Latest news with #Beveridge
Hindustan Times
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
TERMS OF TRADE: The political economy of welfare in India
Everybody, from fund managers in Wall Street to RWA WhatsApp groups, has an opinion on welfare in India. Many of them see this as an agent of economic doom which will destroy not just the fisc but also (poor) people's willingness to work. Then there are those who see this as the litmus test for a civilized society. Listening to the (often-wrong) psephologists on TV channels, one could very well come to believe that welfare is something which has come into existence, and, more importantly, political salience, only in the recent past in India. The story of welfare in India, however, goes long back in time, is significantly more complicated, and has been constantly evolving over the last century. Making India Work: The Development of Welfare in a Multi-Level Democracy, the latest book by Louise Tillin, a political scientist at King's College London, finally does justice to the task of putting together the longue durée narrative of welfare in India. It is a must read for anybody who wants to have an informed opinion, rather than just an opinion about welfare in India. India, among the many interesting things Tillin's book teaches us, was a founding member of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in 1919. It was the first colony to be made a permanent member of its governing body in 1922. Even the US, a much older democracy than India, became an ILO member only in 1934. India's ILO membership spurred not just the formation of its first trade union (All-India Trade Union Congress) but also its first industry lobby (Federation of Indian Chambers and Commerce). Even domestic capital was keen to have a voice of its own rather than outsource it to our imperial masters. The national movement was actively engaged with both of these camps. The book also tells us how a planned visit and study by the economist William Beveridge, considered the architect of the modern welfare state, to India fell through because, B R Ambedkar, minister for labour on the Viceroy's Executive Council in 1942 refused to allow Beveridge to focus beyond the realm of industrial labour. Beveridge wanted to look at and study everything including the rural. The book also tells us how capital in Bombay was pleading with the colonial government to dilute social security obligations because it was facing competition from capital elsewhere where such regulations did not apply. It also tells us how the roots of political weaponisation and straight-jacketing of welfare go back to the first (and not the more recent) instance of Caesarism – rise of a charismatic leader – in Indian politics and how the political competition around it actually created a fiscal crisis in for the Indian state even in the 1980s. These are just some tidbits from the story which Tillin's comprehensive and much needed book tells us. To be sure, the book, which is a result of decades of research ranging from field visits in India to archives going back to the pre-independence era, is not just a mere reiteration of facts on the state and evolution of welfare in India. It also builds a nuanced argument about the mechanics and ongoing dialectics of the shaping of welfare in India and questions a lot of perceived wisdom around it. This edition of the column is inspired by a reading of Tillin's book – this author was invited to a discussion on the book – but also tries to critically place the debate around welfare in a larger political economy framework. Why is welfare important in a democracy? A liberal democracy has two mutually conflicting classes, labour and capital, trying to get the better out of each other. In the crudest form, the argument boils down to capital employing labour to generate surplus value. The former's returns (profits) can only be maximised if the latter's reward (wages) is kept as low as possible. The conflict between labour and capital sharpened significantly after the communist revolution in Russia in 1917. The working class started militantly demanding a bigger share in the value of production. This militancy triggered a huge backlash in large parts of western Europe which began with austerity and culminated in fascism in places like Germany and Italy. For those who are interested in a detailed story, there is excellent academic work to be read on the topic such as The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism by Clara E. Mattei and The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of Nazi Economy by Adam Tooze. For readers interested in a fictionalised take on the topic, a recently published blockbuster Italian novel (now translated) M: Son of the Century by Antonio Scurati gives a gripping account of the rise of Mussolini in Italy. Capital completely dominating labour is just one extreme of the tension between capital and labour in modern history. The other extreme, where labour triumphed over capital also did not lead to amicable outcomes. The Soviet Union, which abolished private property, ultimately became a victim of the economic contradictions of its own making. Chris Miller's book Struggle to Save the Soviet Economy: Mikhail Gorbachev and the Collapse of the USSR and The Triumph of Broken Promises: The End of the Cold War and the Rise of Neoliberalism by Frirtz Bartel go into the detail of how the socialist camp could not preserve the advances made by its working class because of a failure to get its macroeconomics right and ultimately collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. That the Chinese success story has been built on the basis of a very different kind of 'socialism' than what existed in the likes of the Soviet Union only underlines this point. The rise of fascism as a reaction to communist militancy and collapse of the socialist block are, of course, extreme examples in the history of capitalism and democracy. Most major countries in the world managed to find a middle path by placating both labour and capital in a democratic framework and minimising conflict. These bargains are best understood by the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci's concept of the passive revolution which argued that the bourgeoisie often tries to minimise conflict by offering concessions to its adversaries including the underclass to maintain stability. The equally important question to ask, however, is not whether such a bargain between capital and labour has managed to preserve stability but also about the relative well-being of each class as a result of the prevailing bargain. It is on this question that political scientist Sudipta Kaviraj's critique of the passive revolution in India – first published in an essay by the same name in 1987 – offers a persuasive and still relevant take on the bargain between the capital and labour in Indian democracy. 'The tragic thing is that the crisis of ruling-class politics plunges not only the ruling bloc, which has ruptured its protocol, into serious disorder, but the whole country. An exhaustion of the politics of the ruling bloc does not automatically prefigure a radical alternative. It is a particularly sad chapter of a story which had begun with the promise of something like an 'Indian revolution', an understandably unpractical and sentimental beginning which promised to 'wipe every tear from every eye'. Even if we consider only the socially relevant tears, the promise is as distant today as at the romantic time when it was made,' Kaviraj writes. His critique, in a way, is very similar to the larger criticism of India failing to evolve as a 'rights-based' welfare regime where workers and citizens are conferred constitutionally guaranteed entitlements to provide a minimum standard of living. What went wrong with welfare in India? Answering this question, first and foremost, requires admitting that class conflict in India never took the form it had in advanced capitalist countries. An overwhelming majority of the working class in India has never been employed by the typical capitalist. Despite being at the cusp of becoming the third largest economy in the world, the average Indian firm still employs less than three people. The conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in India has therefore taken two primary forms: a struggle for terms of trade between the farm and the non-farm sector and demand for more welfare from the state rather than capital. With the evolution of the Indian economy, there have been two key developments which have minimised the importance of the conflict between the agrarian and the non-agrarian sector and increased the importance of the conflict around greater demand for welfare from the state. The first is the self-sufficiency of the country in food production from days of infamous 'ship-to-mouth' existence thanks to the green revolution. It has been accompanied not just by a rise in per capita production and availability of food grains but also the per capita procurement and distribution of food grains. There was a time when the state wanted to procure as much food as possible and farmers were unwilling to sell to the state because they could get better returns in the open market. Now it is the farmers who are demanding that the state buy their food at minimum support prices because the markets are not so rewarding. The second has been the falling importance of agriculture as a source of livelihood in India. While agriculture's headline employment share is still more than 40%, government's own data from sources such as the Situation Assessment Survey shows that the share of workers who are exclusively dependent on cultivation incomes has fallen drastically. As this share comes down further, the militant farmer is increasingly become a thing of the past in India and being replaced by the vulnerable migrant worker who can be employed in a construction site or delivering food in cities. The rise of welfare expectations vis-à-vis the state in India goes back to the Indira Gandhi years. In the middle of an inner-party struggle and a serious macroeconomic crisis, both Gandhi and the deep state realised that the planning experiment was struggling to deliver politically and economically. From the Garibi Hatao campaign of Indira Gandhi, which won her a landslide victory in 1971 to the 'capitalism with a human face' phase of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government to the welfare heavy rhetoric of the Narendra Modi government in the past eleven years, the nature of conflict in expanding the ambit of welfare to generate political capital has largely been the same: balancing political popularity with larger macroeconomic stability. As is obvious, there is a fundamental contradiction in this dialectic. The expectation for welfare is the highest at a time when the economy is in distress. But it is precisely at that moment when the fiscal ability to provide or expand welfare is also the lowest. What further complicates this contradiction in India is the fact that almost every political party faces a fundamental asymmetry in India. Its political legitimacy in a universal franchise-based democracy depends on support from the underclass. But for political finance it must draw on the support of capital which has much more stake in macroeconomic stability than the poor. As elections have become more and more expensive in India, this fault line has only worsened. The other fact which has worsened the pursuit of this balance is the fact that widespread economic precarity persists in India despite a phase of high growth in the past two decades. The choice, as far as the underclass is concerned in India is between chronic distress (in agriculture) and a consistent precarity while being a part of the informal economy across sectors. Minus the welfare cushion of the state, hundreds of millions of Indians can slip into acute distress as was seen during the pandemic in the country. The failure and success of reforms vis-à-vis India's welfare regime The fact that precarity still exists after three and a half decades of economic reforms and India is the biggest indictment of the core promise of reforms. The proponents of reforms, after all, argued that the shackles of license raj were holding back a successful economic transformation of India. To be sure, reforms have not been a complete failure when it comes to expanding the welfare net in India. This is what the left leaning critiques of economic reforms in India often get wrong. While India has not managed to expand things such as manufacturing and still faces large-scale precarity, reforms have helped the case of welfare on one crucial front, namely, enhancing the fiscal capacity of the Indian state to provide welfare to its people. This is best seen in the rise in per capita tax revenue of the state in the last four and a half decades. While the rise in revenue receipts of the Centre and the states between this period is relatively modest – it has increased from 17% to 21% or so – inflation adjusted per capita tax revenue has increased almost four-fold during this time. Economic puritans might scoff at this somewhat unconventional measure of per capita real revenue. But even they would agree that this number matters while designing welfare schemes for a large population. It is precisely because of the revenue generation fruits of growth – not matter how unequal in nature – that welfare schemes have proliferated in India in the past couple of decades. Also read: Terms of Trade: The great Indian political economy drama in six acts While reforms have expanded the welfare providing abilities of the Indian state, things are far from comfortable on the fiscal front. As expectations of greater welfare increase among the underclass and every election victory is increasingly being associated with a new cash transfer scheme in addition to what already exists, fiscal balance is being tested, both at the level of the Centre and the states. This often manifests itself as a zero-sum policy choice between preserving political capital or macroeconomic stability. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) learned this the hard way when it went to the 2024 elections with a fiscally prudent budget and ended up losing its parliamentary majority. The UPA, despite delivering India's best ever growth performance under its watch, completely lost the confidence of capital because of its inability to manage the economy's deficits as well as inflation while trying (unsuccessfully) to buttress its welfare credentials for political gains. To be sure, this is not to say there are no differences between the welfare or larger political economy approach of the UPA and the Modi government. The latter, unlike the former, has mostly pursued asset enhancing welfare schemes which are not (seen as) inflationary via the wage price spiral route. Under Modi, there has also been a greater focus on attribution of welfare to the head of the executive. However, as has been discussed earlier, this is also a reflection of the resurrection of political Caesarism after 2014 rather than just economics. Another important differential of the Modi government, especially in the recent years, has been its strategy to sharply reduce the revenue deficit (revenue expenditure minus revenue receipts) despite the fiscal deficit continuing to be higher than what the FRBM target entails. Most welfare spending happens on the revenue expenditure head. The reduction in revenue deficit at a time when capital spending share has been increasing underlines a new fiscal contract by the current government. It is not just supporting the budget constraint of the poor via welfare but also spending money to ease India's supply side infrastructure deficiency which can potentially boost growth and (private) profits. Also read: The limits of welfarism The reason this approach has failed to boost growth, at least until now, is that external demand has turned bleak with the protectionist turn in advanced economies and domestic demand has lost some of its pent-up component after the pandemic. A vast majority in the country is barely managing to survive and anyway cannot be expected to drive growth. Unless external or domestic demand picks up, growth and therefore revenue cannot grow at higher levels. This also means that welfare levels cannot be enhanced further without jeopardising macroeconomic stability. A lot of commentators, including Tillin are optimistic about the role of federalism in carving out a new future for welfare in India. However, a retrograde rather than progressive turns await the welfare and larger political economy discourse on this route in this author's opinion. While state governments and politicians are feeling more tempted to offer greater welfare benefits, fiscal capacity of states to fund these schemes varies drastically in India. Bihar's per capita revenue, for example, is almost half compared to richer states in the south. What makes this tension worse is even the well-off states are now realising that their unequal growth trajectories have generated a very skewed upward mobility leading to an appetite for welfare spending which is not very different from poor states. This is exactly what is feeding the growing discontent with the in-built equity principle in India's fiscal federalism architecture where central taxes raised in richer states are shared with the not-so-rich ones. A move away from this principle will be a big setback to the fight for equality in India. So, what is to be done? It is common to hear two conflicting views about India's economic regime. The first is critical of it for doing very little on the welfare front and the other laments the failure to usher in radical reforms to boost growth. These binaries should be seen as the competition between labour and capital to further their interests in the democratic arbitration of class conflict. Does the fact that India has managed to preserve its democratic framework mean that the debate can be completely ignored? Such a take is not just cynical but also counter productive in the long run. Unless India manages to boost its current rate of growth, it would find it difficult to manage social security and macroeconomic stability in the not-so-distant future once our demographic dividend starts reversing. How does one resolve this contradiction then? It is useful to remember what India's first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru told his party in the 1955 Avadi session of the Congress. 'We cannot have a welfare state in India with all the socialism or even communism in the world unless our national income goes up greatly. Socialism or communism might help you to divide your existing wealth, if you like, but in India there is no existing wealth for you to divide; there is only poverty to divide. It is not a question of distributing the wealth of the few rich men here and there. That is not going to make any difference to our national income,' Nehru said. Also Read: Politics, economics, social contracts: Why rerun of anger of '75 is unlikely The point of quoting Nehru seven decades later is not to mechanically reiterate his emphasis on growth rather than redistribution but to ask a different question. Why is it the case that capital in India has failed to kickstart the kind of value creation which countries such as China could achieve? A lot of the GDP divergence between China and India took place after economic reforms began in India. Nehru's question is best followed up by a question India's commerce minister Piyush Goyal posed to India's new age venture capitalists recently when he blamed them for just building trading platforms and selling ice-cream while Chinese companies are making advances in cutting edge manufacturing. The failure of India's capitalists is not just a result of reforms or lack of it. It is also a deeper, structural problem about the incentives India's political economy has generated for them. The question of welfare in India cannot be addressed without engaging with the larger processes of value creation and vice versa. It is here that our biggest success in the political managing this tension between capital and labour has also been our biggest failure. Both sides, especially their advocates, continue to think in silos blaming the other and its political benefactors for not doing what is needed. This has become a convenient but self-defeating alibi for not having a holistic critique of India's growth process in the post-reform period. Unless this changes, India will never be able to deliver on its true potential for either capital or labour. Roshan Kishore, HT's Data and Political Economy Editor, writes a weekly column on the state of the country's economy and its political fall out, and vice-versa
7NEWS
16-07-2025
- Sport
- 7NEWS
Luke Beveridge responds as expert AFL commentator Kane Cornes questions Bulldogs' ‘deplorable' defensive profile
The feud between Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge and expert AFL commentator Kane Cornes is clearly not dissipating with Beveridge again proving he is not handling criticism well. After losing to Adelaide at Marvel Stadium on the weekend, the Dogs are currently ninth on the ladder with a questionable record against teams above them on the ladder. Know the news with the 7NEWS app: Download today They conceded 109 points in the loss to the Crows and Cornes, who rates the playing group highly, has put the coach in the spotlight due to the team's 'deplorable' defensive profile. They are 1-7 against top-eight teams this year and rank ninth for points against. 'Every single year I sit in a chair like this and we've got the same discussion about the Bulldogs,' Cornes said on Channel 7's The Agenda Setters. 'So we're here again because no coach does less with more than that man, Luke Beveridge. Sam Power (Bulldogs list boss) has handed him a high-powered sports car and he drives it like a busted up Camry. That's just the reality of it.' Cornes clearly hit a nerve with Beveridge unable to bite his tongue during a media conference on Wednesday. When questioned about Cornes' latest swipe, Beveridge asked if any of the journalists present worked with the 300-game Port Adelaide great. 'I just feel sorry for you,' Beveridge said, before walking off. Beveridge's feuding history with members of the media is long and rich. And Cornes' questions on the Bulldogs and the coach are not without reason. Cornes believes the list is up there with the best teams in the comp and thinks they will feature in the finals. But they rank ninth for points against from turnovers at 44.6 per game and are 14th for stopping their opposition scoring once they are inside-50. 'They're so offensively minded with the football that when you do turn the footy over, off turnover, they're horrible,' Cornes said. 'And their profile, they don't score heavily enough off their own turnover. 'They'll make the finals. But once again, we're having the exact same conversation about a coach that they re-signed when they didn't need to.' On Friday the Bulldogs have a huge clash with reigning premiers Brisbane at the Gabba which shapes as season-defining. Last time they played in Gather Round in April, the Dogs led the Lions by 39 points. But in a dramatic change of events, the Lions found form to produce a 60-point swing and win by 21 points. Marcus Bontempelli 'close' to re-signing with Bulldogs Luke Beveridge believes the club and captain Marcus Bontempelli are moving closer to a new deal. Arguably the best player in the AFL, the 29-year-old is off-contract at the end of the season. With just six weeks before the end of the home and away campaign, Bulldogs fans have become increasingly anxious about their premiership-winning superstar. While tight-lipped, Beveridge's response and grin indicated he wasn't too concerned about Bontempelli potentially seeking a league-shifting move elsewhere. 'I think we're getting close, but that's all I can really say,' Beveridge said on Wednesday. Beveridge's remarks came on a day when Jamarra Ugle-Hagan returned to the club after more than a week away spent dealing with a family matter back in his home in western Victoria. Ugle-Hagan trained with the main group as the Dogs prepare for their Friday night blockbuster against the Brisbane Lions at the Gabba. The 23-year-old hasn't played a game at any level this season after dealing with mental health and personal issues. 'I can't really give you much other than he's chipping away, and he's training when he can,' Beveridge said of Ugle-Hagan. 'He's had some bereavement stuff back with the mob in Framlingham and he's working his way back through his fitness levels.'
The Advertiser
16-07-2025
- Sport
- The Advertiser
Bontempelli 'close' to re-signing with Bulldogs
Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge believes the club and captain Marcus Bontempelli are moving closer to a new deal. Arguably the best player in the AFL, the 29-year-old is off-contract at the end of the season. With just six weeks before the end of the home-and-away campaign, Bulldogs fans have become increasingly anxious about their premiership-winning superstar. While tight-lipped, Beveridge's response and grin indicated he wasn't too concerned about Bontempelli potentially seeking a league-shifting move elsewhere. "I think we're getting close, but that's all I can really say," Beveridge said on Wednesday. Beveridge's remarks came on a day when Jamarra Ugle-Hagan returned to the club after more than a week away spent dealing with a family matter back in his home in western Victoria. Ugle-Hagan trained with the main group as the Dogs prepare for their Friday night blockbuster against the Brisbane Lions at the Gabba. The 23-year-old hasn't played a game at any level this season after dealing with mental health and personal issues. "I can't really give you much other than he's chipping away, and he's training when he can," Beveridge said of Ugle-Hagan. "He's had some bereavement stuff back with the mob in Framlingham and he's working his way back through his fitness levels." The Bulldogs' trip to Brisbane shapes as season-defining, as they currently sit a game outside the top-eight after losing to Adelaide last Saturday. Their record against current top-eight teams this year sits at 1-7, something the Bulldogs are desperate to rectify. They led the reigning premiers by 39 points when they met back in Gather Round in April. But in a dramatic change of events, the Lions found form to produce a 60-point swing and win by 21 points. Following the defeat to the Crows, criticism came hard for the Bulldogs and their inability to beat the best. Outspoken media commentator Kane Cornes slammed Beveridge, saying "no coach does less with more". When questioned about Cornes' latest swipe, Beveridge asked if any of the journalists present worked with the 300-game Port Adelaide midfielder. "I just feel sorry for you," Beveridge said, before walking off to laughs because it was the question of the press conference. Beveridge and Cornes have had numerous run-ins over the years, most recently before a game in Geelong earlier this season. Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge believes the club and captain Marcus Bontempelli are moving closer to a new deal. Arguably the best player in the AFL, the 29-year-old is off-contract at the end of the season. With just six weeks before the end of the home-and-away campaign, Bulldogs fans have become increasingly anxious about their premiership-winning superstar. While tight-lipped, Beveridge's response and grin indicated he wasn't too concerned about Bontempelli potentially seeking a league-shifting move elsewhere. "I think we're getting close, but that's all I can really say," Beveridge said on Wednesday. Beveridge's remarks came on a day when Jamarra Ugle-Hagan returned to the club after more than a week away spent dealing with a family matter back in his home in western Victoria. Ugle-Hagan trained with the main group as the Dogs prepare for their Friday night blockbuster against the Brisbane Lions at the Gabba. The 23-year-old hasn't played a game at any level this season after dealing with mental health and personal issues. "I can't really give you much other than he's chipping away, and he's training when he can," Beveridge said of Ugle-Hagan. "He's had some bereavement stuff back with the mob in Framlingham and he's working his way back through his fitness levels." The Bulldogs' trip to Brisbane shapes as season-defining, as they currently sit a game outside the top-eight after losing to Adelaide last Saturday. Their record against current top-eight teams this year sits at 1-7, something the Bulldogs are desperate to rectify. They led the reigning premiers by 39 points when they met back in Gather Round in April. But in a dramatic change of events, the Lions found form to produce a 60-point swing and win by 21 points. Following the defeat to the Crows, criticism came hard for the Bulldogs and their inability to beat the best. Outspoken media commentator Kane Cornes slammed Beveridge, saying "no coach does less with more". When questioned about Cornes' latest swipe, Beveridge asked if any of the journalists present worked with the 300-game Port Adelaide midfielder. "I just feel sorry for you," Beveridge said, before walking off to laughs because it was the question of the press conference. Beveridge and Cornes have had numerous run-ins over the years, most recently before a game in Geelong earlier this season. Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge believes the club and captain Marcus Bontempelli are moving closer to a new deal. Arguably the best player in the AFL, the 29-year-old is off-contract at the end of the season. With just six weeks before the end of the home-and-away campaign, Bulldogs fans have become increasingly anxious about their premiership-winning superstar. While tight-lipped, Beveridge's response and grin indicated he wasn't too concerned about Bontempelli potentially seeking a league-shifting move elsewhere. "I think we're getting close, but that's all I can really say," Beveridge said on Wednesday. Beveridge's remarks came on a day when Jamarra Ugle-Hagan returned to the club after more than a week away spent dealing with a family matter back in his home in western Victoria. Ugle-Hagan trained with the main group as the Dogs prepare for their Friday night blockbuster against the Brisbane Lions at the Gabba. The 23-year-old hasn't played a game at any level this season after dealing with mental health and personal issues. "I can't really give you much other than he's chipping away, and he's training when he can," Beveridge said of Ugle-Hagan. "He's had some bereavement stuff back with the mob in Framlingham and he's working his way back through his fitness levels." The Bulldogs' trip to Brisbane shapes as season-defining, as they currently sit a game outside the top-eight after losing to Adelaide last Saturday. Their record against current top-eight teams this year sits at 1-7, something the Bulldogs are desperate to rectify. They led the reigning premiers by 39 points when they met back in Gather Round in April. But in a dramatic change of events, the Lions found form to produce a 60-point swing and win by 21 points. Following the defeat to the Crows, criticism came hard for the Bulldogs and their inability to beat the best. Outspoken media commentator Kane Cornes slammed Beveridge, saying "no coach does less with more". When questioned about Cornes' latest swipe, Beveridge asked if any of the journalists present worked with the 300-game Port Adelaide midfielder. "I just feel sorry for you," Beveridge said, before walking off to laughs because it was the question of the press conference. Beveridge and Cornes have had numerous run-ins over the years, most recently before a game in Geelong earlier this season.
Perth Now
16-07-2025
- Sport
- Perth Now
Bontempelli 'close' to re-signing with Bulldogs
Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge believes the club and captain Marcus Bontempelli are moving closer to a new deal. Arguably the best player in the AFL, the 29-year-old is off-contract at the end of the season. With just six weeks before the end of the home-and-away campaign, Bulldogs fans have become increasingly anxious about their premiership-winning superstar. While tight-lipped, Beveridge's response and grin indicated he wasn't too concerned about Bontempelli potentially seeking a league-shifting move elsewhere. "I think we're getting close, but that's all I can really say," Beveridge said on Wednesday. Beveridge's remarks came on a day when Jamarra Ugle-Hagan returned to the club after more than a week away spent dealing with a family matter back in his home in western Victoria. Ugle-Hagan trained with the main group as the Dogs prepare for their Friday night blockbuster against the Brisbane Lions at the Gabba. The 23-year-old hasn't played a game at any level this season after dealing with mental health and personal issues. "I can't really give you much other than he's chipping away, and he's training when he can," Beveridge said of Ugle-Hagan. "He's had some bereavement stuff back with the mob in Framlingham and he's working his way back through his fitness levels." The Bulldogs' trip to Brisbane shapes as season-defining, as they currently sit a game outside the top-eight after losing to Adelaide last Saturday. Their record against current top-eight teams this year sits at 1-7, something the Bulldogs are desperate to rectify. They led the reigning premiers by 39 points when they met back in Gather Round in April. But in a dramatic change of events, the Lions found form to produce a 60-point swing and win by 21 points. Following the defeat to the Crows, criticism came hard for the Bulldogs and their inability to beat the best. Outspoken media commentator Kane Cornes slammed Beveridge, saying "no coach does less with more". When questioned about Cornes' latest swipe, Beveridge asked if any of the journalists present worked with the 300-game Port Adelaide midfielder. "I just feel sorry for you," Beveridge said, before walking off to laughs because it was the question of the press conference. Beveridge and Cornes have had numerous run-ins over the years, most recently before a game in Geelong earlier this season.
Perth Now
03-07-2025
- Sport
- Perth Now
Bulldogs ‘own up' to unavoidable fact
Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge knows his team has to 'own up' to a poor record against top eight teams but is adamant his side has the game to stack up in finals. The Bulldogs dismissed yet another lower ranked team on Thursday night, putting North Melbourne away by 49 points in its centenary celebration at Marvel Stadium. Until Saturday night, pending Geelong and Hawthorn wins, the Bulldogs will hold fourth position on the ladder without defeating a side inside the top eight. Beveridge was initially playful with the word 'scalp' before declaring his side needed multiple of them to build its foundation for another premiership push. 'Scalp, we're not Navajo Indians, I don't necessarily think we need to brutalise it like that; I am joking, I am joking,' he said with a laugh. 'I think what we need is to keep winning to capitalise on our opportunity. 'The difference between one of the better sides and (being) in that mid-tier pack is winning those close ones against the more formidable opponents. 'If you say, 'Do you need a scalp?' … the short answer to it would be, 'We need scalps to finish high up on ladder' – we can't back away from that.' The Bulldogs have two chances at a top-eight win in as many weeks, with Adelaide and Brisbane in successive rounds. Beveridge is confident the Bulldogs are improving on previous performances against fellow good sides but knows they will need to be at their best to topple the Crows. 'We've had a pretty productive year, these teams who have beaten us who are above us, it hasn't been by much,' he said. 'Even though Sydney are below us, they brought a game style I think would stack up against any team in the competition, it was a pretty important win for us last week. 'Earlier in the year those games were going the other way … we acknowledge these are going to be tests, big tests against very good sides. 'I could see Adelaide coming at the end of last year, it's no surprise to us with their personnel and their acquisitions … no surprise they are where they are. 'Last time we played them there in Adelaide, they jumped us, took control and we were a bit second rate against them … we'll relish the challenge. 'We've got to own up to the fact that we haven't beaten anyone above us, we're in the mix but there's some opportunities on the stretch to keep winning.'
