Skip to main content

The Cat is out of the bag: Austerity is not to cut the deficit.

So, the cat is out of the bag and it was Mr Jeremy Hunt the Health Secretary who let it out at a fringe meeting of the Tory Party conference today.  Cuts in benefits to the working poor are not to help draw down the deficit but to 'teach the poor a cultural' lesson. They must work harder.

The cat of course has never really been in the bag.  Austerity has had little to do with economics but a lot to do with political ideology and a cultural attitude to the poorest.  It began on day one of the previous Tory/LibDem coalition with the narrative of good 'workers' and bad 'scroungers' with the implication that those receiving benefits are the 'undeserving' poor; work-shy scroungers. This has been the narrative now given greater emphasis with the Tories freed from any Liberal Democrat constraint.  They are now rampant.  The nasty party is back.  It is the sequel to Thatcher.

So what is it that Mr Hunt has said.  What he said is that cuts in working tax credits are justified not simply to cut the deficit by to force those in work to work harder.  The implication is that the poorest working people are poor because they are less hard working than other workers. It is their own fault that they are poor.  If only they could be jolted out of this habit then all would be well.

The narrative has a purpose. It is to so brand the poor as lazy and undeserving so that the rest of Britain will turn a blind eye to the savage cuts to the poorest.  The poor are being made to pay for the bankers greed.  It is all the fault of the poor.

The rich created models for making money out of money, rather than out of real production, and when it all went wrong the poor have been made to suffer.  But it is worse.

Cut in NHS funding and social care has led to a crisis in the NHS. Once more we have lengthening waiting lists and times.  GPs are being induced not to refer cancer patients. This is the greatest indictment of the government.  The NHS is in a critical condition with 2/3 of NHS trusts in deficit.

Labour left an NHS in good condition.  The Tories have systematically starved it of funding and brought it to its knees.

The Prime Minister continues to insist that cuts in working tax credits will not leave hard working people poorer.  He does so in the face of expert advice that it will.  The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies says it will.  The government ploughs on regardless driving more families into poverty. Sadly the political truth is that it isn't the votes of the poorest that determine elections.

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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As