Skip to main content

A divisive government, bereft of ideas has abandoned hope and turned on the poor.

David Cameron today continues the strategy of dividing the country between the deserving and the undeserving. It is a disgraceful strategy. He knows it is and so too, in particular do the Liberal Democrats.  Most people on benefits are hard working people. If we really want to move away from 'welfare dependency' then we should ensure that people are paid, not simply a minimum wage, but a living wage; a wage that means hard working people won't need to depend on welfare to make ends meet.

The cynical use of the Mick Phillpott case is symptomatic of the lack of ethical judgement by Mr Osborne and others in the Tory party and in the media. Are they really suggesting that Phillpott represents the mind set of those on benefits? Of course they don't, but they want the association nonetheless. It resonates in the news media. It paints a backcloth in which the public make judgements. It confirms the prejudices and misconceptions we have of the benefits system; that it is full of people 'cheating the system'.

Of course the benefits system has people cheating it; just as there are people who cheat in paying taxes. But if we were really trying to weed out the cheats then surely we would approach it in a different way than that adopted by the government. There is little or nothing in the reforms of the benefits system that is specifically directed at cheats. On the contrary, their policies are an indiscriminate attack on all people on benefits. Do they really believe that those cheating the system won't go on finding ways to do so? Cheats are liars, just as those who cheat the tax system are liars.

But it is all part of the Tory strategy of making the poorest pay the most for the financial mess; a mess the poor did not create. On the contrary it is a mess created by greedy bankers, those who took from the system and gave nothing back. They are the real cheats.

Meanwhile, the governments financial strategy is in ruins. As the right wing think tank the Centre for Policy Studies says, Plan A has failed; but the government is bereft of a plan B. They say there is no alternative; no alternative to a strategy that is failing. Yet there are several alternatives that have been put forward. The government is so incompetent, lost in a maze of its own making, still shouting the mantra of cutting the deficit when the deficit is rising and is set to continue to rise; some £600bn will be added to the net debt by the end of this parliament.  They have no policy for growth. They are a failed government who have abandoned the economy. They have abandoned the poor; they are floundering around with attacks on the poorest. They give no hope. They are left with their divisive comments.

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

The secret life of Giant Pandas

Giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca , have usually been regarded as solitary creatures, coming together only to mate; but recent studies have begun to reveal a secret social life for these enigmatic bears.  GPS tracking shows they cross each others path more often than previously thought, and spend time together.  What we don't know is what they are doing when together.  Photo by  Sid Balachandran  on  Unsplash For such large mammals, pandas have relatively small home ranges. Perhaps this is no surprise. Pandas feed almost exclusively on bamboo. The only real threat to pandas has come from humans. No wonder then that the panda is the symbol of the WWF.  Pandas communicate with one another through vocalization and scent marking. They spray urine, claw tree trunks and rub against objects to mark their paths, yet they do not appear to be territorial as individuals.  Pandas are 99% vegetarian, but, oddly, their digestive system is more typical of a carnivore. For the 1% of their diet

Work Capability Assessments cause suffering for the mentally ill

People suffering from mental health problems are often the most vulnerable when seeking help. Mental health can have a major impact on work, housing, relationships and finances. The Work Capability Assessments (WCA) thus present a particular challenge to those suffering mental illness.  The mentally ill also are often the least able to present their case. Staff involved in assessments lack sufficient expertise or training to understand mental health issues and how they affect capability. Because of  concerns that Work Capability Assessments will have a particularly detrimental effect on the mentally ill,  an  e-petition  on the government web site calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to exclude people with complex mental health problems such as paranoid schizophrenia and personality disorders. Problems with the WCA  have been highlighted in general by the fact that up to 78% of 'fit to work' decisions are  being overturned on appeal. It is all to the good that they