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 balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …