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

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

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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