Skip to main content

Duncan-Smith at it again!

Tory scourge of the unemployed,  Iain Duncan-Smith is at it again.

Now he urges the government not to bring in a universal income during the pandemic because it would 'be a disincentive to work'.   One really does wonder which bit of the planet he lives on!

But he has form with this.  His view of those on benefits is that they are mostly shirkers.  He was one of the Tories that relished the prospect of cutting benefits to the 'workshy' poorest.



A clue to his attitude came many years ago from a comment made by Duncan-Smith in an interview with Nick Robinson on the BBC.

Speaking of people on benefits, he said

"I want to change your life..to be a better person'. 


This clearly reflects a view held about those on benefits: they are not 'good' people. At best it represents an inadvertent viewpoint 'look we want to help you back to work'. At worst it reflects a deep-seated attitude that stigmatises those on benefits as 'work-shy scroungers'.

It is an almost messianic vision of the poor being miserable because of their own bedevilment, and the self-righteous such as Duncan-Smith will drive the devil out of them! 

I have commented on this in previous posts. To stereotype a group as 'scroungers', 'work-shy' or suffering from 'welfare dependency' seeks to set them apart so they can be attacked and made to experience the most significant potential harm in the utilitarian equation.

It tries to win public support by turning them one against the other. It is profoundly unethical because it is applying judgement to a group as though it applies to all within the group.

Let us not believe the Tories have changed their attitude.  They haven't.  Regardless of the huge sums, they are now making available by borrowing to save us from the worst ravages of the coronavirus, they will revert to type once we are 'saved'.   They will not spend to rescue the poor from poverty.  

Why would they? They believe that the poor are poor because they are 'poor people'.  

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