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

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,