The Welfare State
As one not afraid to wade into political argument with or without a reasoned stance I am about to wade in again.
The latest affront to my conscience is around the comments of a senior government minister and his attempts to link his political agenda to a shameful and shocking crime. Here is a report of the conviction itself.
This is a very sad story where six innocent children were caught up in a group of adults, ultimately criminal, but also bizarre lifestyle choice. The incumbent Chancellor of the Exchequer has now tried to link his "debate" about the need for welfare reform to this terrible incident.
This is a shameful attempt to divert public opinion using extreme events. In using this terrible crime to further his political need to trim his spending he is effectively tarring all recipients of benefits with the same brush. He is suggesting that users of the benefit system are all potentially amoral child murderers with a penchant for wife swapping.
The truth is that this tragedy could of happened with or without our welfare state. People like the Philpotts exist but they would have made their life choices in probably the same way. The difference is that more of the children would have suffered - starvation, neglect, death from childhood diseases etc. these people would have sired the same amount of children just been unable to provide.
This was a criminal act of an amoral adult grouping. The fact that welfare state helped pay for it is incidental. It is reasonable to expect that it might have happened anyway. Perhaps the Philpotts of this world would have put their progeny out to work to pay their way, like used to happen, say in Victorian times.
To use this crime in his "debate" is like saying "Truck Drivers - should we ban them?" because the Yorkshire Ripper was a truck driver.
George Osborne ought to take some time out of his well heeled world and travel to places like Stanley in County Durham. He would have seen the same scene I saw and the reason we have a welfare state
I caught a bus from my house on a circular route to Newcastle. I decided to change at Stanley as my bus took a rather circuitous route from there on and a faster bus was available. I had a few minutes to kill so I headed out into the town in search of food.
I went into a Gregg's for a sandwich and waited in the queue to pay. In the meantime a young man sauntered in with his young son. The young boy wanted to see his Mum. She was working behind the shop preparing food out of sight. Paying more attention to the flow of conversation than was polite it became apparent that with the young man's shift work and the mothers shift work this was a common point of contact when family were in the room together.
These are the people who actually need and use the welfare state. Families trying to get by on low wages.
Everyone knows a story of a family living "well" under benefits but I would like to see the breakdown on the figures. I would hazard a guess that they are an exception and not the rule. I bet the Government knows because they sign the cheques.
Perhaps that is why George Osborne has felt the need to use the Philpott case, because the reality is that he wants to cut the support to those that really need it. What better way of excusing it than suggesting benefit users are murderous, amoral and work shy.
No comments:
Post a Comment