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 ba

A time for every purpose

All life moves. Or, more precisely, all life moves purposefully.  This is true even for trees and plants.  Movement is essential for maintaining life.  Animals migrate; plants disperse.  Some form of migration is an ingredient of all life.  For many organisms, it is a key function of reproduction.  We don't reproduce merely to create a new organism, but also to disperse the population - finding new fertile ground, or resources. Reproduction is a form of migration. Reproduction isn't merely to replicate. Reproduction produces change and diversity.  While we may have strong resemblences in families, we also have differences.  Creating a difference is how evolution works.  In this sense, nature is a continuous exploratory process, finding what works best.  Nature senses change and responds.  Some of this is immediate and physiological or behavioural; some of it is over generations.  If we look at a forest over long periods of time, we would see that it shifts. There is a movement

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working