Skip to main content

Labour joins the 'worker' versus 'shirker' poor bashing?

The political obsession with the 'squeezed middle' hurts the poorest. It is understandable. Whichever political party can appeal most to the middle income earners is likely to win the next election.

Sadly this is why some in the Labour party appear ready to abandon the poor. You don't win elections by being compassionate and understanding about poverty.

So, Labour's Rachel Reeves, Labour's shadow work and pensions secretary,  vows to be tougher than the Tories on benefits and force the long-term unemployed to take up 'work offers' or lose their benefits. Labour is now in the same unethically divisive  game played by the Tories, to portray the unemployed as work-shy  'scroungers' or 'benefit cheats'; it is the 'workers' versus the 'shirkers' divide.

It is an easy story to buy into. We all know (don't we?) people who are on the dole who don't look for work and live in a 'benefits culture'. There is work out there (isn't there?) if only they would get off their backsides and look for it.

Unemployment in the North East is twice that in the South East. Are we to believe that those in the North East are twice as lazy as those in the South East? That these North Easterners are work shy compared to their cousins in the South?

Now, there is a problem for the long-term unemployed. The longer the period of unemployment the harder it is to get back into the job market. Help is required. But also what is required is relevant skills, experience. what is also needed, and here is the rub, is jobs.

No doubt a bit of stick should go with any carrot, but let us not deceive ourselves. Labour's tough position is little more than political expediency. It addresses not the real problem of getting the long-term unemployed back to work. It address and at that same time panders to the misconceptions about the unemployed held by the 'squeezed middle'.

The Tories have been rocked by Labour's potential appeal to this 'squeezed middle'. The standard of living has become a major issue. It has now outstripped the economics of growth or no growth and 'double dip' recession. As the latter recedes the Tories would expect a bounce in the polls. That it hasn't yet materialised is put down to the decreased earnings of the 'squeezed middle'.

The YouGov London poll for the Evening Standard is grim reading for the Tories with intention  CON 32%, LAB 45%, LIBDEM 10%, UKIP 9%  a swing of 5.5% from Con to Lab since the general election. This is in spite of the fact that Boris Johnson polls well with 64% approval for his job as Mayor.

There isn't much any of the parties can do about earnings (is there?) so the next best thing is to blame the poor. We would all be better off if we didn't pay so much on welfare (wouldn't we?).

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 balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

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 caused by …