Is George Osborne right? Is welfare being reformed or junked?
Are the condems overhauling a broken system or simply shutting it down?
Not so much making it fit for purpose as re-purposing it?
Justice and fairness is a key concept in the development of a social ethic and the reforms are seen as being neither just nor fair which is why questions are being asked and why the Chancellor sees fit to dismiss the poverty lobby as a 'vested interest' along with the Churches and the Labour Party?
The phrase 'make work pay' is, of course, open to interpretation. You can make work pay by reducing the level of benefit payments to the point where only the most desperate will see them as an alternative to seeking a job.
But you can also 'make work pay' by simply making it a more attractive option than not working.
The problem that faces people today is that they are working but still having to claim benefit, in many cases hard working people are simply earning their poverty.
I rather suspect that the unpalatable truth is that welfare should be reformed, it has strayed a long way from the original vision of its architect William Beveridge, and anticipated a flat rate benefit paid when employment was interrupted by unemployment, ill health or retirement, paid against a flat rate contribution made whilst working. Part of the social contract it implied was that 'full employment' was guaranteed by the then Labour/Conservative Coalition led by Winston Churchill.
The plan was for a contributory benefit to be paid for a period of time if people were moving between jobs or experiencing ill health.
Supplementary was the benefit of last resort if a persons unemployment lasting longer than a year or they had an insufficient contribution record.
But any system that is consistently tweeked and amended, from budget to budget, year after year ends up becoming a hard to describe, somewhat messy, affair that bears little relationship to its original design.
In fact the welfare, benefit, taxation nexus is now impossibly complex and recent administrations have preferred to fudge its reform rather than tackling it head on.
What makes this coalitions reform so unpalatable to so many people is that it has chosen language as the main weapon in its arsenal.
So 'shirkers' are set against 'strivers' and people on benefits, apart from the elderly, become 'scroungers'.
This constant refrain of negative images leads people to the view that there is something shameful about benefit dependency.
Ian Duncan Smith is currently being challenged to prove that he can live on £53 a week, as he has claimed, but that is in my view avoiding the issue; no-one should have to live on £53 a week, the vast bulk of those of working age should be in employment, paying their rent, buying their food and clothes, holidays and leisure activities through earning a living wage.
That they are not, is a function of a failed/failing economy, as we head into a triple dip recession with a full blown depression ahead of us, it is simply not good enough, for the Chancellor to be making speeches pouring scorn on those who oppose him.
The coalition in which he is a senior member is a failure.
Its rhetoric is threadbare, by all means reform welfare, by all means claim, increasingly hollowly, that we are all in this together, but people are not daft.
If you take from the poor with one hand they will see what you are doing with your other.
Too many expert voices have been raised to demonstrate beyond any doubt that the wealthy are benefitting from the policies pursued by the coalition which are working against the interests of the poorer in society
The real tragedy is that the story of the fish head soup is still relevant..
During the depression of the 1930's a WEA Class was offered, it's purpose was to help people provide healthy, nutritional meals on a budget.
One class was advertised with the Title: Fish Head Soup.
As people arrived for the class, keen to extend their budget and with their fish heads wrapped in paper, they were greeted by a member of the Independent Labour Party holding a placard on which was written:
Are the condems overhauling a broken system or simply shutting it down?
Not so much making it fit for purpose as re-purposing it?
Justice and fairness is a key concept in the development of a social ethic and the reforms are seen as being neither just nor fair which is why questions are being asked and why the Chancellor sees fit to dismiss the poverty lobby as a 'vested interest' along with the Churches and the Labour Party?
The phrase 'make work pay' is, of course, open to interpretation. You can make work pay by reducing the level of benefit payments to the point where only the most desperate will see them as an alternative to seeking a job.
But you can also 'make work pay' by simply making it a more attractive option than not working.
The problem that faces people today is that they are working but still having to claim benefit, in many cases hard working people are simply earning their poverty.
I rather suspect that the unpalatable truth is that welfare should be reformed, it has strayed a long way from the original vision of its architect William Beveridge, and anticipated a flat rate benefit paid when employment was interrupted by unemployment, ill health or retirement, paid against a flat rate contribution made whilst working. Part of the social contract it implied was that 'full employment' was guaranteed by the then Labour/Conservative Coalition led by Winston Churchill.
The plan was for a contributory benefit to be paid for a period of time if people were moving between jobs or experiencing ill health.
Supplementary was the benefit of last resort if a persons unemployment lasting longer than a year or they had an insufficient contribution record.
But any system that is consistently tweeked and amended, from budget to budget, year after year ends up becoming a hard to describe, somewhat messy, affair that bears little relationship to its original design.
In fact the welfare, benefit, taxation nexus is now impossibly complex and recent administrations have preferred to fudge its reform rather than tackling it head on.
What makes this coalitions reform so unpalatable to so many people is that it has chosen language as the main weapon in its arsenal.
So 'shirkers' are set against 'strivers' and people on benefits, apart from the elderly, become 'scroungers'.
This constant refrain of negative images leads people to the view that there is something shameful about benefit dependency.
Ian Duncan Smith is currently being challenged to prove that he can live on £53 a week, as he has claimed, but that is in my view avoiding the issue; no-one should have to live on £53 a week, the vast bulk of those of working age should be in employment, paying their rent, buying their food and clothes, holidays and leisure activities through earning a living wage.
That they are not, is a function of a failed/failing economy, as we head into a triple dip recession with a full blown depression ahead of us, it is simply not good enough, for the Chancellor to be making speeches pouring scorn on those who oppose him.
The coalition in which he is a senior member is a failure.
Its rhetoric is threadbare, by all means reform welfare, by all means claim, increasingly hollowly, that we are all in this together, but people are not daft.
If you take from the poor with one hand they will see what you are doing with your other.
Too many expert voices have been raised to demonstrate beyond any doubt that the wealthy are benefitting from the policies pursued by the coalition which are working against the interests of the poorer in society
The real tragedy is that the story of the fish head soup is still relevant..
During the depression of the 1930's a WEA Class was offered, it's purpose was to help people provide healthy, nutritional meals on a budget.
One class was advertised with the Title: Fish Head Soup.
As people arrived for the class, keen to extend their budget and with their fish heads wrapped in paper, they were greeted by a member of the Independent Labour Party holding a placard on which was written:
Who Got The Rest of the Fish???
No comments:
Post a Comment