Skip to main content

Glad to see the back of this nasty government

I will be pleased to see the back of this coalition government. Under the cloak of dealing with the deficit they set about a vicious ideological attack on the poorest and most vulnerable. They branded those on benefits as 'cheats' at worse or 'welfare dependents' at best.  They talked of 'welfare dependency' but did nothing to deal with the root causes of such 'dependency - low pay and poverty. The drove families from their homes because of a 'spare bedroom' - Nasty - very nasty. Hard working families made to take the brunt of austerity. As a result it has been the poorest who have taken the biggest hit in 'dealing with the deficit'.  Austerity became synonymous with 'dealing with the deficit'. Yet austerity was an ideologically driven attack on social and welfare provision. The truth is that if we had 'all been in it together' then there would have been changes in taxes too. As it was it was one rule for the wealthy and another for the poor.

All this is why it is difficult to forgive Mr Clegg's Liberal Democrats. They presided over this too and should take full responsibility for it.  But I suspect they will now attempt to distance themselves. I hope that does't work. Frankly they deserve to be hit, and hit badly by voters. Far from reigning back Tory excesses, they provided a cloak for it. Whilst they claimed to be holding the Tories in the centre ground they sat in cabinet watching the Tories run amok with welfare and benefits. They sat by and watched as the scandal of ATOS disability assessments kicked in - one of the biggest scandals of this government.

The Liberal Democrats will say that 'it was necessary' to address the deficit. But did it work? Did attacking the poorest work in cutting the deficit? No, it did not, which is why we now have the prospect of an election with 'cutting the deficit' as the main issue. And why did it fail? It failed because the government gave little attention to increasing revenues.  Cutting too far too soon slowed economic recovery and cut revenue - that is the crucial reason the government have not met their deficit reduction targets.

With unemployment falling steadily you would think that revenue would increase. But the nature of the rise in employment - part time, casual, 'self employed', zero-hour contracts - does little to increase  revenue. It is not a sign of success, it is a sign of underlying weakness in the economy that people can't be properly employed on decent wages. If they were, then incomes would rise and tax revenue would rise and the deficit fall.  Instead we have the prospect of more and more cuts.


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

The secret life of Giant Pandas

Giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca , have usually been regarded as solitary creatures, coming together only to mate; but recent studies have begun to reveal a secret social life for these enigmatic bears.  GPS tracking shows they cross each others path more often than previously thought, and spend time together.  What we don't know is what they are doing when together.  Photo by  Sid Balachandran  on  Unsplash For such large mammals, pandas have relatively small home ranges. Perhaps this is no surprise. Pandas feed almost exclusively on bamboo. The only real threat to pandas has come from humans. No wonder then that the panda is the symbol of the WWF.  Pandas communicate with one another through vocalization and scent marking. They spray urine, claw tree trunks and rub against objects to mark their paths, yet they do not appear to be territorial as individuals.  Pandas are 99% vegetarian, but, oddly, their digestive system is more typical of a carnivore. For the 1% of their diet

Work Capability Assessments cause suffering for the mentally ill

People suffering from mental health problems are often the most vulnerable when seeking help. Mental health can have a major impact on work, housing, relationships and finances. The Work Capability Assessments (WCA) thus present a particular challenge to those suffering mental illness.  The mentally ill also are often the least able to present their case. Staff involved in assessments lack sufficient expertise or training to understand mental health issues and how they affect capability. Because of  concerns that Work Capability Assessments will have a particularly detrimental effect on the mentally ill,  an  e-petition  on the government web site calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to exclude people with complex mental health problems such as paranoid schizophrenia and personality disorders. Problems with the WCA  have been highlighted in general by the fact that up to 78% of 'fit to work' decisions are  being overturned on appeal. It is all to the good that they