Skip to main content

Warsi's appalling response to tragedy

Here we go again. The government misunderstanding the concept of 'fairness', or at least a government minister justifying a cruel policy on the grounds of fairness. This time it is Baroness Warsi in response the sad news story of a grandmother committing suicide because of the impact of the government's 'bedroom tax'. The lady had to pay an extra £20 per week in rent to remain in the home she had lived in for 18 years, and in which as a single mother she had raised her children. It was money she simply didn't have.   Baroness Warsi saw fit to put this tragic consequence of government policy in the context of 'fairness'. It has nothing to do with fairness.

I have explained in a previous article why this concept of 'fairness' is flawed. It is based on the false premise that treating everyone the same regardless of circumstances is fair. It isn't. Quite the opposite. It is very unfair indeed. Justifying suffering or cruelty on the grounds that others are also suffering has always been a false prospectus. Making more people suffer does little to alleviate the misery of those who are already suffering.

If I find one person with a cut finger, it doesn't staunch the flow of blood if I cut the fingers of others. It simply increases the suffering. That is not fairness. What Baroness Warsi is referring to of course is that those in the private rented sector are already being penalised for 'spare' bedrooms. Indeed they are. That is unfair and it doesn't make it any fairer to punish those in the social sector.

There is that old adage: two wrongs don't make a right. It is one that Warsi and her government colleagues need to understand.

 

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