Skip to main content

Mr Ian Duncan Smith doesn't understand fairness

What is it that the government doesn't understand about being 'fair'? Mr Ian Duncan Smith calls his reforms of benefits fair. He and the government repeat the mantra. The current system is 'unfair' and needs changing, ipso facto their reforms must be fair. It is a profoundly flawed argument.

I will spell it out for Mr Ian Duncan Smith because it is increasingly clear that he doesn't understand it. You do not create less misery by making more people suffer. I don't know what kind of ethics Mr Duncan Smith works with, but it certainly isn't utilitarian which at least seeks to achieve the greatest benefit for the greatest number.

Mr Duncan Smith says the new 'bedroom tax' is 'fair' because it brings those in social sector housing in line with those in the private rented sector. Gosh, that sounds fair, I hear you cry. Why should one group be treated any different from another?

But lets consider another question. Does it really help those in the private rented sector to impose a 'bedroom tax' on those in the social housing sector? The answer is no, it does not. So we don't actually make the situation fairer by imposing it, we simply make more people suffer. It is a bloody ridiculous argument to consider it fair. Fairness doesn't work like that. If we see a group of people being hurt, we don't address the problem by harming others to 'make it fair'.

I really wonder why I have to say this. The bedroom tax isn't fair because it makes families poorer; it makes them suffer, and many of them are unable to move into smaller accommodation because there is a shortage of available housing. It harms people and doesn't solve the problem it is supposed to address. Therefore it is a flawed strategy. Simply pointing to other people who suffer in a similar way doesn't make it fair. If we are concerned about fairness then we should address the problems of those living in private rented accommodation; that might be fair.

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