Skip to main content

Bah humbug to you too Mr Shelbrooke MP!

'Tis the season of goodwill. Bah humbug! From a political perspective 2012 has been defined by a certain kind of nastiness. It all started so well. We were all 'in it together'; austerity that is. We would all share the pain. But in 2012 it is clear we are not 'all in it together'.  Far from it.  Some big companies don't pay tax at all, yet rely on state-subsidised wages. The rich it seems pay tax on a voluntary basis, because if you tax them then they don't pay it. This was Mr Cameron's Christmas lesson for Mr Miliband. The poor on the other hand are a different matter. One thing we know already about 2013 is that the rich are set to get richer and the poor are set to get poorer. And what will happen to Tiny Tim?

This is the season of goodwill. A season to be jolly. And also a season to reflect on our fortune and the misfortune of others. So up pops Tory MP Alec Shelbrooke with the idea that those on welfare benefits should be given cash cards instead of payments so that they would  only be allowed to buy 'essentials.' They would be prohibited from buying alcohol, cigarettes, from gambling and watching pay per view TV channels (presumably nasty pornographic sports like football).

I can only suspect Mr Shelbrooke thinks those on welfare let their kids go hungry whilst they live a life of drunken debauchery. It is a very Victorian view of the poor; that poverty was the hallmark of a wasted life or a life lived in sin. It is a view of political convenience. It means the poor can be blamed for their poverty.  

And this view of the poor has very much defined politics in 2012. The unemployed have been stigmatised as 'work shy', lazily hiding behind closed curtains whilst the virtuous get up for work.  Those on benefits have been defined as 'scroungers'. The disabled have been assessed as, well, not disabled; the sick as, well, not sick, and many have been driven to despair, and a few to suicide.  It has all been a very sorry Victorian tale. 

When Seebohm Rowntree, a member of the famous confectionery family, studied the conditions of the working class in York at the end of the nineteenth century he came to an extraordinarily simple conclusion. And it should be a lesson to us all. The poor were not poor because they were sinful. They were poor because they simply didn't receive enough in wages for the work they did. They weren't lazy or alcoholics. The didn't waste their lives.  They just were not paid enough to cover the essentials of food, clothing and a roof over their heads. That is poverty. That is why people are poor.  It would be well for Mr Cameron, Mr Osborne, Mr Clegg and the likes of Mr Shelbrooke to understand this. Because, sadly, it is just as true now as it was in Seebohm Rowntree's time. 

A staggering  5 million people in Britain are paid less than a living wage. A living wage is simply the same concept as that applied by Seebohm Rowntree; a wage required to afford the basics of life. It is a disgrace that for so many this is not so. The answer  to poverty is not to treat or denigrate  the poor as sinful spendthrifts but to ensure they are paid a living wage.

There are many for whom Christmas will not be as jolly as Mr Shelbrooke's. And as he tucks into his Christmas turkey with all its trimmings, I hope he well reflect on how fortunate he is. I hope he thinks of Tiny Tim. Bah humbug to you too Mr Shelbrooke MP!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As