Skip to main content

The disgraceful falsehood of Mr Osborne's spending review

Mr Osborne's spending cuts are based on a falsehood. He says the cuts in welfare spending are necessary to "end the something-for-nothing culture."  As the government has repeatedly done, they seek to portray those in receipt of benefits as 'scroungers'. It is of course an electoral ploy. Mr Osborne knows that he is on a winner with that kind of stereotype. It feeds the public mythology. But it is dishonest and unethical.

Mr Osborne knows that the majority of those receiving benefits are in work. He knows also that, far from receiving something-for-nothing, most of them are receiving below subsistence wages. It is not those on benefits who have become 'welfare dependent'; it is the companies who pay such derisory wages who have become dependent on a low pay workforce subsidised by welfare.

The Office for National Statistics data on employment reveals the problem. More and more people are having to work part time for low wages, and where many of them would like to work more hours they are not able to because the work isn't available.

Since the financial crash the numbers of working people classified as 'underemployed' has increased by almost a million, 980,000 since 2008.  There are now over 3 million workers classified as underemployed. That is 1 in 10 of the UK workforce.  These workers are not 'something-for-nothing scroungers'. Theirs is a culture of work, yet they are being targeted and stigmatised by this unethical and disgraceful government approach.

It affects particularly low-skilled workers, where 23% are 'underemployed'. We should note again that what that means is that they are not able to increase their hours of work to earn a living wage. They are cleaners and bar staff and dinner ladies. They are also the people who help our children cross the road. They are doing worthwhile jobs for which they receive on average just £7.49 an hour. But that is an average because many receive less.

These are good folk who are not only working hard, but who would like the opportunity to work more to make ends meet, to put food on the the table and pay the rent. These are decent people who don't deserve to be stigmatised as if they were cheating the system because they receive benefits. They are the people being hurt by Osborne's cuts.

Mr Osborne, Mr Cameron, Mr Clegg and Mr Duncan Smith should be ashamed of themselves, because they know these truths. Yet they still peddle the myth that the welfare bill is high because people don't want to work. On the contrary, there are more people employed part time now and they want to work more hours.


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