TODAY , MEMBERS of the House of Lords are threatening to derail part of Ian Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms. Led by Paddy Ashdown and, of course, who else but the Bishops; they are trying to defeat the £500 cap on benefits which the Coalition are seeking to impose. The cap amounts to £35,000 before tax, and £26,000 after, as it is based upon the national average weekly wage
For far too long have many in receipt of benefits been allowed to sit sprawled out on their sofas, passing their days away, while receiving welfare benefits that amount to more than millions find themselves earning by working. A state of affairs has been allowed to continue for far too long, whereby those who are working in jobs that pay less than the amount the government wishes to cap in benefits; are having to pay, through taxation, for the workshy who have had it all their own way for far too long.
The welfare state was never intended by its founders to become anything more than a safety net in difficult times; when, either through recession in bad times, or bankruptcy in good times, employers had to make redundant some or all of their employees.
The welfare state sought to humanise capitalism by giving protection to those who had, for whatever reason, been discarded and driven into unemployment. It was a civilising measure that no one, from whatever pole of the political spectrum they came, could not support.
The safety-net approach represented a turning point. For the 19th and the early part of 20th century capitalism, no such safety net had existed. It was charity, the workhouse, or starvation. No other remedy was available to soften the blow of unemployment.
But from being a safety net that amounted to a hand-up until the economy recovered; the welfare state has taken on a life of its own. A life its founders never intended. It has been elevated from a market place stall into a supermarket. The benefits system has been added to by different governments (usually, but not solely, Labour), until the multiplicity of entitlements resemble a supermarket’s many products.
This cannot continue, and Ian Duncan Smith has tried to tackle this head on. In doing so he has earned the support of the British people, but the distaste of the Bishops who have not worked through his reforms, but nevertheless believe them to be evil incarnate.
IT IS DUNCAN SMITH’S belief that people are better off in work than out of it. But such people can only be encouraged into the workplace if they receive less through being on benefit than being at work. Which many in work consider fare. But who, nevertheless, still think the government’s cap is set too high[1].
This is the greatest scandal in our society today. No-one can come up with a rational argument for paying those out of work more than many of the millions in work. Yet Paddy and the Bishops are hell bent on trying to secure such an injustice on those who chose to work for less than those on benefit.
What Ian Duncan Smith has tried to do is to rebalance the welfare state and return it to a state that its originators intended. The new ‘supermarket state’ of welfare is corroding that original purpose. The welfare state has evolved from its meagre but humanistic impulse, into a series of benefits covering every aspect of human complaint, from corns to cancer, too every medical concoction that the applicants of any new benefit can come up with.
If we in this country are to survive as a competitive nation in the world. Then we must make sure that every possible work placement is filled. Be it, to my way of thinking, that most worthwhile of professions …the refuse collector; or the best skilled employment requiring an advanced education.
If we are to survive as a world class economy, and not end up facing Greece’s dire position, then reform of the welfare state, the public services, and the NHS is needed; and any attempt to waylay the progress of such reforms will only harm all of those public institutions that need such reform.
All Paddy Ashdown and his ecclesiastical cohorts in the Lords will do, is delay the inevitable. The welfare state, as it is presently situated is unaffordable; and would remain so even if Ian Duncan Smith’s reforms were considered an inhuman folly – which they of course are not. At least, if we act now, there will still be a welfare state left help those who desperately need it. If, on the other hand, we continue on in the same old way, as Paddy and the Bishops seem to want; then all that will be left for those left behind by society will be the charities.
Billions of pounds of welfare benefits are wasted yearly…but it matters not, because it is only the taxpayers money after all; and we know how much politicians like to get their hands on peoples taxes. In a way they are as greedy as those bankers with their large, unearned bonuses. The politicians love spending money and accumulating even more at budget time; and if they run out, they borrow further billions – does this reckless behaviour not sound familiar?
Someone has to get a grip before it is too late and we lose our triple A status, and our borrowing becomes ever more expensive . At least on this issue, Cameron has chosen to lead and not follow public sentiment. Unlike the previous government, who let the banks behave so badly, because the balloon they were inflating was helping them win elections. Under such circumstances bank regulation never entered Gordon Brown’s mind.
We are now having to pay the price for such foolish behaviour by both the banks and the politicians; and I think the British people know this from their personal lives, which is why Ian Duncan Smith has been supported by the public over his welfare reforms, and long may this support continue; for there is no easy course, only the wrong one…that of Paddy and the Bishops.
No comments:
Post a Comment