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

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,