What do you think?
Rate this book
Welfare State We're In
The founding of the welfare state in the 1940s has been seen as the crowning achievement of modern British social history. In this controversial book, however, journalist James Bartholomew argues that it has undermined the very decency and kindness that first inspired it, causing thousands of people to live in deprivation and resulting in a generation of badly educated and dependent citizens. James Bartholomew is a leader writer and columnist for the Daily Telegraph . He lives in London.
1 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 2004
11 people are currently reading
134 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
June 9, 2015
The welfare state is generally regarded as a high point of enlightened government, whether seen as a collective reaction to the privations of the Second World War or, when party politics is the order of the day, the creation of a Labour government finally doing right by the people. It's not perfect, of course, but life isn't perfect and most people accept that with limited money, compromises have to be made. The argument, therefore, is more often about what those compromises should be. James Bartholomew has a different view - that state intervention is invariably harmful - and his book sets out to show that our perceptions of both the history and the benefits of Government intervention are wrong. Selecting sacred cows like benefits, the NHS and education, he shows what existed before the State intervened, how and why it changed and what the consequences were.
It's best to approach this book with an open mind. Some of the statistics may prove uncomfortable reading to those who retain an optimistic view of the public sector; some of the anecdotes may seem barely credible to those who've always lived comfortable middle-class lives; some of the history may overturn cherished beliefs. In fact, the first chapter - in which Bartholomew looks at his perceived collapse of society - reads like a collection of Daily Mail articles, and it's easy to see how this could make those of a left-leaning persuasion dismiss the whole book out of hand, whilst those on the right nod along and thus fail to view what follows with sufficient rigour. Because rigour is required: whilst the book contains much food for thought about the dangers of ideological policy making and exposes many flaws in the state of our State, it is neither flawless in its execution, nor unanswerable in its conclusions.
That's not to dismiss it myself. For much of the book, the arguments are well-structured: theories are presented, illustrated through anecdote and then reinforced through statistics. Here and there, however, the statistics are left to stand on their own, making them look like unproven correlations rather than cause and effect. In others, anecdotes are unbacked by statistics or theory, leaving the reader to wonder whether they prove anything other than the existence of a problem. That shouldn't detract from the overall message - that something is wrong - but it's important to be careful in considering the scale and nature of the problem.
What's interesting is that, whether by design or coincidence, the arguments tend to get stronger as the book goes on. So, whilst there seems little case for either benefits or healthcare being entirely outside state control, housing policy is a clear example of something which the State has not only failed to do properly, but seems primed to fail at due to its very nature. That's not to say that all the prior arguments fall flat: there's something to be said for the idea that people are more likely to become dependant on money if it comes from an anonymous body like the Government rather than visibly from their own community, or that state bureaucracies tend to grow more than their private sector equivalents, but the case is far from made that this has to be true and that a solution couldn't be found without wholesale privitisation. Likewise, correlations between the performance of schools and whether they are private or public are all very well, but they don't prove that the State couldn't match the performance of public schools with the right approach.
Ultimately, what the book does demonstrate is the danger of governments thinking "something must be done", giving in to an overwhelming desire for centralised control, or making policy based on a blinkered ideological perspective without full command of the facts. The facts presented in this book may make painful reading, but I'd suggest they are vital for anyone wishing to understand how we got to where we are today. Whether they prove that government should leave well alone, however, is a not entirely proven case.
It's best to approach this book with an open mind. Some of the statistics may prove uncomfortable reading to those who retain an optimistic view of the public sector; some of the anecdotes may seem barely credible to those who've always lived comfortable middle-class lives; some of the history may overturn cherished beliefs. In fact, the first chapter - in which Bartholomew looks at his perceived collapse of society - reads like a collection of Daily Mail articles, and it's easy to see how this could make those of a left-leaning persuasion dismiss the whole book out of hand, whilst those on the right nod along and thus fail to view what follows with sufficient rigour. Because rigour is required: whilst the book contains much food for thought about the dangers of ideological policy making and exposes many flaws in the state of our State, it is neither flawless in its execution, nor unanswerable in its conclusions.
That's not to dismiss it myself. For much of the book, the arguments are well-structured: theories are presented, illustrated through anecdote and then reinforced through statistics. Here and there, however, the statistics are left to stand on their own, making them look like unproven correlations rather than cause and effect. In others, anecdotes are unbacked by statistics or theory, leaving the reader to wonder whether they prove anything other than the existence of a problem. That shouldn't detract from the overall message - that something is wrong - but it's important to be careful in considering the scale and nature of the problem.
What's interesting is that, whether by design or coincidence, the arguments tend to get stronger as the book goes on. So, whilst there seems little case for either benefits or healthcare being entirely outside state control, housing policy is a clear example of something which the State has not only failed to do properly, but seems primed to fail at due to its very nature. That's not to say that all the prior arguments fall flat: there's something to be said for the idea that people are more likely to become dependant on money if it comes from an anonymous body like the Government rather than visibly from their own community, or that state bureaucracies tend to grow more than their private sector equivalents, but the case is far from made that this has to be true and that a solution couldn't be found without wholesale privitisation. Likewise, correlations between the performance of schools and whether they are private or public are all very well, but they don't prove that the State couldn't match the performance of public schools with the right approach.
Ultimately, what the book does demonstrate is the danger of governments thinking "something must be done", giving in to an overwhelming desire for centralised control, or making policy based on a blinkered ideological perspective without full command of the facts. The facts presented in this book may make painful reading, but I'd suggest they are vital for anyone wishing to understand how we got to where we are today. Whether they prove that government should leave well alone, however, is a not entirely proven case.
September 18, 2018
The stench starts from the cover. We? We the people of the Amazons? Or is it East Timor?
The book opens with a quiz. Trivia that somehow should make the reader feel ignorant or knowledgeable. Pretty much as knowledgeable as anybody who knows the street price of the crown prince's wedding gown. Or his wife's suit's price.
Turn the pages. The relevant data.
> The monasteries – major benefactors of the poor – are expropriated by Henry VIII.
The benefactors with a marketing department. Everybody was doing charity. It is the spirit of christianity and at least five sermons a year are dedicated to this particular issue.
> Queen Elizabeth’s government compels the rich to give money for the benefit of the poor.
No. Actually that was another tax. Only it was a populist tax as the queen was directly investing the money in her own public image.
> The Poor Laws become settled (after many previous changes).
And...? Nothing. You should have known already the book is for believers.
And so on. Nationalization is called "takes over" and of course, it is for a noble cause. Bla bla bla.
Yet the book is more interesting once you turn another page. Introduction. Photo. Caption says:
> Looting during London riots in 2011
The image shows one person breaking a window pane and many more looking. Vandalism. Yes. Violence. Yes. Looting? Not in this picture. And what is even more interesting, apart one face I can't tell, all are brown male faces. How convenient! So is this a critique about the over paid police that does not do its job? Turn the page.
And another page.
And many more after that.
Could not find more brown faces. Only nicely groomed white oldish men and some younger and maternal white women.
A book about "we" the British race.
The book opens with a quiz. Trivia that somehow should make the reader feel ignorant or knowledgeable. Pretty much as knowledgeable as anybody who knows the street price of the crown prince's wedding gown. Or his wife's suit's price.
Turn the pages. The relevant data.
> The monasteries – major benefactors of the poor – are expropriated by Henry VIII.
The benefactors with a marketing department. Everybody was doing charity. It is the spirit of christianity and at least five sermons a year are dedicated to this particular issue.
> Queen Elizabeth’s government compels the rich to give money for the benefit of the poor.
No. Actually that was another tax. Only it was a populist tax as the queen was directly investing the money in her own public image.
> The Poor Laws become settled (after many previous changes).
And...? Nothing. You should have known already the book is for believers.
And so on. Nationalization is called "takes over" and of course, it is for a noble cause. Bla bla bla.
Yet the book is more interesting once you turn another page. Introduction. Photo. Caption says:
> Looting during London riots in 2011
The image shows one person breaking a window pane and many more looking. Vandalism. Yes. Violence. Yes. Looting? Not in this picture. And what is even more interesting, apart one face I can't tell, all are brown male faces. How convenient! So is this a critique about the over paid police that does not do its job? Turn the page.
And another page.
And many more after that.
Could not find more brown faces. Only nicely groomed white oldish men and some younger and maternal white women.
A book about "we" the British race.
December 17, 2018
Excellent book. Ties together the common root cause of much of the problems and decay in society today, and lays it squarely at the feet of the welfare state. Shows by clear logical progression how policies created (usually) with the best of intentions lead to results directly counter to the aims of those who promoted them. Although written in the context of the UK welfare state, the underlying reasoning and causality apply to any modern (or ancient) welfare state.
December 18, 2013
This is a pretty devastating critique of state welfare policies, whether medicine, education, social care or housing, Bartholomew makes clear the connections between responsibility, family, morality anf work.
The book is relentless.
The book is relentless.
April 27, 2015
Most interesting, This challenges and puts to flight all the commonly held beliefs about the welfare state and its effect on national life. Well worth reading.
December 2, 2025
l am fully in favour of the current Labour Government raising taxes to support people on welfare.
l realise that many people on welfare can only afford to smoke twenty cigarettes a day, only afford to pay for two or three tattoos per year, and only afford to holiday in Benidorm once a year.
These poor people are often limited to owning one smart phone and computer, and are forced into watching television all day on tv sets with screens as tiny as fifty five inches. How degrading!
l thank my lucky stars that l am able to go to work every day so that my income tax can go towards helping these desperate people.
l realise that many people on welfare can only afford to smoke twenty cigarettes a day, only afford to pay for two or three tattoos per year, and only afford to holiday in Benidorm once a year.
These poor people are often limited to owning one smart phone and computer, and are forced into watching television all day on tv sets with screens as tiny as fifty five inches. How degrading!
l thank my lucky stars that l am able to go to work every day so that my income tax can go towards helping these desperate people.
August 23, 2018
One of the best books I've ever read!
September 28, 2024
one of the hardest critics to the welfare state. brilliant!!!
if you read this book and still thinking the welfare state is good idk what to say
if you read this book and still thinking the welfare state is good idk what to say
October 31, 2016
Fairly light but an interesting read on the history of the Welfare State of today.
January 15, 2016
This was a very disappointing book. The facts are cherry-picked to the point of comedy; many of his arguments are backed up only by the author's opinion. It reads like a hurriedly put-together long-read for the Daily Mail, and not like the thorough and vigorous examination of the welfare state I had hoped for. I am open-minded about seeing the flaws in the welfare state, but not via an intellectually dishonest propaganda piece.
July 21, 2014
How the welfare state has made people 'poorer' than they otherwise would have been. Interesting read.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews