Suzanne Moore wails and rends her garments:
… everything now starts from the prevailing Tory narrative that "welfare" is a luxury we can no longer afford.
Because it is. Remember that infamous ‘there’s no money left’ note, Suzanne?
But the bigger point to all this, and one that has to be met head on, is whether the actual end goal of such discourse is getting rid of the welfare state entirely. If you have been any place where there is no safety net, you will have seen people who appear prematurely aged, or severely obese with no teeth, or those with disabilities out begging on the streets.
Been to Hull then, have we, Suzanne?
Some of these people will be vacantly staring into space or scavenging on rubbish heaps. Not everyone who is now unemployed can work.
No, indeed, and those who
genuinely can’t work will not be expected to do so.
But Labour goes along with the idea that welfare needs trimming, as the majority think it needs reform.
Doesn’t it? Should it remain fixed in stone, forever?
I waited in vain for one to make a coherent case for our moral obligation to each other.
I have a moral obligation to those who are
genuinely incapable of work, through disability or age. I have
no obligation whatsoever to support the likes of
Sonia Mellor.
The coalition's sleight of hand means an increasing distancing from the world of benefits by those who see themselves as middle class. The removal of child benefit – a universal benefit – allows more people to feel they are getting nothing from the current system. They may use the NHS but they are not anchored to the state. A certain sympathy is eroded.
Benefits, then, become not something that we all contribute to and many rely on, but the province of a subspecies who should be means-tested, DNA-tested and gawped at. They are not "us" – and if they don't share our values, why should we share with them?
Precisely. I don't cheat and lie and steal, so I do indeed share nothing with these people. They can, frankly, starve in the gutter for all I care.
9 comments:
Why does she want me to rely on the state when it is so crap at everything it does ( ejukashun, National Homocide Service, dredging rivers, etc)?
"I do indeed share nothing with these people. They can, frankly, starve in the gutter for all I care."
Anyone can dance to political music with gusto, Julia. But sparing a little cake may offset a deficit in grace.
Bunny
This might be a radical idea but what about putting the national insurance money into friendly societies or mutuals, like they did before the NI tax. Before they nationalised poverty and pushed up taxes to pay for the bloated bureaucracy which feeds on the unemployed. Then let the state focus on those that really need it, with more people involved in the economy more work will be found for those who can make some contribution. Eventually even Suzanne Moore will actually contribute something of use.
Obligation:
"an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment."
I signed no contract, have made no verbal agreement, or know or have known, any people requiring my assistance.
I do not therefore feel obligated, either legally or, morally.
If you disagree, please provide a piece of paper with my signature, that clearly states that I am.
I'd like to see a return to the system used in the eighteenth century, when the needy were "on the parish". Those really in need received help locally, from their neighbours and church funds. So the givers and receivers knew each other, there were no unnecessary hand-outs (for the equivalent of flat-screen TVs, etc.), and it was in both parties interests to make the help as short-term as possible.
This was true localism - not the nonsense Millipede spouts, but genuine community spirit!
It's really stressful for them.
A key phrase ..."but they are not anchored to the state".
I do not want to be 'anchored' to the state or anything else. I don't want a dead-weight attached to me, and that is just what my taxes are.
Remember the statement, " I am not a number, I am a free man!"
(Patrick McGoohan, The Prisoner)
"Why does she want me to rely on the state when it is so crap at everything it does..."
Because if people stopped doing so, her type would have to work for a living...
"This might be a radical idea but what about putting the national insurance money into friendly societies or mutuals.."
Because that would teach people not to be reliant on the state.
Bunny,
Julia have you actually thought that the likes of Ms Moore might want state support of the poor as it gives he two advantages, she can show that she cares by opposing any cuts or perceived attacks on benefits while she does not actually have to associate with them. She gets her moral thrills from 'supporting' them, gets to show off her moral credentials and yet does not have to meet any only in her capacity as a journalist and commentator.
Post a Comment