Skip to main content

Mr Miliband makes a Balls up on benefits.

I am sorry Mr Miliband but you concede too much and too easily. You accept the false government logic about 'fairness'. You should have stood your ground about the value of universality in benefits. Why? Because, as you know, it is often the best way to ensure that those who DO deserve and need benefits get them, and the wealthiest pay back in taxes.

This is particularly true for the elderly. Why on earth are you getting so concerned about wealthier pensioners also receiving winter fuel allowance?You have chosen the soft option, the easy politically expedient option; but it is an unjust option. For the sake of saving the tax payers a measly, piddlingly ridiculous amount, you introduce a threshold around which their will be injustice. It is known that the elderly are reluctant to apply for means tested benefits.

Your position becomes corrosive. You should have been willing to argue the unfairness of the governments case on benefits. Now you have made that argument all the more difficult by conceding on universality. Oh and of course the more wealthy elderly pay more taxes.

You will also be aware, Mr Miliband, that many elderly people do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled. It is estimated that the cost to the treasury would be some £5 billion should they do so. It should be of greater concern to us that so many pensioners struggle unnecessarily. Saving £100 million on winter fuel payments to the wealthiest really does nothing to address the real issues of pensioner poverty.

Labour should be leading the challenge to the government, not blindly accepting the warped premises of Ian Duncan Smith. Running scared of opinion polls shows a lack of political courage. What voters need is a clearly thought out alternative to the slash and burn approach of the coalition.

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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau