Aid, (2016). Nineteen Child Homicides. [online] Available at: [Accessed 22 Apr. 2016].

Zachorowska-Mazirkiewicz, A. (2015). The Concept of Care in Institutional and Feminist Economics and Its Impact on Public Policy. Journal of Economic Issues, 49(2), pp.405-413.

Williams, F. (2012). Converging variations in migrant care work in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 22(4), pp.363-376.

UNITE (2017). People’s Assembly Against Austerity. [online] [Accessed 13 Aug. 2017].

Wolf, A. (2013). The XX factor.




A relieved desister’s story.

An awful account of how teenage identity formation got caught up in this nonsense. via Baptised in Fire: A relieved desister’s story

Abusive behaviour patterns

The need to control your environment to protect a fragile identity is typical of abusive behaviour patterns, they are often not about the victim at all. In fact many abusers can’t even see their victims, they can only see what they project onto them. They seek out evidence to reinforce delusions, it doesn’t matter if its real when the aim is to protect a delusion. What we are seeing with this toxicity on twitter is what happens when you affirm delusion, give it legitimacy. Red is blue and everything that was red is blue and was never red, the need to silence women, abuse women, prevent them organising, ‘win’ some battle in a chatroom. The problem with this type of delusion is that it is fighting itself, it is fighting reality and the best thing any sane person can do is stand back, get out of its theatre and let it demonstrate. This is not easy when delusion has been given legitimacy by law and a political party.

The public, like myself, support trans rights because we are human beings and we cannot imagine the pain and distress of dysphoria where you truly believe your inner identity does not match your body or society’s expectations of it and you need to change your body in grievous and painful and complex ways. We can see that scorn and humiliation that trans people used to face and no sane, rational, decent person would ever want to make that more difficult. The problem with the delusion that has taken hold at present is that that reality is too painful. Which again I can understand for some people, and I sympathise. But sympathy is as far as it goes.

To demand someone say something that is not true because it is a reality that is too painful to acknowledge is not something that can be reasonably expected of an adult. When one adult tries to force another to say things that are not true, uses coercion, threats, fear to enforce it, that is a dangerous situation. That is a dangerous person trying to get another adult to subordinate their reality to a delusion. Its a very powerful demand. What is currently being asked by a small twitter culture, not really representative of the trans population I hope, is that the entire female sex is subordinated to deny their own biology, to not discuss their own history, not discuss complex and broad systems which deal with violence, abuse, which women have a responsibility under law to understand, to manage a delusion. Except its not being asked. It’s being demanded, and what is also being demanded is that women give up the right to freedom of assembly, self determination, and their identity. This is not an outrageous demand, this is not an unreasonable demand, this is the demand of someone in the grip of a very dangerous delusion.

I have never been quite as controversial as I was painted, largely my understanding of abuse, violence, is rooted in statutory responsibilities that are the centre position. Agreed through evolution of the rule of law and esystems over a long time. That political media cultures are not aware of my perspective and are surprised by it is largely just because that’s how things work, we have people trained to know this stuff. People trained to know this stuff also know when power is being exercised to demand women deny their very biology, and to accept this level of control, it is a concern and risk is being demonstrated.

I do know there is a wall to this, I do know that reality bites eventually, but in the meantime it is becoming apparent that a very serious strand of delusion has been validated. A strand of delusion that cannot be debated and is trying to subordinate women. The mantra trans women are women, which cannot be challenged is this. Trans women are trans women and this is valid. The painful reality being hidden by this delusion that trans women are women, were always women is male biology. And in the demad that women subordinate to protect the holder of this false belief, we see the subordination that has always defined the difference in genders. The difference is now have seventy years of systems, laws, recognising that it is no longer lawful to coerce and subordinate women in this way. So the question is why has this been validated? I take twitter with a pinch of salt, I think it distills narcissism and makes what used to be political communication toxic, but I see this strand of disorder that has been validated and I am very worried baout how this ends. Who will get hurt.

None of the things I said will go away. My description of abusive behaviour that should cause very serious red flags did not come from twitter, it came from these systems. Nothing I am saying can be changed by the power of an inner identity and there is no inner identity that has the power to make what I am saying untrue. But when truth is a threat to a fragile identity, the person with that dysfunction has no choice but to try and erase it, they have to protect their identity at all costs. Someone is going to get hurt. The outcome of this wont change, it’s just recognition of why same sex protections are necessary and that the tangible difference between sexes always offending rates and sexual violence and these traits. The question is the crisis in the meantime. What event will it be that causes the reconstruction in people’s understanding of power? Who is going to get hurt so we can all feign shock and say we didn’t see it coming?

I have always tried to take twitter with a pinch of salt, this blog is often my reflections on what I see there and the way it is impacting politics and policy in the environent I can see. This is dangerous. I have never been so worried by something on twitter as I am about this. Not beacuse I fear loss of women’s rights but I fear the crisis that causes reflection on that will include a woman’s body. We have validated serious delusion. There is no debating with it, there is nothing to debate. But watching this play out is terrifying.

Actual Transcript: Official Labour Party interrogation of a Feminist member

Wowzer. This happened. In 2018. This entire thing happened. And it was our main opposition party, these peope must NEVER get near power. Wow.


Dan Hogan, Labour Party Governance and Legal, Official Interrogator (twitter)

Those of us who try to stay abreast of trends in gender will likely be aware of the current controversy in the UK Labour Party over men who “Self-ID” as female taking spaces on All-Women Shortlists and Women’s Officer positions. What you might not know is that Labour Party officials are also conducting formal investigations into members they suspect of holding feminist thoughts around “gender”, based on their social media postings.

File this one under “you wouldn’t believe it if you didn’t read it with your own eyes“.

In that spirit, what follows is an actual complete transcript of a literal Labour Party interrogation, conducted by two Labour Party officials: a woman who remained silent and took notes, and a man named Dan Hogan. Dan Hogan works for the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit where…

View original post 10,066 more words

Reproduced from original blog: Who is gaslighting whom?

via Who’s gaslighting whom? Susan Bradley, youth gender dysphoria expert, weighs in

an open letter to jared o’mara

Quin & Tonic

(i’ve discovered a worrying trend recently, which involves me starting all blog posts with the phrase “right then”. don’t know why, but i think i should probably stop this, and find a new catchphrase. suggestions on a postcard welcome.)

anyhow, the purpose of this post is an open letter to jared o’mara from the woman who was hit in the face by his bouncers while he stood and watched. yes, i *am* still banging on about this, and unless the m.p. [misogynistic pillock] for sheffield hallam acknowledges that his behaviour might be in the littlest tiny bit misogynistic, i will continue to bang on about it long after everyone else has stopped listening or caring 🙂

for now, though, i’m just going to leave this here. it goes on a bit, so don’t in any way feel obliged to, but if you want to read it and/or share it, please…

View original post 26 more words

Lessons from history, warnings for the future.

Its important at times like these to record for the future. Amazon are seeing soaring sales of the thinkers and writers who emerged in the pre-World War 2 period. That period is taught as history and for my generation its a shock to find its our future. I never thought I would be writinga post like this, and certainly I never thought when the fake anticuts movement that triggered this I would be here. But here we are and there is a responsiblity on us all, if we cannot learn for now to record for later.

Its clear as day Jeremy Corbyn wants a hard brexit, always has. Morning of Brexit result he demanded immediate triggering of A50, and as covert narcissists do he undermined the Remain campaign and is now trying to lock the country into a hard Brexit they don’t want. He is enjoying is new found celebrity status. If I could find make up that did for my skin what the bodies of Grenfell tower did for him, I’d stock up.

Reality does not matter. We have gone past the point Hayek described where truth is lost. It doesn’t matter that his movement was about erasing consensus on welafre cuts and local authority cuts. It doesn’t matter that his fake anti-cuts movement required the abuse of welfare claimants, and people living with austerity. It doesn’t matter that his leadership bid required abuse and intimidation of elected officials, journalists, jews, women. It doesn’t matter the Labour Party is not safe for its jewish MPs or members. It doesn’t matter that he is associated with extremists who advocate stoning of women, or equate homosexuality with peadophilia. The Guardian and the New Statesman have normalised him and they know this. THey dont care. Truth has gone. Chuka Umuna tabled an amendment in parliament about membership of the single market, and several Shadow Cabinet members were sacked. Twitter is a flood of Corbynites screaming traitor, and scab at him. Like this is not deranged behaviour. Labour politicians were on television later thonight saying ‘there is a debate happening’. Murray, head of communist party, Milne, a stalinist who sends his kids to private school, and McDonnell who sees parliament as a tactic and a step to revolution have the Labour Party and their tenure is being normalised

Corbyn follows Trumps blueprint to the letter and facebook is full of memes of Labour propaganda and we are slowly learning how the atrocities of World War 2 occured. The problem is not the hard left freaks currently out in force trying to intimidate and punish Chuka Umuna for his treachery, its not them at all. The problem is te normal people who are nice. Who want to believe they are nice and have decided that they are projecting what they want onto this symbol they have been given and watching how they will attack you for interrupting their false reality is alarming. Its not difficult. Corbyn is pro-hard Brexit and upheld welfare cuts to bribe middle class students. Welfare cuts that come with a body count and even the Tories are trying to find a way out of.

Stating this simple fact is enough to get you abused, but the threats and actual abuse are easier to swallow than the thing that will drive him to power. ‘Can’t you just be nicer about him…you are irrational in you hatred of him Lisa’ ‘Cant we just have this?’. The endless circular passive aggressive discussions where you are insulted, and abused and hammered at until you relent and pretend that the thing sthey have projected onto Corbyn are real. They aren’t but noone cares. Oh you must be a Tory, you are a traitor. MY friends Brother yesterday told me I deserved 30 pieces of silver for my treachery. Apparently I owe loyalty to a political movement which relies on the abuse of women, jews, elected representatives, journalists, and which has preveiously demanded that MPs cease to serve their constituents and become delegates of a party.

The problem is austerity was by consent and noone wants to admkt this. Noone wants to admit that welfare cuts were easy because the publci would consent, that George Osborne didn;t dream out of thin air he could focus on Local Authorities, he knew that was what the public wanted. And now they want absolution. Women like me were expendable during austerity so their mortgages could be kept low, and the Guardian sold it while endlessly telling its readers how good they were for occasionally feeling a twinge of worry about this. But now people want absolution. The middle class friends who were happy to watch you hammered with poverty, happy to watch you abused, get death threats when you tried to challenge it, now want the movement that means you are always at risk and could you please not mention te threats and abuse or the fact that wlefare cuts are still going to kill people if they Corbyn delivers them. Welfare cuts are no lonegr austerity.

They dont sometimes outright abuse you. Sometimes its endless circular conversations where they need you to respect their delusion. Sometimes its just silence and ignoring and turning a blind eye to what is in plain sight. Sometimes its dreadfully polite. But ultimately they want absolution for austerity focusing on those they thought were expendable. THis is how inequality generates political risk. Its not people tired of the Tories driving this. Its the people the Tories placated by hammering the poorest, who want absolution and the same people the Tories hammered are expendable in their new movement. Its the need for absolution and the protection of self image that drives the political risk.

And for people barely touched by austerity its uncomfortable to know that the cost of their movement is women who are scared, who are increasing security in their houses, worried for their kids safety. Its uncomfortable to know that Jewish Labour Mps need security because the man they idolise tacitly condones and encourages their abuse.

A Tory MP stood up at PMQs this week and described an extraordinary level of abuse, intimidation, urination on her office and there was no shock just jeering from Labour MPs. Jeremy Corbyn looked right at her, did not acknowledge what she said was done in his name and moved on to wear the corpses of Hillsborough victims as shield. He likes the corpses of working class people. No fuel like it for Corbyn,

Its spreading, The use of facebook means there are endless memes in peoples private channels and these memes are more or less all lies, but noone cares because tey are pretty lies. And everyone wants a pretty lie.

Absolute obedience to leader, MPs work only for the party and not for their constituents and women and jews, and anyone who dissents will be swarmed and abused. THis could catch. Only the lesson we are learning here is the holocaust was not caused by single monsters, it was caused by these people, The people who need absolution for things done in tehir name cannot reflect and will do anything to avoid it, and if that means a movement that requires abuse, intimidation and democracy being undone, then so be it.

The most dangerous thing to do now is to state very clearly that Jeremy Corbyn is pro-brexit and included welfare cuts in his manifesto. That statement injures them and they want believe they are opposing welfare cuts, opposing Brexil and they are willing to enable a political force entirely reliant on abuse and intimidation to protect the false reality they get from facebook memes.  We have established tere is no line and every day it gets worse. Today we had The Canary, a propaganda, anti-semitic conspiracy site, legitimised on BBC. Truth is gone.

As history taught many times before, the people who will push this, the people who will cause this, are the ones who want to believe they are good, they want to pretend austerity was not by consent, and they want to be protected from that at all costs. And ‘all costs’ may be a terrible eupemism one day.

The system failure underpinning his support is real, and once people have bought into it they will do anything to protect that belief. Somewhat heartbreaking to realise these people would allow anything to be done in their naem and all they have to do is tell themselves they didnt see it and then it didnt happen.

We are in scary times, more terrifying than Iever thought. I only started this blog cos I had come out of work, I only knew these people because austerity hit me and they wanted a genuine novelty pov. I thoughT iwas recording them whitewashing austerity, wit a view to using that information when we needed to redefine systems. Turns out I am recording something altogether darker. And whatever it is I am expendable to it as far as the people who want to believe in St.Jez are concerned.

%d bloggers like this: