Skip to main content

The politics of poverty

How can we sleep at night when all around us are vulnerable people going hungry? What kind of greedy people are we that would not wish to stop this madness of food shortage amidst food plenty? How can we approach Christmas with 'goodwill to all' whilst we give little goodwill to those who have born the brunt of cuts. Our greed, or at least the bankers greed, brought this about, and yet the government is busy stoking up the same uncontrolled, housing led boom that became unsustainable.

We need a social contract that says that people should not be forced to work for poverty wages. We need a living wage. We need education policies that give realistic opportuities to our children and young people to acquire the skills they need for skilled jobs. We need a housing strategy that provides decent homes for people at affordable rents. We need a decent transport system that enables hard working people to get to work without spending thousand in fares. We need a government that will be bold enough to off the country a real choice.

In this season of goodwill, let us not let our 'charity' be dictated by a silly song for band aid. Let not the poor be dependent on charity. Let it be a matter of political choice that people should not be poor in our country. When we come to the election next May I can guarantee that no party will put the poor at the heart of our economic policy. All parties will dance on the pin head of the 'squeazed middle'.  The poorest won't matter if you want to get the middle income voters. I am afraid the poor will go on relying on charity. Jingle bells and all that fun. Let them know its Christmas nonsense. Please Lord don't let me feel guilty about it all.

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...

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...