Generalised slogans, such as ‘the welfare state’, rarely induce concentration of thought; more often they prevent us from asking significant questions about reality. Morally satisfied and intellectually dulled, we sink back into our presumptive cosy British world of welfare. Meanwhile, outside these islands (as well as inside) there are critics, economic and political, who are misled into confusing ends and means, and who are discouraged from undertaking the painful exercise of distinguishing between philosophical tomorrows and the current truths of reality in a complex British power structure of rationed resources, and great inequalities in incomes and wealth, opportunities and freedom of choice.

From what little is known about the reading habits of international bankers and economists, I think it is reasonable to say that they do not include much in the way of studies on welfare and the condition of the poor. How then are their views shaped about the British ‘welfare state’? This we do not know, but at least we can say that, if we mislead ourselves, we shall mislead them. But the matter does not end there. Models of public welfare can assume different forms and contain different assumptions about means and ends. Concepts of welfare can imply very different things to different people.

One particular model is the ‘public burden model of welfare’. In general terms, this sees public welfare expenditure, and particularly expenditure which is redistributive in intent, as a burden; that is, an impediment to growth and economic development. Given this model of the British patient, the diagnosis seems simple. We are spending too much on the welfare state. Such explanations are, moreover, encouraged by the concept of private economic man embedded in the techniques of national income accounting. An increase in public retirement pensions is seen (as it was seen internationally during the balance of payments crisis in 1964) as an economic burden. A similar increase in spending power among occupational (publicly subsidised private) pensioners is not so seen. Yet both involve additions to consumption demand.

Take another example: medical care, public and private. It is argued that, by encouraging the growth of private medical care through a voucher system and by allowing people to contract out of taxation, the ‘burden’ of the NHS would be reduced.