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

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

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown