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

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,