Skip to main content

The Conservatives brand the unemployed as 'shirkers'


The Conservative Party has adopted an aggressive set of campaign advertisements targeted at 60 constituencies contrasting "hard-working families" and "people who don't work." This divisive advertising represents once again their attempt to label the unemployed as lazy 'benefit scroungers'. It also demonstrates how little they understand unemployment and poverty.

The notion that there are 'hard-working families' and 'people who don't work' assumes these groups exist as separate social groups. One result of the recession is that hard-working families are affected. Company failures, factory closures, and lay-offs don't just impact on 'scroungers'. This is why the results of austerity are so devastating. It is indiscriminate in its effect. It is also why austerity doesn't work. It drives families, hard-working families, into poverty. 

Unemployment is a key driver of poverty. Two-thirds of working-age adults in families where one or more of the adults are unemployed are poor. Unemployment, particularly long term unemployment, grinds away devastatingly on families creating poor housing, poor diet, and ill-health. It leads to a cycle of debt and targets for loan sharks. It leads to homelessness, eviction, repossession. It destroys lives. It leads to a loss of dignity and well being.

This is why it is unethical of the government to target those most affected by austerity, brand them as work-shy scroungers and attempt to turn those better off against them. Mr Cameron once said, 'we are all in this together'. Now the unemployed and those receiving benefits have become the government's scapegoats for the failure of their economic policies. 

In the aftermath of the riots of August 2011, the Prime Minister said: "This is a country of good people." Now it seems he is saying this is a country of 'good' and 'bad' people; the haves are 'good'; the have nots are 'bad'; 'strivers' and 'shirkers'. It is a disgraceful turnaround, and he knows this is not true. It is cynical politics at its worst.




Comments

  1. Afraid to evoke the Godwins law, but this is a repeat of something that happened many decades ago, I had thought we had evolved beyond that. but guess not

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, sadly we have been here before. It is the same 'on your bike' mentality.

      Delete

Post a Comment

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