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

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

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,