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

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