Skip to main content

The Tory ideological attack on the poorest

The majority of people on benefits in the UK are hard working and on low pay.  Many of them would be on the kind of zero hours contracts that the Prime Minister conceded, eventually,  in his interview with Jeremy Paxman that he would not like to be on.  He was also asked by Jeremy Paxman where the cuts would fall to deal with the deficit.  The answer of course is 'cutting benefits' and through further 'efficiency savings'.   It is all pie in the sky.  Either the Prime Minister has no idea how they would cut the deficit or the Tories have a hidden agenda.  Actually, it is not so hidden. They will cut 'welfare'.  That is what would happen - swingeing cuts in welfare.

Swingeing cuts in welfare will hurt the hard working poor.  The poorest are already paying disproportionately more tax than the wealthiest.  They have already suffered through measures such as the 'bedroom tax' and other cuts in benefit.

At the outset of the coalition five years ago, we were told we were 'all in this together'.  But it has been the poorest who have suffered the most because of the greed of the bankers. It was the banks who brought havoc and ruin to the global economy.  Now the poor are made to suffer.

It is no real secret that the Tories are planning further attacks on benefits.  They do so not simply to cut the deficit but through ideology.  But what really gives the lie to their claim to cut the deficit is tat at the same time as they plan this further assault on the poor, they are cutting taxes and providing further benefits for those who can afford to save.

This government slashed funding to local authorities by 40% which in turn meant a cut of 20% in funding for social care.  This is a major factor in the increased load on the NHS.  The Prime Minister now peddles reconditioned policy initiatives such as providing a 'seven day a week' NHS.  Most of my neighbours already thought the NHS was supposed to be 24/7.  Now they learn that it is not, but the Prime Minister will sweep down form high with new funds to make it so.  But they are not new funds. The NHS will have a funding gap of £30 bn by 2020.  It has already had £20 bn cuts in 'efficiency savings' and yet in his interview with Mr Paxman the Prime Minister believes it can find a further £30 bn over the next five years.  It doesn't add up.  It doesn't make sense.  It is, as the BMA, rightly point out 'playing games' with the NHS.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba