Skip to main content

The Tory ideological attack on the poorest

The majority of people on benefits in the UK are hard working and on low pay.  Many of them would be on the kind of zero hours contracts that the Prime Minister conceded, eventually,  in his interview with Jeremy Paxman that he would not like to be on.  He was also asked by Jeremy Paxman where the cuts would fall to deal with the deficit.  The answer of course is 'cutting benefits' and through further 'efficiency savings'.   It is all pie in the sky.  Either the Prime Minister has no idea how they would cut the deficit or the Tories have a hidden agenda.  Actually, it is not so hidden. They will cut 'welfare'.  That is what would happen - swingeing cuts in welfare.

Swingeing cuts in welfare will hurt the hard working poor.  The poorest are already paying disproportionately more tax than the wealthiest.  They have already suffered through measures such as the 'bedroom tax' and other cuts in benefit.

At the outset of the coalition five years ago, we were told we were 'all in this together'.  But it has been the poorest who have suffered the most because of the greed of the bankers. It was the banks who brought havoc and ruin to the global economy.  Now the poor are made to suffer.

It is no real secret that the Tories are planning further attacks on benefits.  They do so not simply to cut the deficit but through ideology.  But what really gives the lie to their claim to cut the deficit is tat at the same time as they plan this further assault on the poor, they are cutting taxes and providing further benefits for those who can afford to save.

This government slashed funding to local authorities by 40% which in turn meant a cut of 20% in funding for social care.  This is a major factor in the increased load on the NHS.  The Prime Minister now peddles reconditioned policy initiatives such as providing a 'seven day a week' NHS.  Most of my neighbours already thought the NHS was supposed to be 24/7.  Now they learn that it is not, but the Prime Minister will sweep down form high with new funds to make it so.  But they are not new funds. The NHS will have a funding gap of £30 bn by 2020.  It has already had £20 bn cuts in 'efficiency savings' and yet in his interview with Mr Paxman the Prime Minister believes it can find a further £30 bn over the next five years.  It doesn't add up.  It doesn't make sense.  It is, as the BMA, rightly point out 'playing games' with the NHS.


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 lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

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 cau