Once again, the old myths and stereotypes about benefit claimants - or should I say "feckless workshy scroungers" - have been wheeled out as cover for radical proposals to cut welfare by a further £10billion.
Despite starting his speech by saying: "We're not going to get through this as a country if we set one group against another, if we divide, denounce and demonise", George Osborne went on to do exactly that - setting up division between "the shift-worker, leaving home in the dark hours of the early morning, who looks up at the closed blinds of their next door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits" - which the Guardian followed up with a nice riff on why people might choose to keep their blinds down - between "young people who have never worked... and working people twice their age... still living with their parents"; and between "people in work [who] have to consider the full financial costs of having another child, whilst those who are out of work don't".
Of course, these are all stereotypes that play well with a certain strand of popular perception - but what's the reality? And what would cuts like the ones the government is floating actually mean for people on the ground? Because it's clear that this announcement comes at a time when those on low incomes are already struggling, and risks plunging even more children into poverty.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has already forecast a steep rise in the rate of child poverty to 2020 on the basis of welfare cuts already announced. Despite the fact that many of these cuts are yet to be implemented - with 88% of the cuts still to hit - organisations supporting low income families are already reporting rising levels of poverty and hardship.
Here at Gingerbread, we've taken a spate of calls in the last couple of months from single parents unable to afford school uniform for their kids as they start the autumn term. And the food bank network run by the Trussell Trust helped over 128,000 people in 2011-2012, a staggering 100% increase compared to the previous year, and is now opening four new centres a week to cope with rising demand.
Let's take a moment here: Food banks. In the seventh richest country in the world. In the 21st Century.
Further cuts to families who are already - literally - on the breadline will be devastating. Over half of under-25s on housing benefit have children living with them; and what about the family with three or four children who are suddenly faced with redundancy - will they lose their child benefit and child tax credits overnight too because they didn't foresee a global recession when they had their children? And as the IFS has shown, in order to reach the £10billion figure proposals would need to go significantly beyond what was suggested at Conservative conference this week - who else will feel the axe when the full details are fleshed out?
It's vital that we separate fact from fiction: the vast majority of people who receive government support do so because they can't earn enough to support their families, or even find a job in the first place. Not to mention the reality of the low-pay/no-pay cycle at the bottom of the labour market meaning it's almost inevitable that many will churn in and out of work regularly rather than be able to find a secure and permanent job. Rather than taking support away from those who need it the most, the government must instead focus on creating more jobs and making work pay for everyone.
But not to worry, there'll be no dividing, denouncing or demonising as these debates play out and final policy proposals come forward in the coming months, because we're still "all in this together". So that's okay then.
Follow Caroline Davey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gingerbreadPA
Caroline Davey: 'Family Friendly' Britain? It's Not Looking That Way in 2013
George Osborne plans more welfare cuts - video | Politics | guardian ...
George Osborne seals deal for £10bn welfare cuts | Politics | The ...
Welfare | Politics | The Guardian
PM signals further welfare cuts - BBC
UK Tories to Press Ahead With $16 Billion of Welfare Cuts
UK Prime Minister Sets Up Coalition Rift Over Welfare Cuts, Home Tax
More welfare cuts will be required to help the economy, says Work and Pensions ...
U.K. Conservatives to Press Ahead With $16 Billion Welfare Cuts
It is likely that with existing and emerging technology, it is enough for each grown up resident of the Earth to work 1-3 hours a day, and the rest of the time the entire population of the Earth, regardless of age, needs to learn how to live in an integral society. Governmental welfare can be provided to those who undertake such studies, in order for everyone to be able to contribute to society. To learn more about this sort of project, check out the following link.. http://ariresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/globalization-school_ari-institute.pdf
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_gilding_the_earth_is_full.html
From the description for the talk:
"Have we used up all our resources? Have we filled up all the livable space on Earth? Paul Gilding suggests we have, and the possibility of devastating consequences, in a talk that's equal parts terrifying and, oddly, hopeful."
The only missing piece from this talk, although full of scientific data, is what you suggest yintwin: The need to develop an integral society to accomplish the goal of sustainability.
Your desperate attempt to twist stats to support your "benefits for votes" policies does not work anymore I am afraid.
Labour told healthy adults they were worthless and hid them on benefits in the belief they would be more likley to vote Labour when dependant than if they were working.
Pure evil.
Ill people and children need some benefits, but healthy adults need to work I am afraid, that is compassion.
They've redefined 'making work pay' to 'making benefits pay less'. They do NOTHING to improve the lives of the average working person, no mention of the London living wage, actively freezing pay across the public sector so that you actually take home less, etc...
Osborne highlighted this very well when he mentioned the whole 'looking at your neighbours' skit. All he wants to do is make you "feel" better by ensuring that others are worse off. Nothing will actually change in the life of the working person (and if it does it's for the worse- pensions, frozen pay, easily dismissed by the workplace etc)....they'll just 'feel' better because they're neighbour is on the poverty line and considerably worse off than they are.
These politicians don't care about fairness...never have and never will. This is all for a smaller government. That's it.
One nation my....
FACT 1. 80 per cent of the 900,000 newly created jobs went to migrant workers.
FACT 2. The vast bulk of welfare goes on working tax credits, child benefit and pensions.
FACT 3. Unemployment benefit is £4bn pa, Overseas aid £11bn, EU contributions is £18.5bn
FACT 4. Working graduates under 25yrs can and do claim housing/child benefit.
FACT 5. MIgrant workers can and do claim housing/child benefit, working tax credit and JSA.
FACT 6. The work programme is a con. Very few over 25's are given training/work experience and the long term unemployed are given no help whatsoever.
Whilst I support austerity measures this demonisation of the disabled/unemployed is misplaced. If immigration was cut there would be less unemployment and more affordable housing. If the Lib/Lab/Con want open borders there are consequences.
The argument then goes back to whether benefit payments are too high, or wages too low! It is my view that since the decline of localised mass manufacturing that would have employed the majority of these people and given them a living wage, the only opportunities are part time and/or only pay the absolute minimum the employer can get away with.
Since those on benefits also usually get assistance with rent and council tax, some of which would be lost if they were employed. can one blame them for staying on benefits. They did not make the system, the politicians did!
I found it difficult to read past your first line, then i thought maybe its a start of a good joke. But alas not, you actually beleive that?
One part i agree with that the "workers" would love to work again, thats the hard part for being made redundant.
however the oposite of workers are the work shy, the people who have never worked unless you call churning out 3 kids before you leave your own teen years or come age 30 and still not earned a wage, then yes i can blame them for staying on benefits, they give the genuine redundant workers a bad name which is oftern stereo across the board
Why should taxpayers fund their need to breed
The majority are decent people who are in dire straits through no fault of their own, meanwhile the government cuts tax for the rich. Not hard to see what their thinking is.
in my humble opinion.